When images of the production Chevy Volt hit the Net late last week, the initial response was less than electrifying. In fact most of the news coverage centered around how bland and disappointing it looked. The general consensus was that it was more like a blown fuse, and not like the much needed GM generator that the original concept hinted at. AutoObserver commented on it here: Chevy Volt Styling Is A Short-Circuit
Flip-flop
Now that the car has actually shown itself in the flesh, the reviews have pretty much done a 180, and that the Volt fans are once again re-energized. This once again proves that photos are not the best way to judge a vehcles looks. I can't tell you how many times I've heard critics say that such-and-such car looks soooooooo much better in person--and here we are once again.
AutoObserver also notes that there are new-and-improved reactions from those in attendance of the unveiling: GM's Day-Long Anniversary Fete Highlighted by Volt, Lots of Chat
jerrywimer says:
08:04 AM, 09/17/08
I'm repeating myself, but then again, so are all these blogs:
1) The original leaked photos weren't all that bad (not as good as the offical shots of the car at the celebration by a long shot however), and
2) It was pretty much guaranteed that the 'in-the-metal' would come out much more attractive. This has been common lately, for some reason.
On the other hand, to incite the kind of responses that anti-Aura faithful seem to like (aka potshots), the original Toyota Solara teaser pics looked MUCH better than the actual car. I guess that's easy to do when all that's shown are parts of headlights, wheelwells, etc. Details might look great by themselves, but don't work well when brought together, or vice-versa.
stovt001 says:
08:28 AM, 09/17/08
It should also be pointed out that the Auto-Observer article depended entirely on one source - an ex-Nissan exec, Bill Visnic has never had anything positive to say about the domestic manufacturers, and criticized the Volt for being aerodynamic rather than looking like the pretty brick with a drag chute attached that was the concept. Yet you know that if GM stuck to the concept, Bill would have written an equally scathing article about how incompetent GM was to go for popular styling rather than tone it down just a bit (and still make a very beautiful car) to make an extremely aerodynamic car.
rick8365 says:
08:47 AM, 09/17/08
A couple of pic to flesh transitions that come to mind (from my recent experience) - the current MDX, much better in person. And I just saw my first GT-R in person a couple of weeks ago. I thought the car was pretty cool in pics/video but....way cooler and much more impressive in person.
ateixeira says:
09:06 AM, 09/17/08
I'm happy to say I liked it even in the early photos.
Definitely, though, seeing it in that video with Lutz makes it really appealing.
So I guess my impressions improved as well, from good to great.
orangutan says:
09:39 AM, 09/17/08
I stand by my original comments.
estreka says:
12:09 PM, 09/17/08
GM really needs this to work. I thought these were still concept (read: near production) designs? There's no way those tiny rearview mirrors will fly.
the_big_al says:
12:45 PM, 09/18/08
okay - so I don't think it looks half bad. A little on the safe side to be sure, but not as safe as say Camryesque safe. It still has more of a styling edge than the Malibu. As long as it costs less than 30K than I think it will sell despite what it looks like. Look at how well the Prius sell and I think that looks like really bad.