Given how difficult the intervening period has been for the industry, it's little wonder that this IAA was more subdued than last - when things were pretty much at their peak - which then makes the sizeable haul of new metal on display even more impressive. Much has been made about the green theme to this years show but I'm not convinced - there was a lot of eco-friendly stuff being shown, but the vast majority of it was theoretical: a survey of the cars that will actually be available to buy in the near future paints a different picture.
Take Audi for example: their centrepiece comprised of three R8 variants. The e-Tron, an electric sportcar concept on sale date of?....... (how about never, is never good for you?) In fairness the mirror finish R8 V10 will probably only ever go on sale in Dubai, if at all - but the R8 Spyder is definitely going on sale, 520bhp Lambo-sourced V10 and all; but it's the e-Tron that's all over the coverage. Funny, that. Similar story over at VW - concepts: L1 & E-Up! - the former is a sort of Teutonic, 150mpg Sinclair C5, and the latter a new small car apparently aimed at natives of Yorkshire. Major production debut? The Golf R, a 267bhp Golf for those who find the Golf GTi underpowered. Mercedes? OK, the BlueZero concepts may have some production future, but the SLS AMG's is more definite and although an electric version is promised, most customers will plump for the drivetrain actually confirmed and already driven by a select few: a 6.3l V8 - and so on and so forth.
Of the majors debuts, again the more excessive end of the spectrum was well represented here - with the F458, Ghost, Mulsanne, Rapide, XJ and European debut of the Panamera vs. the C3, Venga & Astra; and though the Mini Coupé and Roadster both seem to have a production future and are small, describing them as eco-friendly is a stretch: the Coupé has 208bhp and the Roadster 'only' 175bhp.
None of this is a complaint, just an observation: I personally believe that the motor industry is an easy target for eco-warriors when in fact in the last 20 years it has done more than it's fair share in terms of efficiency & safety gains when compared to other sectors, so maybe a little greenwashing is permissable.
In this current economic crisis where everyone from Toyota down is feeling the pain, Land Rover – by the very nature of their product portfolio – is hurting more than most: we can only hope that this spurs Tata to fast-track the production LRX rather than delay it – a new compact, efficient model is exactly what LR needs. The reborn Range Rover, Discovery 3, Range Rover Sport and Freelander II are all products of a marque fully in control of their design language; the only bum note are the indignities foisted upon the Defender, but these were apparently the fallout from a change of engine and pretty minor anyway. In many ways LR is an object lesson in managing visual identity: the Defender, Freelander, Discovery, RR Sport and Range Rover each have their own distinct identity but all are recognisably a Land Rover. Of course it helps there are relatively few model lines (each with few iterations) and they share a common theme (off road ability) - but it still an impressive achievement: compare & contrast with the woeful state of Jeep design.
The original Range Rover not only created a niche (long before doing so became a standard tactic) but was a design classic that remained in production for nearly 25 years. I'm sure it's replacement was a very good car, but I could never get past the overgrown Talbot Horizon looks. The third generation was an incredible return to form – a design that not only incorporated classic elements ('cab back' proportions, castellated clamshell bonnet, three plane surfacing of flanks) without descending into pastiche, but built and expanded the design language with new elements – such as the overlapping, cropped circle motif of the headlights and the gill sidevents – that looked perfectly in place. The interior remains one of the best in any car past or present.
As good as RR III was, the Discovery III was even more impressive – although instantly recognisable as a Disco, it was and even bigger and braver step forward. Like the Rangie, it incorporated both the old (stepped roof, proportions, graphics) and added new elements: the most apparent and radical was the simple, almost stark, surfacing lending to what is in fact a pretty complex form an air of minimalism. There was also the character line that 'fades' out in the middle, and whilst the asymmetric windowline of the tailgate is technically carried over from the previous generation, but now that the spare wheel is mounted under the tail it's a vestigial feature – however Land Rover have cleverly realised that this feature is associated with 4x4's generally and have added to their visual repertoire.
They do however need to reign in their detailing: although not alone in this, it has been getting increasingly busy of late. On the Range Rover, the simple grille bars of the original have been replaced by fussy, perforated plasticky items in the facelift. I get it: they're supposed to be redolent of high end cooking knifes. I like the cutlery in question, but it doesn't follow that I'll like low-rent, cheap looking copies: silvered plastic looks like silvered plastic - not brushed metal, even from a distance. LR have also succumbed to the cult of the sidevent; on the original Rangie they fit perfectly (more than can be said for any current Jag) – but less so after the facelift. That it's driver side only on the Disco leads us to assume it's functional, but the RR Sport and especially the Freelander 2 are less convincing – and even if the vents are required, do they have to be so gaudy?
Although I love the design of current Landies, I simply couldn't conscience owning one. I don't do enough towing that could justify a Rangie, and don't think anything can justify the Disco's Integrated Body Frame (“Can't choose between a chassis and a monocoque? Why not have both?” Just don't ask how much it weighs....) The RR Sport, like the X5 & Cayenne, is big and clever only in the most literal of senses - just because you can do something it doesn't mean you should, and isn't as good looking as it should have been (or as good looking as the Rangie or Disco.) I respect the Freelander II but it doesn't appeal personally and whilst glad we live in a world were the Defender is still made, don't need & wouldn't want to own one. So until acquiring a Series 1 Landie and pre-'81 3 door Range Rover for my dream garage I had resigned myself to admiring them from afar - until the LRX: here is a Land Rover that I could see myself owning. So please forgive me if my analysis assumes a production future, but this is only the company's second fully fledged concept but the Range Stormer did herald the arrival of a new model line; let's hope the LRX translates a little better into production than the RR Sport did.
The various Land Rover models are differing ratios of ruggedness and luxury. The Defender is obviously ground zero for rugged, and the Range Rover is a jacked up luxury car that happens to be overbuilt. The Freelander & Discovery are more utilitarian that the Rangie; the Range Rover Sport less so, and tries – with mixed results – to add sportiness to the equation. The LRX feels distinctly sybaritic; this is in no small part due to the interior. What it tells us in literal terms about the production item is hard to say – but the mood, choice and use of materials was significant: this is high end chic not outback utility.
Although there's quite a lot going on at the front of the LRX at no point does it feel cluttered or busy. In fact, given the slight tendency to overdesign regarding detailing on production LRs, they've been remarkably restrained – the bonnet vent being the only offender. The stepped motif used extensively throughout is not truly new (little is) but the fact that the LR team have not only integrated it well but used it in an interesting and skilfull manner, making it their own shows that they're on top of their game generally. The surfacing – good generally is spot on at the front & in conjunction with the superbly judged plan form makes a powerful impression. In conjunction with the lower intakes, the plan form diffuses what would otherwise have been a bluff, unfriendly nose, making it instead svelte & powerful. The oversize honeycomb detail is the best interpretation yet of the current LR grille detailing. The nested 'sump guard' is neatly handled and the nicely integrated intake above forms the lower element of a dog bone graphic which gives it a planted look without feeling too bulky. Again, the lower intakes help here, breaking up an otherwise large expanse. Given the current popularity of faux intakes the blank recessed half of this feature is crisp, refreshing and honest; the front fog lights neatly ties things together.
The clamshell bonnet is a familiar cue, though increasingly common elsewhere (a side effect of ped. safety regs) but lacks the traditional castellation and in truth doesn't need it – the familiar Land Rover badging on the leading edge is more than sufficient. The intrusion of the wheelarch into the bonnet shutline is a subtle detail that helps emphasise the wheelarch without resorting to a larger surfacing feature that could look overblown or clumsy.
The Range Stormer had a whiff of caricature about it and I hope this is the case with the LRX. One thing that will need careful monitoring in the transition to presumed production is the wheels: at 20”, the LRX's rims aren't excessively large for a concept but the full size sidewall does mean that the overall diameter is large and – unlike most concept cars – a proper wheelarch clearance means that there is a real danger of the production version looking overbodied. The combination of falling roofline and rising beltline make the taper of the glasshouse look exaggerated; in addition, a fuselage graphic that doesn't really develop over the cars length – the sill line is essentially parallel to the beltline – make it look a little nose heavy overall. The chrome trim in dark grey of the lower flanks has parallels with the Discovery's rear screen line in that it seems to be a stylistic interpretation of a feature once functional now vestigial – in this case a running board: it adds interest without resorting to inappropriate side skirt forms.
The rear end also needs a little work – the light units could be a little bigger and the brightwork fails to convince: it doesn't pick up the detail in the light unit itself clearly and as a consequence looks isolated. The surfacing lacks the sophistication shown elsewhere, particularly in the lower part of the tailgate – surely some variation of the stepped motif depolyed at the front could have been used? Some interest needs adding in the lower corners – but production will dictate fog / reversing lights & reflectors, etc so this should take care of itself.
Overall, the LRX is a well executed concept that hopefully signposts the way to a production reality.
At the macro level, the Volt seems torn between two opposing forces – the mechanical packaging and attempting to stay faithful to the concept. Regardless of your position regarding the latter, it's difficult to deny that the Volt is the most distinctive of the new mass-market hybrid trio: the Prius is closer to a monovolume than the Volt and it's front and rear overhangs are pretty balanced, the same is true of the Insight but it sits on a shorter wheelbase. The Volt by contrast has a more long-nose-short-tail proportions and a definite bustle at the back.
The only way that the Volt could be developed in the reasonable timeframe was by using an existing platform (in this case the Delta II) plus as many standard components as possible, which has dictated certain fundamentals of the mechanical package, such as the engine. As much as we share, there are times when the differences between Britain and the States couldn't be clearer: speaking on The Colbert Report, Bob Lutz referred to the 1.4l engine as a 'tiny little four cylinder engine' (what is it with Americans and cylinder count?) Would this be the same 1.4l engine that will be used in it's non-hybrid sister Cruze? Granted, it's detuned in the Volt and turbocharged in the Cruze, but let's hope they drop in a smaller engine asap: the 1.0l engine in the current Corsa produces more power than the Volt's version of the 1.4l and at the very least this has to be more compact and lighter, making it even more efficient. Beyond that, there are even smaller and more efficient units out there – they could even (whisper it) use a diesel unit.
The Prius' engine is bigger than the Volt's (by 400cc) and has to accommodate a drivetrain for the IC engine which the Volt doesn't – but it has a noticeably bigger nose: that this isn't immediately apparent at first glance is something that should be praised in the styling. The nose itself is pretty 'square', i.e. the bonnet height and front overhang are about the same, and the difference between the overhangs also emphasises the nose. However it assumed this is all fallout from having to use existing components and additionally packaging the hybrid gubbins, with maybe a dash of aero on top.
Although the nose works quite well at a macro level, closer examination reveal some problems. The surface detailing is a bit timid and the surfacing a little vague – it might be assumed that there is an aerodynamic reason for this, but both the new Prius and especially the Insight have more form in the front. Of course, neither of them has the big, bluff nose of the Volt but this is one area where staying more faithful to the Volt concept might have been beneficial, or even more in line with current Chevy saloons. The grille needs work; it looks cheap, and while it may be non-functional does it really have to broadcast the fact so obviously?
Given that the internal combustion element is an overgrown battery charger why have what appears to be a conventional bonnet? Surely an access panel for fluids and charging socket would have been sufficient. Given the limited possibilities for home maintenance on modern engines bonnets are an anachronism: a light removable panel would suffice – and who might be more accepting of this than owner of a hybrid? - and would save weight. Given that it's a four seater, why keep the lower rear screen? Although this obviously references the concept, it's also a feature shared with both the Prius & Insight.
Overall, the Volt has a more planted stance than might be otherwise expected, subtly helped by the relatively large wheels and the classic stepped lower body mouldings, rising towards the rear. But it's a close thing - the Volts we've seen thus far have been shown on 18” rims (the Prius rolls on 15”s); let us hope someone makes energy efficient tyres in this size as it'll look overbodied on anything smaller. The DLO extension is a clever and unique feature: without it, the Volt would look more bloated & heavy as the DLO area is actually quite small. The matt finish & underlining chrome trim means it should work for darker colours too. The only question is how it will age, especially if it's component parts are made from slightly different plastic compounds: it may end up looking tatty.
The base of the A-pillar was fussy to start with and unfortunately the few changes evident in the pre-production spyshots have not improved matters, making this area even more cluttered. The new diagonal fender / A-pillar cutline jars, the original horizontal position was better. The bonnet is now a clamshell and the shutline doesn't quite align with the charging area trim. Which is no longer the charging point: a standard circular fuel filler cap has been inserted.
Given the aerodynamic sophistication & attention to detail evident on the upper surfaces, it's almost inconceivable that the same rigour hasn't beem applied to the underbody, especially since this in a relatively easy win, but GM have given few details about this and it's something manufacturers normally like to crow about.
At this stage I've yet to sit in a Volt, but the interior certainly looks finished to a high standard generally, and particularly for an American car. Although it might seem churlish to criticise it on that basis, if interior quality was an issue for the US consumer they wouldn't stand for some of the crap out there so one does have to question whether GM will see a return on it's additional investment here.
Which brings us neatly onto what I think is the elephant in the corner: price
The Volt is significantly more expensive that both the Prius and Insight II. As the first series hybrid it offers the potential for largely petrol free driving – and therefore lower running costs – but will this, and being US made, be enough on the forecourt? Time and time again, consumers the world over have a habit of choosing the option that's initially cheaper, even if they know it's costlier in the long term: witness the poor take up of energy efficient light bulbs.
Either way, it will take more than the Volt to save GM. As much as the big three have frustrated with their mismanagement and disregard for all except the shareholder, they have produced – almost in spite of themselves – some great products that make the automotive world a more interesting place. Hopefully they now realise that they can't subsist on pickups and SUVs and need once again to focus on making cars the world needs and desirable enough to want.
I admit it. I didn't pay too much heed to the Volt concept: I assumed it was another piece of eco-tokenist misdirection with little true bearing on the showroom reality anytime in the near future ('No, don't look at the BOF SUV with an iron age V8 that actually constitutes our bottom line - look at the shiny eco-car concept, isn't it cuuuute!'); even if I had realised GM were serious this time I still wouldn't have had any expectation that this concept was a template for production: styling was going be a long way down the list of priorities. As a production model from one of the Big Three (™) it's potential significance was huge, but this concept was clearly nowhere near production and on a purely stylistic level there seemed little of note or relevance here.
Preview concepts are essentially what the punters will find in the showrooms 6-18 months hence, and are now such an established part of the development model that some manufacturers actually name them as such. Usually they are the future production item with bigger wheels plus some polished / milled / brushed (delete as appropriate) alloy detailing that – if it makes it to production at all – will have been transformed into a too-shiny cheap looking plastic item. To anything but the most casual observer it was clear that the concept Volt was not such a beast. Further examination would have also indicated that this was unlikely to be a showcase concept (like the Ford Iosis), used to introduce a new design direction – there wasn't anything feasible or coherent that could be used, and GM didn't make a big enough deal out of it (design wise) as they would if this was the Next Big Thing.
I guess an LEV concept that doesn't set out to deliberately wound the eye should count as some sort of progress, but if this juvenile caricature were a conventional car then I'm sure the response would have been quite different. I've seen some praise for it's 'muscle car looks' – could someone please clarify exactly which muscle car this looks like? With its large (even for a concept car) wheels pushed out to the very extremes of the body it looks oddly stumpy; the long nose, 'cab back' design and ridiculously exaggerated wheelarches are meant to communicate power, but seem a little, er... overcompensatory. Especially for a hybrid.
The beltline is unusually low in comparison to the scuttle height; the reason for which seems to be the exaggerated wedge profile which - instead of deploying any of the standard tricks - is literally just that. This sets up a strange conflict between the pillar box greenhouse and more normally proportioned DLO. To dig themselves out of this hole, the shoulder line is carried through the side glazing, which is.... unique. This is the worst kind of stylistic gimmick: a feature that could never be realised in production and lacks any intrinsic design or aesthetic merit; it smacks of one of those random 'ideas' that arises in the absence of anything else.
The base of the A-pillar is a mess, and the odd wing mirror placement doesn't help; the scuttle area is cluttered with odd shaped panels and shutlines with no obvious purpose. The A-pillar itself was painted a dark silver so that it relates to nothing else – surely it should have either been body colour or black (as per the rendered images.) A (fussy) feature has been made of the charging sockets but the fuel filler is an afterthought. The bonnet shutline is contrived; the encroaching fender shutline is presumably meant to make the front wing & wheels look even bigger and more muscular, but just looks clumsy; and the door shutline / DLO graphic is no better.
Were it not for the wheelarches themselves there wouldn't be any planform to speak of; at the front, the headlights are confined entirely to the front elevation, reinforcing the squared off feel. The more complex form adds interest at the back but the wedge shape means that the rear deck pretty much bisects the drivers rear view, rendering the lower rear screen of little practical use. The slim, horizontal biased lights – good in isolation – in this context seem almost intended to emphasise the height & bluffness of the tail, though the form in the corner above the wheelarch relieves this is little.
The surfacing is handled pretty well, and some of the detailing in the lower front air dam is quite subtle and well resolved. The character line trailing from the wheelarch lip into the lower portion of the doors is a neat feature which ties things together well: the nose would look even more exaggerated without it, though the socket feature and raked front door shutline also help in this regard.
In summary: meh
Another cartoonish concept to round out the quota for that year's Detroit show. This also seemed to be the general consensus as well; until the first images of the production Volt emerged.....
**Haven't posted anything in a while but seem to have had a lot stuff on my hard drive in a nearly finished state for months and months; making and effort to catch up in the next few weeks. The Volt piece is so big I've chopped it up into separate posts to make it a little easier to digest**
This will not be a comparison of the concept and production Volt. The concept was not a particularly successful exercise; certainly not worth emulating - with it's boxy, cartoonish proportions that were never production feasible. It was hardly showered with praise upon it's debut, so the storm of controversy must have been doubly surprising to GM: isn't it enough that it's a major breakthrough – both in technology and culture – for them without having to be a roadgoing concept car as well? The Chevy Volt is an important car for many and various reasons, but the styling isn't one of them (and that works quite well anyway) though GM did make a rod for it's own back by promising to keep faithful to a frankly ugly concept car. This has caused a flurry of comment from sad fanboys on the internet who think that having a blog and an opinion actually mean that their views are somehow important....
...er, *cough*
Anyway - after years of kicking & screaming (whilst Toyota & Honda quietly got on with) GM is the first of the troubled big three to seriously pursue the next wave of drivetrain technology, and has done so with a vengeance. Without hailing the Volt is some kind of latter day Model T, it does represent a fundamental shift in the American motoring landscape – a change that could have only been effected by one of the native brands. Given that the EV1 appeared 12 years ago and was a limited scale pure EV (rather than a hybrid), one has to wonder at the pool of knowledge that GM had to draw upon – making the Volt's development time even more remarkable.
If we ignore the radical drivetrain, this is a bread-and-butter 4 door saloon - so why should it look like concept car any more than any other 4 door saloon? I haven't seen much criticism of the new Cruze for failing to be gorgeous and the 'controversy' surrounding the Volt's styling is irritating on a number of levels.
First, a statement was made that the production item would stay as faithful to the concept as possible. Whilst I have the greatest of respect for Mr Lutz might I suggest that this was, in retrospect, a mistake? It set an expectation that could not realistically be delivered – and many chose to take that statement at face value rather than heed the evidence of their own eyes (see Volt concept analysis). Given the scale and nature of the difference between the concept & production items, it can be inferred that production Volt was at a very early stage when the concept was shown, otherwise it would have been better stage managed – look at the development paths of the Ford Iosis through to Mondeo III and Opel GTC Geneva to Astra 3 door as more typical examples of how this should work. When you dial in the fact that even with today's reduced lead times, developing any vehicle in this timescale would be a challenge, never mind one that is not only a radical change of direction for the company concerned - but a mass market first for anyone, the idea that it would be drop dead gorgeous or faithful to the concept looks increasingly naive. The fact that some of the mainstream motoring press chimed in with this view was particularly disappointing; they should know better.
Second, there seems to be a lack of recognition of what stage the LEV market is at. We are used to the idea of the car as mature product, since not long after Harley Earl established the Art and Colour department in 1927, but (for the moment at least) the alternative drive technology is a USP that aces the usual factors such as style, safety or performance. To draw a parallel with the mobile phone, we're somewhere in the early-to-mid nineties: the 2G network had been launched in 1991 but the infrastructure was patchy; whilst still rare, phones were no longer the reserve of stockbrokers but still a long way from general acceptance. At that point what it looked like, how it felt in the hand, how easy the interfaces were to navigate were irrelevant – as long it worked and was affordable, it's utility alone was enough to sell it. It wasn't until the cusp of the millenium that interchangeable covers - one of the earliest expressions of fashion in mobile phones – started to appear. The mobile phone was becoming a mature product, i.e. it's core functionality could be assumed, and thus other factors start to become more important as market differentiators: useability, style, status, additional features (today it's got to the point where the issue for those serving in the armed forces is finding a phone that doesn't have a camera.)
Look at the G-Wiz: an ugly death trap with an interior that makes a cardboard box look luxurious, on sale for the price of a proper car: who can honestly argue that Reva would have sold a single example were it not an EV? OK, hybrids are a little further along the curve, but developing a mass market hybrid intended as an everyday vehicle is a still a big deal, and in the case of the Volt the prospect of potentially petrol free motoring is what will sell the car more than – and possibly in spite of – anything else. Producing such a vehicle that not only meets the actual (80% of Americans travel less than 40 miles a day), but the perceived needs of the user was always going to be a challenge. Although most of the required technologies have progressed enormously in the last decade there are still great limitations, and these dictated that efficiency was king (and will remain so until the energy density of batteries significantly increases) when developing the Volt. As far as aesthetics goes this means aerodynamics.
Third – how many of those most vocal in their criticism were ever likely to actually buy one? However good or bad it is (or looks), it's not likely to be at the top of any petrolheads shopping list: this is car as appliance. Newsflash: enthusiasts are a minority – look at the sales chart: it does not read like a petrolheads wishlist. Hard though that seems to be for some to grasp, there are people out there for whom a car is a mode of transport and nothing more. If they have any sense, GM will ignore the embittered ranting of individuals who were never likely to be customers anyway.
Finally, the Honda Insight II is - externally at least - pretty much a clone of the Prius; yet I have yet to see a word of criticism on this regard. In fact, of the purpose built hybrids the Volt is the looker of the bunch; this is particularly impressive when you consider that the Volt's major dimensions are all within a couple of inches of the Prius. If car companies are going to be hounded into big efficiency gains in the short term, get used to convergence: there are few optimum aerodynamic solutions (BTW, when private cars have further reduced the 10% of the overall emissions they're actually responsible for, will they finally go after the main offenders?)
Ultimately, that what is shaping up to be an impressive achievement is being overshadowed by a criticism that it fails to match unrealistic expectations in one particular aspect is really quite objectionable.
...and destined to always remain so. As much as I love Top Gear I can't agree with their views regarding the Tesla vs. Honda FCS Clarity (S12E07); they've focussed on one single aspect - refuelling - and reverse engineered a conclusion from that. Hydrogen is the fuel of the future in the same way that nuclear fusion is the energy of the future: both hold the promise of clean, cheap energy but seem to be perpetually 10-20 years away.
In hydrogen's case, it's as if the elegance / simplicity of the 'hydrogen is extracted from, and after use, returns to water' argument blinds us to the fundamental stumbling blocks: production – it takes more energy to extract than it subsequently yields (by orders of magnitude); and distribution - it's kinda volatile (even more so than petrol.) Like Fox Moulder, I want to believe but I can't ignore facts just because the 'solution' appears poetically symmetrical.
