backtop


Print 68 comment(s) - last by .. on Aug 30 at 8:48 AM


The 2011 Chevy Volt  (Source: GM)
The Chevy Volt's supposed 230 MPG rating has not yet been blessed by the EPA

GM, fresh out of bankruptcy and now co-owned by the government and UAW, is eager to make a good impression with the U.S. public.  The 2011 Chevy Volt is an essential part of that image campaign.  GM has heavily invested in the green vehicle, its first modern mass-production electric car.

This week it announced that the Volt was going to get a record 230 mpg in fuel economy, launching a site, whatis230.com, to celebrate.  Many had wondered what exactly the car would get in fuel economy, given that traditional fuel economy does not cover electric engines well. 

While GM may be happy in touting the 230 mpg figure, the EPA isn't giving its full endorsement just yet. The EPA has released a statement Autoblog, stating:

EPA has not tested a Chevy Volt and therefore cannot confirm the fuel economy values claimed by GM. EPA does applaud GM's commitment to designing and building the car of the future - an American-made car that will save families money, significantly reduce our dependence on foreign oil and create good-paying American jobs. We're proud to see American companies and American workers leading the world in the clean energy innovations that will shape the 21st century economy.

GM never claimed that the EPA gave the number, but it also never really explained where it came from, leaving the possibility unanswered.  Given that GM's marking campaign is heavily using the figure as a given fact, it would be a major blow to GM if the EPA decides to rate it at less that 230 mpg.

When contacted for comment, GM says it's sticking to the 230 mpg figure.  It says the number is essential to show people just how different the Volt is.  GM's spokesperson also expressed confidence that the EPA would certify it at at least 230 mpg when the car undergoes full testing.

In perhaps a sign of bragging matches to come, GM's announcement yesterday was followed by claims from Nissan that its Leaf electric vehicle, gets 367 mpg.  The Leaf is also a 2011 model, set to compete with the Volt when it goes on sale in 2010.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

I don't like this
By rudolphna on 8/12/2009 9:54:07 AM , Rating: 5
I don't like how they did the mileage estimates for the volt.... Because its simply a theoretical, mathematical calculation. Nobody will ever go 230 miles on a gallon of gas in the volt. They should drive the car with a full tank of gas, until it runs out, for city, highway, and combined (with numerous people, for variety, then average them) divide the miles travelled by gallons used, for each. And voila. Real mileage estimates. And honest ones to boot.

I can understand how it would be good PR and look good on the window sticker to get 230MPG, but people are going to be a little angry I think when they find out that isn't what they are going to get. Just my thoughts.




RE: I don't like this
By Hiawa23 on 8/12/2009 10:15:32 AM , Rating: 1
If the car does anything close what they are claiming, other than the initial high price of the vehicle, I think this will be amazing. I drive 60 miles a day, & my 06 Mitsu Lancer Ralliart that the sticker claimed would do 30MPGs has never done that. If I am lucky it gets 250-270 per tank no matter on or off hwy, & my 97 Honda civic still gets 30MPGs, but this car will be amazing if it gets a minimum of 200 MPGs. Heck my monthly fuel bills run about $115-140, & that will continue to climb with fuel prices going up. CNN had a GM guy on last night & he said the the car will go 40miles on a charge then the gas engine kicks in to charge a generator which restores electicity. I am assuming that you can just put gas in the vehicle & drive it that way & if this is correct 200MPG is amazing to me.


RE: I don't like this
By darkangelism on 8/12/2009 10:48:47 AM , Rating: 5
If you drive 60 miles per day you probably wont get the "230" miles per gallon, based on their estimates you can go 40 miles on electric and then the gas will have to recharge your batteries for the next 20, lets say that it can charge 40 miles per gallon of gas then you are still using half a gallon of gas every day and with an 8 gallon tank, will need a full tank every 16 days, so your gas costs will be a 1/3 of what they are now, but you will have to home charge the batteries and that isnt free, maybe $10 a month, so you will pay $60 a month instead of $115-$140, so roughly half of what you pay now, but is that worth the $40,000 sticker price of the volt? Assuming you save half your fuel cost, lets say $700 a year, it would take 10 years to save the $7000 difference in price between the two cars.

Im sure that there tests included recharging the battery multiple times, maybe say drive the car 50 miles day and recharge every night so that only 10 miles are using gas. In a way im surprised they didnt claim infinite, only drive is 20 miles a day and never use gas,lol.

There is a fixed amount of energy in a gallon of gas and the gas generator can only be so efficient, even if it gets twice what i estimated that's still 5 years to break even on your car, and even longer against a $28,000 ford fusion hybrid.


RE: I don't like this
By Lifted on 8/12/2009 10:59:46 AM , Rating: 2
I really want to know what the MPG or distance on battery is when the A/C is on. Living in a big city, with lots of taffic, and a year round hot humid climate, I wonder if running A/C close to 100% of the time would kill these numbers.


RE: I don't like this
By clovell on 8/12/2009 11:21:28 AM , Rating: 2
That's an interesting question, I suppose. Driving with my A/C on nicks off about 5-10% of my efficiency on my '01 Taurus.

The advantage of the series hybrid design of the volt is that the compressor will likely be driven by an electric motor, rather than a pulley that leeches off the flywheel. This is a very important distinction to make.

By not feeding directly off the flywheel, the compressor won't be an impediment to advancing the engine timing when you go to accelerate. Everybody know how much zippier their car feels when that first cool front comes through in the Autumn and they can turn off their A/C and just roll down the windows.

Since most of your inefficiencies occur during acceleration, and since traditional ICE drivetrains only suffer a 5-10% loss due to A/C, I think it's reasonable to conclude that the overall efficiency loss of running your A/C will be right at 5% or thereabouts.

I'm sure FIT would have an idea on this one, too.


RE: I don't like this
By Lifted on 8/12/2009 12:14:17 PM , Rating: 2
I don't mean loss in power. I mean if I'm sitting in traffic for 1 hour on a 5 - 10 mile trip to work, will I make it to work and home (2 hours round trip) on a single charge?


RE: I don't like this
By Lifted on 8/12/2009 12:15:17 PM , Rating: 2
With the A/C on of course.


RE: I don't like this
By Keeir on 8/12/2009 9:43:01 PM , Rating: 2
And that question is difficult to answer.

What Temperature difference?
What Airspeed?
What starting temperature of the interior volume?
What Altitude?
What color of car?
What level of cloud cover?
What road surface?
How much do you wiegh?

All of these things and many others will affect AC power usage. I can say that to me, it seems very likely that if with No HVAC usage on the same drive the Volt would give you 40 miles AER, then even with 2 hours of HVAC, 15-20 miles should be possible. But I can concieve of a sitation where it would not be...


RE: I don't like this
By Jedi2155 on 8/12/2009 11:54:18 PM , Rating: 2
Just read this guy's reports :)

http://privatenrg.com/#Nomograph


RE: I don't like this
By FITCamaro on 8/12/2009 10:57:56 PM , Rating: 2
What makes you think I know how much draw an electric AC compressor would have? I'd guess it definitely cost you a few miles. Especially it takes you an hour to go 20 miles due to traffic. You prolly ain't gonna make it home on the battery alone.


RE: I don't like this
By Jedi2155 on 8/12/2009 11:53:46 PM , Rating: 2
An AC unit in a car probably uses up no more than 600 watts of power (probably a lot less like closer to 300). Driving a very low drag vehicle like the Volt or the Prius would give a efficiency of 250 watts (or less) per mile @ 70 MPH. So running the AC for an hour would lose closer to 1 mile of range. Which I'd say is rather insignificant.


RE: I don't like this
By clovell on 8/12/2009 11:15:47 AM , Rating: 2
I'd say 50 mpg for gas is a better guesstimate.


RE: I don't like this
By AngryNJ on 8/12/2009 11:36:32 AM , Rating: 2
Don't forget that the Volt gets a $7500 tax credit.


RE: I don't like this
By ebakke on 8/12/2009 12:04:09 PM , Rating: 5
And just think, with your vote in the 2010 elections you could have them change it to a $40k tax credit. Free Volts for everyone!! GO AMERICA!!


RE: I don't like this
By Jalek on 8/12/2009 9:02:47 PM , Rating: 3
Isn't there a discount for being a part owner of the corporation?

Me and 300 million other Americans.


RE: I don't like this
By gregpet on 8/13/2009 4:08:11 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, its called a $7500 tax rebate


RE: I don't like this
By FITCamaro on 8/12/2009 11:02:38 PM , Rating: 2
You laugh.....


RE: I don't like this
By Alexstarfire on 8/12/2009 5:29:10 PM , Rating: 2
Wow, are you kidding me? Do you think he travels in to work and just stays there, and in the morning he drives back home or something. 60 miles a day is 2 30-mile trips. Easily doable on a 40 mile range, assuming it gets that range of course. Not sure sure if he'll be able to plug it in at work, but I'm not going to assume he can't.

Not only that but it's already been said in TONS of article that the Volt is going to get 50+ MPG when the gas engine is running to charge the batteries. Perhaps you should go and do some research before pulling numbers out your ass.


RE: I don't like this
By kake on 8/13/2009 4:31:25 AM , Rating: 2
It would be interesting to take this to the next step:

I drive ~100 miles a day in my truck pulling a trailer (I'm an electrician), and get about 12MPG. Now if say half of that mileage could be electrically produced, wouldn't that be quite the advantageous standpoint for a vehicle manufacturer to advertise from?

There are many service vehicles that drive between 40 and 100 miles a day that could definitely be benefited by a hybrid electric plug in system giving them somewhere in that neighborhood of range without relying on gas. Especially with the smaller European style van/service truck being introduced to the US in the next few years.

Perhaps this is an unexplored market for domestic car makers to explore? Just maybe?


RE: I don't like this
By CZroe on 8/13/2009 2:55:06 PM , Rating: 2
Not certified yet? That didn't stop them from advertizing it on Hulu. One of the advertisements showed the features of a power socket moving around like eyes looking around as "23" came on the screen and settled right beside it making a "230." There was a URL or something encouraging potential customers to check it out. I guess they can get away with it because it didn't actually CLAIM to get 230MPG and never really even showed a proper number (power socket != number 0).


RE: I don't like this
By FITCamaro on 8/12/2009 11:00:32 PM , Rating: 2
Assuming a 12 gallon tank that's pathetic. I get better mileage than that in my GTO. What are you driving in 4th gear on the highway?


RE: I don't like this
By tviceman on 8/12/2009 10:22:42 AM , Rating: 2
Some people who will own/lease the volt will certainly drive the Volt 230 mpg without using any gasoline.

I think GM is basing their MPG estimates off how much driving the "average" driver does over the course of a day/week/month.


RE: I don't like this
By invidious on 8/12/2009 10:36:37 AM , Rating: 5
This is exactly why rating a car in terms of mpg that doesn't run on gas is asinine. The only important figure milage figure is miles per dollar. And if you are really concerned about costs even that figure is irrelivant compared to the cost of ownership over the life of the car vs how many miles it is expected to last.

MPG is just a convinient intermitant figure because the cost of gas fluxuates. It gives very limited view of the real world costs of a car. And if we are going to be using electric vehicles the figure hold virtually zero merit.


RE: I don't like this
By Keeir on 8/12/2009 10:06:49 PM , Rating: 3
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/pdfs/...

I know, third time in this article I am posting the above link, but I really think people should read this.

the 230 MPG doesn't come about randomly. Its the result of several years of testing and designing by the ANL.

My favorite part is on slide 13. 230 MPG won't be the only number issued. Miles per kWh will also be issued. (Well they say Wh/Mile from plug, but I think Miles/ kWh (plug) is more useful)

Here is an early presentation by the same folks

http://www.che.ncsu.edu/ILEET/phevs/plug-in_2008/2...


RE: I don't like this
By Daphault on 8/12/2009 10:42:32 AM , Rating: 4
Huh? That's a mathematical impossibility. You can't have MPG without using gas or other liquid fuel. It's a measure of distance travel on a volume of fuel.


RE: I don't like this
By jimbojimbo on 8/12/2009 3:59:48 PM , Rating: 2
But the Volt does NOT travel its entire distance on a volume of fuel. If you want to do it this way you'd have to only count the mileage that incurrs while the gasoline engine is running.


RE: I don't like this
By acase on 8/12/2009 10:26:00 AM , Rating: 2
I don't like how I keep reading Daily Tech articles that contradict eachother or contradict articles from more respectable news sources.


RE: I don't like this
By Screwballl on 8/12/2009 10:29:51 AM , Rating: 5
Since this car still has an ICE (internal combustion engine), it should still be rated at the same rating as everyone else.

According to the GM Volt website, their latest number shows it will get around 300 miles per full charge and tank of gas. Not sure if that is the 40 miles before charging, plus another 30-40miles after the gas runs out (meaning 220-230 miles worth of travel with the engine running).

With the exact numbers from their website:

300 miles / 8 gallon tank = 37.5 MPG (miles per gallon of gas)

Any other way of looking at it is fudging the numbers... which of course the US government does very well.

The only way someone can get away from this is driving less than 40 miles per day not letting the ICE startup and charging on household current.

Of course after a month or two of not starting, when it does actually startup, the sludge and old gas will not let the ICE run at full capacity. It could mean an early grave for the ICE.


RE: I don't like this
By darkangelism on 8/12/2009 10:50:18 AM , Rating: 2
they are claiming 230 miles per gallon, or 1840 miles per tank


RE: I don't like this
By Masospaghetti on 8/12/2009 11:27:04 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
300 miles / 8 gallon tank = 37.5 MPG (miles per gallon of gas)

Any other way of looking at it is fudging the numbers... which of course the US government does very well.


Any other reasoning is fudging the numbers? The idea is that since 80% (or some number) of people do not drive more than 40 miles a day, they get INFINITE fuel economy. And by your logic, if the Volt had a 1 gallon tank, it would be rated at a higher MPG than if it had a 8 gallon tank.

40 mi electric + 50 mpg (gas, est.) = 90 miles per gallon if the tank was a single gallon.

So your method of measuring economy depends heavily on fuel tank size, which is a ridiculous metric to use.

quote:
Of course after a month or two of not starting, when it does actually startup, the sludge and old gas will not let the ICE run at full capacity. It could mean an early grave for the ICE.


You really want GM to fail and everyone to drive a Toyota, don't you? GM has stated they are including logic in the ICE to have it run some minimum amount to keep this from occuring - but at the very worst, buy a $2 bottle of fuel stabilizer. How hard is that? Assuming heavy penetration of this type of vehicle, if it were to occur, its not unreasonable to think gasoline will be blended with fuel stabilizers to allow it to sit for longer periods of time without becoming stale.

As far as sludge goes...This isn't a Toyota V6. Factory fill with synthetic oil and thats a non-issue, which is done on a lot of new vehicles already.


RE: I don't like this
By Screwballl on 8/15/2009 10:04:35 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
but at the very worst, buy a $2 bottle of fuel stabilizer. How hard is that? Assuming heavy penetration of this type of vehicle, if it were to occur, its not unreasonable to think gasoline will be blended with fuel stabilizers to allow it to sit for longer periods of time without becoming stale.


Yes but considering a majority of people do not even know about them, or think that is a useless expense. Those that do use the stabilizers is a very small minority.
As long as GM puts some emphasis on the need for additives to educate the public, then things should be ok... but the way things are going I suspect we will have some lawsuits after a few years when their ICE's start dying or running very poorly from people not driving enough to use them, so when it does run, it is using year old gas.


RE: I don't like this
By Keeir on 8/12/2009 1:53:26 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Of course after a month or two of not starting, when it does actually startup, the sludge and old gas will not let the ICE run at full capacity. It could mean an early grave for the ICE


Sorry, this is really silly. This might be true... if you purchased really really crappy gasoline. Majority of gasolines have shelf lifes of greater than 1 year.


RE: I don't like this
By Starcub on 8/12/2009 2:04:23 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
With the exact numbers from their website:

300 miles / 8 gallon tank = 37.5 MPG (miles per gallon of gas)

Link please. What I saw seemed to suggest that it would get 400 miles on an 8 gallon tank, or more likely, 360 miles on a 7 gallon tank.


RE: I don't like this
By AngryNJ on 8/12/2009 11:34:57 AM , Rating: 2
Your idea about driving the car until it runs out of gasoline to calculate the MPG is flawed also. They can simply make the gas tank smaller and your MPG would increase since you would be using a higher percentage of battery only. The fact is that these vehicles completely change the way we calculate cost to run.


RE: I don't like this
By fic2 on 8/12/2009 3:33:51 PM , Rating: 2
I think it should be based on full battery charge and 1 gallon of gas - how far can you go. That is your mpg. Do one test for city, one for highway.

If the charge engine allows the Volt to go 50 miles on a gallon then the rating would be 90 mpg.

Actually, maybe the Volt should have 4 mpg ratings - full battery city/highway and no battery city/highway.


RE: I don't like this
By Spivonious on 8/12/2009 11:57:30 AM , Rating: 2
But take me for example. I drive about 20 miles a day and park in my garage overnight. If I never drove over 40 miles a day and always charged to full overnight, I would never have to buy gas. That would give me an infinite miles per gallon.

Let's say I drive 50 miles a day. The gas engine supposedly gets 50mpg when "sustaining the charge", so each day I use up 10 miles of gas power. That's 1/5 of a gallon each day. Over a year I use about 70 gallons. I've gone 18,250 miles in that year, so that gives me about 260mpg.

I'm sure that GM got the average miles driven per day and did the above calculation to get their rating of 230mpg.


RE: I don't like this
By Etern205 on 8/12/2009 1:50:28 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I can understand how it would be good PR and look good on the window sticker to get 230MPG, but people are going to be a little angry I think when they find out that isn't what they are going to get.


That's why there is always those tiny fine prints all the way at the bottom of the label. :P


ha!
By invidious on 8/12/2009 10:23:06 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
an American-made car that will save families money

If you want to save money don't buy a $40000 volt, buy a normal $16000 4 cylinder eco car and $24000 of gas. The gas will probably last you about 15-20 years.




RE: ha!
By chartguy on 8/12/2009 10:41:19 AM , Rating: 2
That's EXACTLY right.

With a 40-mile battery range (on a warm day, on flat terrain, with new batteries, driving moderately), that's about $1,000/mile of range.

Has there been any mention of the cost to replace the battery pack?

Has there been any mention of how long GM will guarantee the batteries? Typically, for batteries, that would be something like guaranteeing that they'll have half their new capacity. So, a couple of years from now, that 40-mile range may only be 20 miles. Less, if it's cold, or there are hills on your route, or you're in a hurry.


RE: ha!
By Motoman on 8/12/2009 10:47:43 AM , Rating: 2
...I'd like to know if there is any allowance for the pollution created during the generation of the electricity needed to charge it's battery. Seems to me that there should be some offset from it's "MPG" based on the amount of displaced pollution created at the coal power plant (or whatever) that didn't come out of it's tailpipe.


RE: ha!
By jimbojimbo on 8/12/09, Rating: -1
RE: ha!
By Keeir on 8/12/2009 9:37:11 PM , Rating: 2
That would be great

Unfortunely, the EPA does not do that Diesel, CNG, or other alternative fuels, so its not like Electric is getting different treatment.

I agree, a MPGe or some such would be more effective. (More energy consumed=more pollution)

but a MPGe would tell you nothing about the cost of operating the automobile... which was one of the primary reasons for MPG testing.


RE: ha!
By AngryNJ on 8/12/2009 11:42:10 AM , Rating: 5
The last I read about the battery warranty was 10 year/ 150000 miles.


By someguy743 on 8/12/2009 10:50:19 AM , Rating: 1
No doubt about it, when they put that 230 mpg city number on the sticker of the Volt at the dealership, it's going to make people's jaws drop.

By the way folks, this 230 mpg CITY figure is just ONE "benchmark test". It's kind of like a benchmark test for a computer CPU or something. It is a narrowly defined test. In SOME conditions you will get the equivalent of 230 mpg driving in the city. SOME people who have a Volt really WILL be bragging to people that they only have to buy say 40 gallons of gas per YEAR.

This is going to happen folks. It's awesome. I have read that when you combine the city AND highway mileage miles per gallon, the EPA will probably rate the Chevy Volt at around 124 MPG COMBINED. That's still pretty damn good considering that most old fashioned IC engine cars these days are lucky to get 22 mpg in real world driving conditions.

If you want do your part to help America get INDEPENDENT of foreign oil from petrodictators and gazillionaire oil sheiks from the Middle East, the Volt is definitely the vehicle to get. It's a MISER when it comes to gasoline. It's also a no-compromise kind of car not much different than how you drive now. The oil sheiks aren't going to like it too much. :)

With the Volt, the American people will have a POTENT weapon to throw at Wall Street oil schemers and oil sheiks if they want to jack up the price of oil. If and WHEN there's another huge gas price spike (and there WILL be), Volt owners will just laugh. Gasoline prices will be something they rarely think about. That's the peace of mind that INDEPENDENCE gets you.

People that drive a Volt might only have to fill up their tank 3-4 times per YEAR. They can fill it up with E85 too if they want. I'd like to fill it up with algae based "bio-gasoline" from "Sapphire Energy" myself. http://www.sapphireenergy.com/ The "electric fuel" for the Volt will ALWAYS be cheaper per mile than gasoline. Electric powertrains are just plain more efficient than mechanical internal combustion engines. I bet the maintenance and repair costs on the Volt will be pretty low. Fewer moving parts when you are driving in electric mode you know.

If the battery durability exceeds expectations and goes for 200,000 miles like some of the Prius batteries are, there's going to be some happy GM customers in America in the years ahead. There will be less wear and tear under the hood of your Volt since it will be running in electric mode probably 75%+ of the time.

Resale values should be good. Those IC engine parts should be in "like new" condition after 150,000 miles. People that buy a used Volt might be able to get a new (hopefully, MUCH cheaper) battery replacement and keep on driving that same Volt for another 150,000 miles ... no problem. You could see 2011 Volts on the road for a LONG time. 2011 Volts with 400,000 miles on them might be routine. Who knows?




By ClownPuncher on 8/12/2009 11:02:57 AM , Rating: 1
Hello Government Motors Employee.


By Masospaghetti on 8/12/2009 11:30:24 AM , Rating: 2
Lol. One positive post about a GM product and he's immediately accused of being an employee...go figure. If you look at a Toyota article there's droves of lemmings salivating all over the Prius and such and nobody says a thing.


By manofhorn on 8/12/2009 11:18:52 AM , Rating: 2
This reminds me of LDS employees editing Wiki pages--seeding them with their own versions of the truth.


By Hiawa23 on 8/12/2009 11:27:56 AM , Rating: 2
With the Volt, the American people will have a POTENT weapon to throw at Wall Street oil schemers and oil sheiks if they want to jack up the price of oil. If and WHEN there's another huge gas price spike (and there WILL be), Volt owners will just laugh. Gasoline prices will be something they rarely think about. That's the peace of mind that INDEPENDENCE gets you.

you bring up some good points, but there is a spike going on right now in gas as it is up atleast $.20/gallon since 3wks ago. what is causing this, speculators, like Bill o'Reilly says or supply & demand like Karl Rove says.


By jimbojimbo on 8/12/2009 3:53:15 PM , Rating: 1
I say let people buy Volts. If enough people buy them it'll reduce the demand on oil and it'll get cheaper. Hooray for those with low MPG cars already!


By Moishe on 8/12/2009 4:21:22 PM , Rating: 1
I agree generally with your post, but the battery will not exceed expectations. The Prius is on the 3rd generation and Toyota is generally better than GM at this stuff.

Plus I've heard some negative things from actual GM hybrid engineers that make me think the first gen battery is gonna be suck, suck, sucky.

I think the plugin hybrid concept is sound. It just needs to be cheaper and have the bugs worked out before I will buy one.


By someguy743 on 8/12/2009 5:47:37 PM , Rating: 2
You need to get up the "learning curve" about the Volt program. There are a LOT of people out there that really haven't researched the Volt very much ... including the reporters on TV. They don't understand the technology.

Read about the Volt on this website. Watch the videos with the Volt engineers:

http://chevroletvoltage.com/

Here's a really good blog about the Volt: http://gm-volt.com/

Believe me, the technology going into the Volt is very cutting edge. GM has their best people working very hard on the Volt program. GM has been torture testing the hell out of the battery. They just built a brand new, HUGE battery testing facility in Michigan.

GM is building the battery PACK and a South Korean company is supplying the battery CELLS ... LG Chem ... the same parent company that makes LG high definition TVs, cell
phones, etc. The batteries for Generation II of the Volt could be built by just about any company. GM will test the hell out of lots of batteries by different companies and simply pick the battery that fits their specifications the best.

One company from Boston named A123 Systems has a good shot at getting a contract with GM for future battery cells. The battery world is going to get HUGE. Scientists and engineers from all over the world are working like crazy on them right now. The Volt is just the FIRST of many electric cars that are on the way. There will be lots of flavors of them.

Power split hybrids like the Prius, Extended Range EVs like the Volt, pure EVs like the Tesla and the Nissan Leaf, etc. There might soon be ones with hydrogen fuel cells, methanol fuel cells, ones that can use the latest generation of biofuels, etc. We're in a big period of invention in the auto industry like in the early 1900s.

The automobile industry is about to get "electrified" in a big way in the next 10 years. People are going like these new cars. Super smooth, quick acceleration, good torque, etc. The Volt should be plenty quick. They'll be able to anything today's car can do eventually. Super fast ones like the Tesla that go 0-60 mph in 4 seconds are ALREADY HERE. More are on the way.


MPG
By btc909 on 8/12/2009 11:53:25 AM , Rating: 2
Get rid of MPG. Once you start adding non gallon based energy sources it's a pain to calculate. Switch to total mile range - TMR. If I fill the gas tank, the electric battery, & of course Mr. Fusion with a couple of bananas peels thrown in for that 1.21 Jigawatts what is the total number of average miles (city / highway combined) this vehicle can travel. No matter how many forms of energy a vehicle can carry it won't affect the TMR rating.




RE: MPG
By gstrickler on 8/12/2009 4:01:35 PM , Rating: 2
I have a more useful proposal. See me posts on this DT article Re Nissan LEAF "MPG" estimates.

http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=15941

In short, publish estimated energy/fuel cost per 1000mi (1000km in most countries). It isn't perfect, but I think it's the most useful proposal I've seen. Of course, I'm biased since it is my own idea (not that I was necessarily the first to propose it, others may have proposed it earlier without my knowledge).


RE: MPG
By Moishe on 8/12/2009 4:36:20 PM , Rating: 2
I think your other post is pretty much right on. There is a reply to it that is pretty good too.

We will have to get away from MPG and tend toward a price per unit of distance driven.

The problem is that $/distance doesn't tell us how fast or well the distance was covered, i.e. snails pace grandma or lead foot.


RE: MPG
By gstrickler on 8/13/2009 1:13:25 AM , Rating: 2
We currently have city/highway MPG estimates, no reason we shouldn't continue that practice if we switch to $/distance.


How Should this be measured?
By Farfignewton on 8/12/2009 12:24:00 PM , Rating: 2
I think most people understand the 230 mpg figure is bunk, given that it will only be achieved by driving out the charge + whatever precise distance they decided to use as an average.

I think the best way to provide meaningful numbers is to first determine what can be reasonably expected from a fully charged battery (around 40 miles according to G.M) and once the I.C.E. kicks in to start charging the battery, you can do your mpg testing (presumably run it until it will go no further and divide by gas used) This could be presented as 50mpg (+40miles) or whatever. You can go 40 miles or so on the battery, after that you get 50mpg, 40 mpg or whatever. People with short drives will know they really won't have to put gas in it, and someone who has to take it across the country ( didn't the CEO do so after the Congress/Corporate jet fiasco?) can have a USEFUL idea about how much fuel it will require.




RE: How Should this be measured?
By Keeir on 8/12/2009 9:30:45 PM , Rating: 2
See there is a problem with your suggestion. It can't be adequately used to rate other PHEV besides the Volt which include a variety of type of electric usage. For example, take the Buick Vue Plugin Hybrid. There the plug-in will act as a boost to the electrical assist. There is no "AER" so a AER + MPG figure will be meaningless. But as the stored boost runs out, the MPG figure will change as well.

The Argonne National Lab is very infleuntial in regards to the EPA testing of Hyrbids. Here is a presentation of thier work and some suggestions on developing a PHEV standard.

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/pdfs/...

To my best knowledge, the EPA took data from 2001 and created a driving profile for the average driver from 2001. The Volt was tested against this average driving profile. This driving profile will be what future PHEV, regardless of how they operate will be tested against and in the context of PHEV will provide meaningful results. The ANL study also wanted the end driving profile/method to return results that would be comparable to EPA 2008 city, in that an ICE car run through the profile would acchieve results near thier EPA 2008 city.

The Volt's extremely high score is kinda of self-fulfilling. GM analyzed data and provided an AER that would serve the vast majority of the market. The EPA's methodology took the same data (or very similar) to create an estimate for the gasoline used by the majority of the market when accounting for PHEV. Is it any wonder that GM's Volt scores very high when it was literally designed to score high in the first place?

As far as meaningful data is concerned, provided GM is also required by the EPA to report Miles/kWh for the same driving cycle, I hthink the end meaning will be clear.

IE
230 MPG/5.5 MPkWh City Profile
80 MPG/12 MPkWh Highway Profile


How about Power Bill increase
By dijuremo on 8/12/2009 1:10:42 PM , Rating: 2
In all of the discussions I have read about plugable cards and MPG bs, I have never seen anybody even think about factoring in the cost of the electricity to charge the car nightly. In the case of the volt how much does it cost to have the sucker plugged in every night to get your 40 electric only miles?

In most cases people will be saving money on gas, but how much are they adding to their power Bill. With hot summers and a 2400 sq ft house I pay about $250/month (damn underpowered AC, I hate the builder of my house), so how much more am I going to have to add to that if I were to get a Volt?




RE: How about Power Bill increase
By Starcub on 8/12/2009 2:22:06 PM , Rating: 2
It depends on what you pay for a KWh of electricity. Most people pay around 10 cents, but rates can vary widely across the nation. Given that 40 miles works out to about 8KWh's in the Volt, most people would pay around 80 cents for a 'complete' battery charge. You can get 8KWh's of charge on a battery in one night.

So assuming you drain your battery completely every day (which most people wont) you will pay an extra $24 a month for electricity to power your car. That's a lot less than you would pay for gas, but not enough to make up for the price difference you would pay for a comparable gas powered car, even if you figure in the $7500 tax credit (assuming a $40k price tag).


By nafhan on 8/12/2009 12:16:47 PM , Rating: 2
...if you want an MPG of 230. However if you want to beat the Leaf (367 MPG), you're only allowed to drive 6.3 miles.

If you have Excel, use the below formula to determine how far you are allowed to drive to get any MPG rating you want.
=2000/(A1-50)
Only use numbers above 50, enter your desired MPG in cell A1 and paste the formula somewhere else. I'm assuming a gas powered MPG of 50 for these calculations.




Jobs.
By Earthmonger on 8/12/2009 1:25:33 PM , Rating: 2
I think it's ironic that the EPA is applauding GM's efforts to provide new jobs. Yeah, right. How many, 200?

This is a job exchange, not new jobs. The less reason people have to frequent gas stations, buy gas, products, beverages & food items, and most importantly, impulse buys, is going to cost people jobs.




How about that Tesla?
By jimbojimbo on 8/12/2009 3:50:51 PM , Rating: 2
It can go for infinity miles per gallon! Once you introduce external energy sources for supplying power there's no way they can use MPG as a rating of any sort whatsoever. Hey, here's another vehicle that can go for infinity miles per gallon, a bicycle. Hell, hydrogen powered vehicles also go infinity miles per gallon. If you believe the 230MPG BS, I'm selling the Golden Gate Bridge. Cheap.




Likely Method and Explanation
By Keeir on 8/12/2009 4:13:37 PM , Rating: 2
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/pdfs/...

Here is a Link to the ANL propsed testing method of PHEV cars.

The idea is to create a testing methodology that will be a reasonable guideline for comparing different Hybrid/PHEV applications.

The linked Methodology, which as I understand is the basis for the EPA test, was never ment for full ICE or BEV comparisons.




Better way to measure mileage
By FishTankX on 8/13/2009 3:17:22 AM , Rating: 2
A galon of gasoline has roughly 121 MJ per gallon

Assuming that's burned at about 48% efficency in a power plant (natural gas combined cycle average), that's about 58MJ of energy. That's about 16kWH of actual energy. You loose about 10% in transmission and 5% in charging so let's just call it 13.6,

Since the volt can go 40 miles on 8kwh, then the volt can go 68 miles on one gallon's worth of gasoline's energy in the most efficent power plant designs, accounting for transmission losses and charging efficency.

However, the more important question in the market is miles per dollar.

@10c/kwh you'd get..
50 MPD in volt
@ 2.2$/gallon
25MPD in prius
About 8MPD in SUV.

Not a bad showing for the volt, eh?




I call B.S.
By drewsup on 8/13/2009 8:39:07 AM , Rating: 2
So by using GM's "creative " MPG estimates, if I refill my car's gas tank every morning before I leave home, I don't use ANY gas! See it's automagically full every day, so I didn't use any! Don't get me wrong, I ove that GM is doing something creative like the Volt, but don't try to BS the numbers, it demeans you GM.




By on 8/22/2009 11:56:31 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
http://www.bbcloth.com
http://www.bbcloth.com

(air jordan, air max, shox tn, rift, puma, dunk sb, adidas) nike jordan shoes 1-24 $32
lv, coach, chane bag $35
COOGI(jeans, tshirts, hoody, jacket) $30
christian audigier(jeans, tshirts, hoody) $13
edhardy(shoes, tshirts, jeans, caps, watche, handbag) $25
Armani(jeans, tshirts,) $24
AF(jeans, coat, hoody, sweater, tshirts)Abercrombie & Fitch $31

quote:
http://www.bbcloth.com
http://www.bbcloth.com




By on 8/30/2009 8:48:59 AM , Rating: 2
http://www.crispstyle.com

bikini$25

(air jordan, air max, shox tn, rift, puma, dunk sb, adidas)

nike jordan shoes 1-24 $32

lv, coach, chane bag $35

COOGI(jeans, tshirts, hoody, jacket) $30

christian audigier(jeans, tshirts, hoody) $13

edhardy(shoes, tshirts, jeans, caps, watche, handbag) $25

Armani(jeans, tshirts,) $24

AF(jeans, coat, hoody, sweater, tshirts)Abercrombie & Fitch $31

http://www.crispstyle.com




I don't like this
By rudolphna on 8/12/09, Rating: -1
"Well, there may be a reason why they call them 'Mac' trucks! Windows machines will not be trucks." -- Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer














botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki