GM’s EN-V Design Part 2: Appealing to Future Audiences Video
Take a look behind the thought process of the GM EN-V concept car, from a design perspective. Clay Dean, director of advanced design at General Motors, explains how the design of the EN-V was based not only to accommodate the transportation problems that will exist in mega cities, but will also appeal to their audience of the future. The video shows three EN-V vehicle designs each with different personalities.
Video Rating: 5 / 5
25 Comments
Jan 18, 2011 3:56 pm |
but if you have this car it would probably be just to get around and not lug everything around.
Where could you use it?
-almost anywhere. College campuses, neighborhoods, city’s…everyday.
Jan 18, 2011 4:53 pm |
I like the idea?
-yes! i think it can really become useful in everyday life!
Electric?
-very good.
Front, back?
-i like it in the front, a lot!
Small?
-this size will allow more vehicles and make the streets less crowded and be able to go more places that normal size cars cant.
Benefits?
-so many benefits i cant even put them all.
3 vehicles?
-I love them all! they’ll appeal to ANY buyer!
What doesn’t it do?
-hmm, hard to come up with…storage might be a concern…
Jan 18, 2011 5:40 pm |
It`s a great concept,it`s great that is electric !!!
Jan 18, 2011 6:30 pm |
Its neat looking but watch the u.s. will be the last to get it cause every other country will have first dibs
Jan 18, 2011 6:35 pm |
I would like to see it in snow…
Jan 18, 2011 6:46 pm |
So it’s like an electric scooter but far bigger, slower, more expensive and butt-ugly?
Jan 18, 2011 7:31 pm |
I THINK IN THE FUTURE… THE WHOLE WORLD WOULD BE NETWORKED AND IF SOMEONE HACKED THE NETWORK… WE’RE OVER…
Jan 18, 2011 8:10 pm |
i like these cars i think that for the heavily populated citys it is definatley a good solution. my only question is how safe will it be because in such a small vehicle i have to question where the airbags will go… but knowing GM i am very confident that they will do their best to make this a safe vehicle, a practical vehicle, and above all a solution
Jan 18, 2011 8:36 pm |
i like the red one it looks sporty
Jan 18, 2011 8:44 pm |
I actually dont like the middle on the “fun” one, but I like the other two alot. I dont know if will ever see these cars but now that I live in a city and drive 18 km to work I could see myself using these.
Jan 18, 2011 9:05 pm |
@pixID4 Ok well if you really think the Asians are gonna guy this while Honda is already making a vehicle like this, and do you think they are really gonna buy American over Japanese?, i think not! Especially when us American done even buy our own cars, top best selling cars are all from Japan, So just like i said another waste of money for GM to have to beg me and you for more money in the future
Jan 18, 2011 9:22 pm |
@adowns87 I’d imagine they’d be made of some sort of composite material. it wouldn’t make sense for them to be out of a heavier, thicker material because they wouldn’t travel very fast. i’m not sure where these materials would come from tho. the batteries would probably be lithium ion. the ones they built use LI batteries, i believe. and it would probs cost about 20-25k, but i’m not sure about that one. to be effective it would need to be below 20k, but it might be even higher than 25k.
Jan 18, 2011 9:49 pm |
@nissanaltimaka24de if you want to talk about the political implications of this design, then go else where to comment. this is purely conceptual. that’s what this video was about, if you were paying attention. plus, if you knew anything about auto design, you would know that the whole design process takes about 2-4 years, which means that this project was underway before gm received their loans, thus you’re argument does not pertain to this video.
Jan 18, 2011 9:59 pm |
@bobmister250 Well do you really think the Asian’s are gonna buy this from GM, when they have their own cars like this? Just like i said another failuar and more money down the drain. Also GM didnt pay back back its loan really all it didt was pay off another loan form a loan they got from TARP, so you PAY MORE ATTENTION to the news or go do your research you stupid fucking cuntface. You morons make us Americans look bad and GM makes us look even badder with their STUPID decisions
Jan 18, 2011 10:12 pm |
@nissanaltimaka24de its not meant for America retard. It’s meant for crowded places like China. And GM paid back the loans to taxpayers. Watch the news sometime moron.
Jan 18, 2011 10:55 pm |
This bullshit will NEVER work in America, we love our big cars. Besides the average American family has 2-3 children and they are NOT gonna fit in this thing! Also what if you get hit in the side, or hell ANYWHERE in this small thing by a larger truck, do you think you will survive?, prolly not! Please GM dont make bullshit like this all it does is cost MONEY, and i sure dont wanna be giving yall a loan again for something will never be successful, neither does the MILLIONS of other American.
Jan 18, 2011 11:35 pm |
show me the Truck version.
Jan 18, 2011 11:37 pm |
cool
Jan 19, 2011 12:08 am |
it should have a GPS =D
Jan 19, 2011 12:45 am |
Direct replacement for cabs.
Jan 19, 2011 12:57 am |
I love the idea and I think the target audience is Europe or Japan or big cities dedicated to creating a new system of travel. Everything about it seems great except there needs to be a safe way for these small vehicles to travel on their own path apart from human-controlled vehicles and large SUVs and trucks.
Jan 19, 2011 1:34 am |
I like it! I’m not sure if whether it looks is American or not is relevant. I currently don’t own a car but I’m sure if something like this came on the market I would open my mind to buying one. But first I have a few questions…
What are these cars made of?
Where do the materials come from?
What are the batteries made of?
And how much would one cost?
Jan 19, 2011 1:42 am |
tiny metropol vehicle is a valid concept, size is not an issue. nor is the electric drive. that’s absolutely right. going in the front is not a fundamental problem either BUT, if that makes the door very large and expensive then why do it. if it means you can’t have the obvious front wheel for static stability and maneuverability then why do it. if it means you have to balance on two wheels and have elevation actuators and great complexity and fragility then why fucking do it.
Jan 19, 2011 2:16 am |
3 or 4 small wheels. side entry. could be as little as one seat. less tall. tall is bad for aero. footprint can be the same
Jan 19, 2011 2:50 am |
None of them look particularly American. In fact, I find that they look like they came out of an anime film. I’m really not for that at all.
Leave a Reply