#2012 vs 2013 chevy volt driver

A pyramid-shaped nodule in the center console serves as the push-button gear selector. Inside, the dashboard cowl mimics the hood’s salacious curves, and faux suede or eco-conscious leather covers nearly every surface. Even the exhaust exits in front of the cabin. But this portion of the powertrain terminates at the generator, a place where you’d usually see a torque converter. Under the hood, the Fisker looks like a conventional car, with a GM-sourced 260-hp direct-injection turbo four tucked in. Maybe we are witnessing the Bieber effect. The Karma looks about a million times cooler than the Volt, which goes unnoticed in the Fisker’s wake. How these cars manage that compromise in achieving their eco-friendly missions is the crux of this story. A smaller battery pack means less range than a pure EV, and the extra weight kills fuel economy when running in gas-burning mode. (The Volt also drives its wheels with its engine under specific circumstances.) The flip side to this arrangement is compromise.

#2012 vs 2013 chevy volt driver

When the battery range ends, a gasoline engine powers a generator, freeing the driver from the tyranny of charging times and limited EV infrastructure. Both cars run purely on electricity from the power grid as long as the battery packs hold juice.

Technically, the Chevrolet Volt and the Fisker Karma are hybrids, using both batteries and gasoline to effect locomotion via electric motors. But underneath, the idea is pretty much the same-they are, for lack of a better term, practical EVs. One is mass market and utilitarian, the other a concept car rolling into the real world. From the October 2012 issue of Car and DriverĪt a glance, these two cars look vastly dissimilar.