Voltgate: Manufactured Outrage

October 12, 2010 - Drew Dowdell
Yesterday the automotive press' world exploded over a small, inconsequential, technical detail in the Chevrolet Volt's powertrain that increases energy and fuel efficiency by about 15%. This detail caused the likes of Edmunds, Jalopnik, and Popular Mechanics to go so far as to accuse GM of lying about the Volt not being a hybrid. I've already explained the technical reasons behind why those publications are wrong in yesterday's article Volt: Still a not Hybrid... no lie! I have to give some props to TheCarConnection.com for being a fellow voice of reason in this flap.
What bothered me most about these accusations is how quickly they started. The tweets and editorials started pouring in, in the early hours of Monday morning. Now I can't claim that Cheers and Gears has the access to GM Communications and GM Engineers that the above mentioned publications have, but I was still able to talk to the Volt's powertrain Chief Engineer about an hour after sending a request to do so.
If someone relied solely on what was being published about the Volt yesterday, it's quite understandable why someone would be confused (and somewhat dazed by the intensity of discussion) about the Volt's technical details. However simply talking with a Volt engineer and studying the diagrams will bring you to a conclusion completely opposite of the "GM LIED!" editorials.
After I concluded my interview with Pam Fletcher, the Volt's Chief Powertrain Engineer, the first thing that came to mind was how much "Voltgate" reminded me of GM's "Loangate" from April 2010. There was an absolute rush to judgment by the press (and some members of Congress) that GM lied about without taking any time to understand what General Motors was saying or even what they were required by the terms of the loan to do. But why take the time to understand either of these issues? Sober, sensible commentary takes time and there is web traffic to drive. Besides, how can the general public resist clicking on a link shouting "GM LIED!"?
Back then, I maintained that the press and the shouting members of Congress mostly got the statement wrong. If I go to the bank and get a home equity loan for $50,000, deposit that in my bank account, use $20,000 of it, and send $30,000 that I ended up not needing back to the bank plus some interest, the bank considers that $30,000 repaid and it still has a $20,000 lien on my house.If I sell my house (think IPO) the bank has a right to that $20,000 before I do.
Could GM have handled the situation better? Probably, but considering the lure of sensational journalism and the fact that there are still people out there who want to see GM fail no matter what, I don't think there was much GM could have done. The patent process dictated that GM remain silent on certain aspects of the Volts architecture. As a completely new type of automotive locomotion, this meant that the only thing certain about the Volt's powertrain was that there was going to be a surprise or two once the final specifications were released.
GM did release an additional press release about the Volt powertrain late yesterday as it became clear there was quite the tempest in a teapot brewing. Here's a line that jumps out at me.
There is no direct mechanical connection (fixed gear ratio) between the Volt's extended-range 1.4L engine and the drive wheels. In extended-range driving, the engine generates power that is fed through the drive unit and is balanced by the generator and traction motor. The resulting power flow provides a 10 to 15 percent improvement in highway fuel economy.
One of the sayings I'm famous for on Cheers and Gear is, "GM could build a fully working model of Christ himself and people would complain that the water to wine function only dispense a Merlot".
I hate being right.















