backtop


Print 131 comment(s) - last by mindless1.. on May 5 at 12:26 AM

One owner has averaged 547 mpg by relying more on the battery pack for propulsion

One of the vehicles that has made one of the biggest splashes in the hybrid and EV market is the Chevrolet Volt. The Volt is an extended range electric vehicle which uses the gasoline motor to charge the battery inside the car for longer range once it can’t go on electric power alone. 

One of the things that Chevrolet has been a bit quiet on is exactly how far the vehicle can drive on a tank full of fuel when the batteries go dead on their own. To show just how far the Volt can drive on a tank of fuel, GM has called on some owners of the Chevy Volt to tell just how long they have been driving on a tank and it's a long way.

“Volt owners drove an average of 800 miles between fill-ups since the Volt launched in December, and in March they averaged 1,000 miles,” said Cristi Landy, Volt marketing director.  “When the majority of miles driven are electrically, gas usage decreases significantly.”

When you consider that the Volt holds roughly nine gallons of fuel, the fact that GM claims the average Volt driver gets 800 miles between fill ups is even more impressive. That would work out to fuel economy in the area of 122 miles per gallon. Volt owners also note they only hit the gas station about once per month.

While Volt owners may not be sucking down as much dyno-juice as other vehicles, they are in turn tapping into the electrical grid to recharge the battery pack on a regular basis. For consumers with a daily commute of less than 40 miles (the Volt's maximum battery-only range), a nightly recharge is all it takes to keep the gasoline engine from firing up.

“I am surprised how infrequently I go to the gas station. It’s become a game to achieve as many miles as I can in EV mode,” said Steve Wojtanek, a Volt buyer in Boca Raton, Florida. “I have made it my goal to drive as efficiently as possible and I am seeing the results, with more than 3,417 miles under my belt – of which 2,225 are EV miles.” A Volt owner since December, Wojtanek is averaging 122 miles per gallon and visiting the gas station about once a month. 

Another Volt owner, Gary Davis said, "On April 11, I had to buy gas for the first time since filling up on January 9. In my Volt I’ve driven 4,600 miles on 8.4 gallons of gas. That’s an impressive 547 mpg that I am achieving with my Volt."

GM cites the total driving range of the Volt as 379 miles on a tank. The typical all electric driving range on the vehicle is 25-50 miles. Davis would have to be driving less than the 25-50 miles most days to rack up the kind of fuel economy he is reporting. Some Volt dealers were asking as much as $25,000 over MSRP for the Volt when it launched.



Comments     Threshold


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

um..
By omnicronx on 4/25/2011 12:34:02 PM , Rating: 4
Is there not something missing here? Clearly on a 9 gallon tank there must have been recharge cycles in there somewhere to attain 1000 miles per tank.

Don't you think these numbers matter in a story like this? Especially when you consider you still have to pay for electricity?

For all intents and purposes I may never have to get any gas if I continually recharged my car and stay under the batter power threshold.




RE: um..
By Chernobyl68 on 4/25/2011 12:42:41 PM , Rating: 3
agreed. I'd be more interested in seeing how much the drivers are spending on electricity each month.


RE: um..
By Denigrate on 4/25/2011 12:51:29 PM , Rating: 2
Depends on whether they can plug in at work, "borrowing" the electricity from their employer.


RE: um..
By MrTeal on 4/25/2011 1:00:16 PM , Rating: 5
In colder climates a lot of parking lots feature plugs at every spot for drivers to plug in their block heaters. It will be interesting to see how the operators deal with the issue if people are using a 120V circuit to charge their vehicles, especially if they start routinely tripping breakers.


RE: um..
By Odysseus145 on 4/25/2011 6:40:49 PM , Rating: 2
What about a "charging" meter? They could charge per watt-hour.


RE: um..
By vol7ron on 4/27/2011 1:00:07 AM , Rating: 1
I'm also curious what period of time the 1000 miles were driven.

Gas does evaporate, which could effect the achieved mpg's.


RE: um..
By mindless1 on 4/28/2011 2:34:46 PM , Rating: 5
There is very little if any gas evaporation, EPA requires it be a constantly closed, even vacuum assisted/scavenged system when the engine is running.

Of greater concern would be the gas going stale.


RE: um..
By phantom505 on 5/1/11, Rating: 0
RE: um..
By mindless1 on 5/5/2011 12:26:53 AM , Rating: 2
You're partly right at least, but being ~ < 1/3rd right and acting as if the rest doesn't matter, is, well, let's ignore that side topic.

Gas goes stale. Stale gas encompasses more than one factor. Yes water can get into it, but as you already wrote cars have vapor tight systems but so do other equipment including gas cans!

In addition to water getting in, the lighter components can evaporate out into unused space in the can or tank leaving a suboptimal fuel, and oxygen will react with some hydrocarbons in gas causing gummy particles.

So, unless one wants to list all the ways gas starts to degrade, "stale" is a far better term to use to simply this than to just make an arbitrary (and incorrect) assumption it is only water vapor.

The fact is, we don't have to speculate about whether gas since the 80's goes stale or not - people are continuing to report the problem year over year and do still today. Very simple to figure out, if an engine runs poorly on gas it ran fine on last year, and immediately returns to a good running state again by replacing the stale gas with fresh.

I suppose you'd have to have actual experience rather than a few seconds reading a book to know this.


RE: um..
By YashBudini on 4/25/2011 11:10:47 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
It will be interesting to see how the operators deal with the issue if people are using a 120V circuit to charge their vehicles, especially if they start routinely tripping breakers.

I suggest limiting current intake and flying below the radar.

You realize at some point some nut is going to climb a pole at night to get "free gas" and wind up on "1000 Ways to Die."


RE: um..
By AssBall on 4/25/11, Rating: -1
RE: um..
By jharper12 on 4/25/2011 2:11:24 PM , Rating: 5
You know the Volt has a range extending generator right? As in it's the only EV that's not going to leave you stranded by the side of the road. Unless of course you don't fill up the tank, in which case, you've earned that tow truck bill.


RE: um..
By AssBall on 4/25/2011 2:35:06 PM , Rating: 1
No one has a sense of humor on here.


RE: um..
By Taft12 on 4/25/2011 3:29:12 PM , Rating: 2
They do, but only when it comes to digs against Apple, EVs, wind-generated electricity, climate change, ... I know I'm missing a few.


RE: um..
By lagomorpha on 4/25/2011 2:37:54 PM , Rating: 5
That may have been a stab at the unreliability of GM vehicles.


RE: um..
By randomly on 4/25/2011 4:18:49 PM , Rating: 1
The reliability of GM vehicles is not a joking matter.


RE: um..
By Dr of crap on 4/25/2011 3:19:38 PM , Rating: 5
It's not explianed correctly.
If you would just drive from say New York to St Louis, you would in NO way get 122 mpg. But if you ONLY drive on battery power for your commute, using only the battery, then yes you'll get better mpg.

In that respect the Leaf gets infinity mpg!!!! No gas at all to fill up!

Let's get the writing up to par, shall we!


RE: um..
By theapparition on 4/26/2011 8:54:46 AM , Rating: 1
No, because the Volt could make the trip from NY to St Louis. And do it quite easily.

The Leaf could make it from NY to maybe Philadelphia, at which time you'd have to spend the night waiting for it to recharge, that is if you could even find a place that would let you recharge. Spend another week getting to St Louis. You'd pay more for lodging and time than electricity.

So while no fuel cost, the trip is virtually impractical for anyone with a brain. The Leaf at best is a dedicated commuter car.


RE: um..
By vapore0n on 4/26/2011 12:50:47 PM , Rating: 2
No, because this story is about owners getting over 9000! mpg on their volt, when clearly they are driving the limited 20 miles to work and back, and recharging overnight. Or even worse, stop at a gas station or hotel every 40 miles to recharge for 4-6 hrs.

In this case, and all cases, the Leaf owners do get infinite mpg, because there is no gallons to divide by!


RE: um..
By Masospaghetti on 4/26/2011 2:36:26 PM , Rating: 1
Yeah, but the Volt is a no-compromises vehicle. It will take you anywhere in the country if you want, and still can get amazing MPG's. The Leaf is a specialty vehicle only. I get infinite MPG on my bicycle, too!


RE: um..
By Dr of crap on 4/27/2011 8:42:00 AM , Rating: 2
You missed my point. Traveling a long distance will make the mpg way less than 122 with the Volt.

Giving out numbers like that just goes to show how the media and writers DO NOT understand it!

Kind of like you!


RE: um..
By Masospaghetti on 4/27/2011 9:43:42 AM , Rating: 1
Before you call others out as ignorant, you might want to not sound so ignorant yourself.

It's obvious traveling long distances will result in less than 122 mpg.

It's also obvious that traveling less than 25-50 miles a day will result in no fuel usage ("infinite mpg"!!.

This article is showing that many people are managing to use very little fuel with no compromise in utility. Not so hard to understand.


RE: um..
By Farfignewton on 5/2/2011 12:09:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It's obvious traveling long distances will result in less than 122 mpg.


Of course the reason it is obvious is because we all know that number is complete B.S. Frankly, the Volt's ability to run on juice for the first 25-50 miles (or whatever!) isn't that difficult to understand. Telling us the mpg can be manipulated to 120 or infinity will not allow us to budget gas money for a cross country trip. For that, we would need the actual fuel economy of the car, which as far as I can tell has been reported nowhere, even though finding it only requires the simple step of not plugging it in.


RE: um..
By dragonbif on 4/25/2011 12:43:39 PM , Rating: 2
Be ready, dont think the power company is gong to sideline this. The cost of electricity is going to go up so they can bank of this. In California they have peak hour costs and peak hours are in some cases from 7am - 9pm and you get charged more.


RE: um..
By MartyLK on 4/25/2011 12:50:34 PM , Rating: 1
[Oh shit! That guy over there is paying less for fuel! Quick! Increase his electric bill before he feels happy and tries to spend the savings on something fun!]


RE: um..
By Solandri on 4/25/2011 3:37:43 PM , Rating: 5
Every state and the District of Columbia already has a public utilities commission which monitors and has to approve utility rate hikes.

Outside of non-regulated monopolies (or near-monopolies), the fantasy that some corporation is controlling prices is just that - a fantasy. People come up with them because as a customer, they feel powerless to do anything which can lower prices. But if you've ever run a business, you'll know that the opposite is true too. You feel equally powerless to do anything which can raise prices. Sure you can raise your per-item price, but that'll cause (seemingly) all your customers go to a competitor's store, resulting in a net income decrease for you. So you only raise prices when you're forced to - by inflation or rising costs.

That's just the way markets work. The only direct power a buyer has is to offer to pay more for a product than another buyer. If he offers to pay less, the store will usually just sell it to the other buyer. The only other choice he has is to refuse to buy the product at any price, which isn't really a choice if he needs the product.

But likewise, the only direct power a seller has is to offer to sell a product for less than another seller. If the seller offers to sell for more, the customer will (usually) just go somewhere else to buy it. The only other choice he has is to refuse to sell the product at any price, which is really stupid since the whole reason he has the product is so that he can sell it.

In other words, buyers raise prices, sellers lower prices, and where they meet in the middle is the market price.

Utilities generally don't have competition and are defacto monopolies, which is the whole reason PUCs exist - to prevent them from abusing their monopoly position to foist abusive rate hikes on the public. The brief affair with utilities deregulation ended with Enron (hopefully). If electricity prices go up from plug-in vehicles, it'll be because of increased demand, not some grand conspiracy.


RE: um..
By Spuke on 4/25/2011 4:37:09 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
If electricity prices go up from plug-in vehicles, it'll be because of increased demand, not some grand conspiracy.
Ours (California) went up to pay for the mandated renewable energy resources that our utilities have to use. Our utilities have to have 20% of their energy from renewables by the end of the year. I understand they are currently at 18%. SCE has been throwing up TONS of wind generators in the northern mountains in my area.


RE: um..
By Alexvrb on 4/25/2011 10:12:41 PM , Rating: 5
Remember son, the State of California knows better than you do. Higher energy prices is their way of thanking you for paying your taxes. One day you'll thank them for cornholing you repeatedly.


RE: um..
By rika13 on 4/26/2011 3:31:54 AM , Rating: 5
I have yet to see any of the renewable energy sources without significant ecological or safety problems (noise pollution, killing of wind velocity, and bat massacres from wind, huge land usage for solar, sucking the heat out of the earth for geothermal) or at a reasonable price (all of these crackpot energy sources cost far more than nuclear or dead dinos).


RE: um..
By dsumanik on 4/26/2011 7:09:27 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
In other words, buyers raise prices, sellers lower prices, and where they meet in the middle is the market price.


Only when supply exceeds demand...hence exactly why some dealers were charging 25000 above msrp when the volt first came out.


RE: um..
By Masospaghetti on 4/26/2011 2:37:32 PM , Rating: 2
It's so refreshing to hear someone on here that knows what he's talking about.


RE: um..
By therealnickdanger on 4/25/2011 1:38:24 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
dont think the power company is gong to sideline this

Or the government, for that matter. Also be ready for mileage-based taxes. Less money collected from gas tax + ever increasing volumes = less money to pay for road construction and repair.

Minnesota is already on it:
http://www.startribune.com/business/yourmoney/1201...


RE: um..
By littleman22257 on 4/25/2011 2:00:06 PM , Rating: 5
If we use gas, electric, hydrogen, etc. as means to power our transportation, the government will find a way to tax it.

If my choice is to be price gouged by the oil companies or my local power company, I would rather it be the local power company. At least the money should stay within the US and since it is within the US, we might be able to come up with regulations to prevent excessive price gouging.


RE: um..
By therealnickdanger on 4/25/2011 2:07:47 PM , Rating: 5
They even tax death.


RE: um..
By ebakke on 4/25/2011 2:10:46 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
If my choice is to be price gouged by the oil companies or my local power company, I would rather it be the local power company. At least the money should stay within the US and since it is within the US, we might be able to come up with regulations to prevent excessive price gouging.
You're being "gouged" and your money is going overseas precisely because of government intervention, yet your solution is for more of the same (just to a different set of companies)?


RE: um..
By littleman22257 on 4/25/2011 4:11:35 PM , Rating: 3
Except the "different set of companies" are typically located more within the US. For me, electricity is produced locally using coal primarily mined within the US. Instead of billions going to OPEC member countries, it could stay here within the US.

If the electric companies start charging to much, I can put up solar panels or a wind turbine.

What is your solution?


RE: um..
By ebakke on 4/25/2011 4:51:00 PM , Rating: 2
My point was that your money was going to OPEC members because the US government is making the explicit choice to forbid vast quantities of domestic oil (extracted by domestic companies) from being used.

My solution is simple: get the government out of energy. Stop subsidizing the oil and natural gas industries. Stop subsidizing ethanol. Stop limiting oil and natural gas exploration and recovery. Stop impeding new oil refineries. Stop impeding new nuclear plants. Get the government out of energy and let the market pick a winner instead of some bureaucrat.


RE: um..
By Nutzo on 4/25/2011 4:56:46 PM , Rating: 3
Put up solar panels made in China.... Or wind turbines, again made in China.

I'm all for cutting the money we send over seas, but solar panels and wind turbines are not going to do it. The cost are still way too high. Plus, you still need to build coal/gas power plants for when the sun isn't shining or the wind isn't blowing, which increases cost even more.

Send we aren;t allowed to build dams any more, the only cost effective solutions are to build nuclear plants or just drill for our own oil, wait, we aren't allowed to do that either....


RE: um..
By Spuke on 4/25/2011 4:56:56 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If the electric companies start charging to much, I can put up solar panels or a wind turbine if the local government will let me.
Fixed that for you.


RE: um..
By FITCamaro on 4/25/2011 7:00:48 PM , Rating: 2
So in a year you'll be complaining about how much solar panel companies are charging for solar panels.


RE: um..
By Spuke on 4/25/2011 8:42:09 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
So in a year you'll be complaining about how much solar panel companies are charging for solar panels.
Prices of panels have gone up a bit. A year and a half ago they were actually pretty cheap. Since then they have been on a steady rise. Increased demand is my guess.


RE: um..
By YashBudini on 4/25/2011 11:14:17 PM , Rating: 2
Have they improved much in terms of efficiency?

I see BP sells solar panels, the irony.


RE: um..
By callmeroy on 4/25/2011 2:54:12 PM , Rating: 3
Of course....this is something I said on forums years ago when people first started heavily touting how electric cars will be the savior.....

When will people learn...companies NEVER eat costs, they ALWAYS will pass it on to consumers. Likewise, our government will ALWAYS make sure they get their needed tax dollars.

So right now anyone owning an electric vehicle and laughing at us suckers with ICE powered vehicles as we pay at the pump...savior it...because as more and more people switch over to electric vehicles -- you are a fool if you don't think the power companies aren't going to cash in on that increased demand....as well as the government in the form of increased taxes.

So what savings is there really if you spend less at the pump but your electric bill triples or quadruples?


RE: um..
By JediJeb on 4/25/2011 3:29:06 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
So what savings is there really if you spend less at the pump but your electric bill triples or quadruples?


Definitely going to see this once they need to start upgrading the power grid to handle the demand. We had an ice storm here a couple years ago and after the power company called doing a survey, the first question was "How much extra per month would you pay to have all the power lines cleared back of trees so the outage doesn't happen again?" They started with $5, then $10, then $20, I said $5. Then they asked "How much extra would you be willing to pay per month to have the power lines put underground to prevent future outages?" They started with $50... I stopped them right there and said no way. Heck my bill is barely above $50 in the summer with the A/C running why would I want to double it just to prevent a short power outage, even the 12 days I was without power during the ice storm isn't worth that much to me to prevent it.

If these cars begin to burden the power grids you can bet they will either raise your bills to cover the upgrades or raise taxes to cover them. Actually raising the bills would probably be more efficient since you wouldn't have like five layers of bureaucracy eating away at the total money taken in.


RE: um..
By gregpet on 4/26/2011 1:35:04 PM , Rating: 2
There is excess capacity at night which is when you will be charging a Volt...My understanding is that power companies are excited about electric cars because now they will be selling electricity at night that would normally be bled off...


RE: um..
By TheRoadWarrior on 4/26/2011 4:06:07 PM , Rating: 2
Your electric bill is on just over $50 a month in summer with A/C on??? Where on earth do you live???


RE: um..
By Taft12 on 4/25/2011 3:34:54 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
So right now anyone owning an electric vehicle and laughing at us suckers with ICE powered vehicles as we pay at the pump...savior it


You can savior whatever you want, but I'll savior Jesus!


RE: um..
By Black1969ta on 4/27/2011 12:50:04 PM , Rating: 1
Hey spelling Nazi....
Next time you want to correct a person's spelling maybe you should check a grammar book first.

You cannot savior Jesus
You are not anyone's savior, even if Jesus is your savior.

And the least you could have done for the initial poster would have been to spell the word correctly yourself.


RE: um..
By Nutzo on 4/25/2011 5:15:07 PM , Rating: 2
Several states are already considering an extra tax on Electric cars (every year or based on miles driven), since they don't pay gas tax. Most of these states also want to include Hybreds, as they use less gas, and of course pay less in gas taxes.


RE: um..
By Masospaghetti on 4/26/2011 2:45:25 PM , Rating: 2
An electric vehicle is much more efficient (in terms of total energy consumed) than a gasoline vehicle. Also, grid produced energy is cheaper and more efficient than energy produced by liquid fuels. THIS is how savings will be passed on to the consumer.


RE: um..
By MartyLK on 4/25/2011 12:45:41 PM , Rating: 2
Hehe...what I was thinking. And at 40 miles on a charge, there was a lot of downtime.


RE: um..
By gregpet on 4/26/2011 1:32:16 PM , Rating: 2
No down time at all...You run out of electricity and you start burning gas...Most people don't drive further than 40 miles per day so you charge at night...


RE: um..
By Uncle on 4/25/2011 12:48:38 PM , Rating: 1
All I know is if the people get on the band wagon with these vehicles the rest of us will be paying 10 to 15 dollars a gallon or more because the oil companies will jack up the price to make up for lost income at the pumps, capitalism at its best.


RE: um..
By mmcdonalataocdotgov on 4/25/2011 12:54:41 PM , Rating: 4
Actually, capitalism at its best dictates that as demand drops, prices drop, all things being equal.

Also, as to "The Volt is technically neither a hybrid or a pure EV," the Volt is a plug-in parallel hybrid, based on the hybrid system's design. The ICE drives the wheels directly >=70 mph.


RE: um..
By jackstar7 on 4/25/2011 1:09:53 PM , Rating: 2
Please keep in mind that supply can be controlled and decreased to maintain a favorable cost/gallon for all involved... well, except for the consumer/commuter.


RE: um..
By Solandri on 4/25/2011 3:46:30 PM , Rating: 3
Not in a competitive market, it can't. Say one company tries to raise prices by artificially decreasing the supply they make available. They tell half their customers, "sorry no more gas, you'll have to come back tomorrow." All that will happen is another company will swoop in and pick up those customers the first company left stranded without gas.

In a competitive and dynamic market, the chance of supply being controlled is about as likely as the chance of demand being controlled. To manage supply-side control, there has to be collusion on a grand scale like OPEC. And even OPEC has limited success getting its members to stick to their agreed-upon quotas.

A much more likely scenario is suppliers posing as customers to bid up prices on fuel shipments, as is suspected to have happened during the oil price run-up in 2007. No change in supply, but the illusory increase in demand raises prices.


RE: um..
By acer905 on 4/25/2011 1:25:34 PM , Rating: 3
Incorrect, the Volt is actually a hybrid series-parallel vehicle, because it has the ability to only ever drive using the ICE as a generator, but can also directly connect the wheels. The only thing that tells the system to do so is the computer, reprogram it and you could always be a parallel hybrid, or always be a series hybrid.


RE: um..
By Dr of crap on 4/25/11, Rating: -1
RE: um..
By randomly on 4/25/2011 4:23:01 PM , Rating: 5
shhhh.
Don't champion your love of ignorance so loudly.


RE: um..
By Dr of crap on 4/25/11, Rating: 0
RE: um..
By Masospaghetti on 4/26/2011 2:39:48 PM , Rating: 2
Who cares what it is.

There aren't any other vehicles on the road that match its efficiency and flexibility. Toyota has had over ten years of evolution with their Prius and GM completely trumps it with a first generation system.

Face it - the Volt maybe be expensive, but its the best thing we have to reduce fuel consumption.


RE: um..
By Dr of crap on 4/27/2011 8:43:50 AM , Rating: 2
WRONG!


RE: um..
By Masospaghetti on 4/27/2011 9:46:03 AM , Rating: 2
Thanks for sharing your PROFOUND insight with the rest of us.


RE: um..
By gamerk2 on 4/25/2011 1:36:45 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Actually, capitalism at its best dictates that as demand drops, prices drop, all things being equal.


Only if there is meaningful competition that would force the price to decrease, or a significant enough drop is sales where dropping price would increase profit [via increasing sales].

As oil is not sold based on price compeitition, and since sales of all EV's won't significantly affect demand, prices will be unaffected.


RE: um..
By JediJeb on 4/25/2011 3:38:03 PM , Rating: 3
True, oil has never really followed the supply/demand curve since the supply side can be/is manipulated to keep the price at a level desirable to the producers. Seems if demand drops, they supply drops more so that even will less volume sold the amount of money coming in to the suppliers remains relatively constant. The whole reason OPEC was formed was to keep one country from undercutting the rest and taking away market share.


RE: um..
By Uncle on 4/25/2011 5:10:40 PM , Rating: 2
Tell that to the shareholders who are betting on the price to go up so their shares go up. Capitalism at its best.


RE: um..
By Alexvrb on 4/25/2011 10:18:47 PM , Rating: 3
At those higher speeds both the ICE and the electric motor can power the wheels. They do this because it is more efficient to do so at those speeds. Look at its transmission, its a very interesting setup.


RE: um..
By MartyLK on 4/25/11, Rating: -1
RE: um..
By Arsynic on 4/25/2011 1:09:50 PM , Rating: 5
My IQ dropped 5 points after reading your incoherent babbling.


RE: um..
By ClownPuncher on 4/25/2011 1:13:53 PM , Rating: 5
... and 9/11 was in inside job handled by the Illuminati and the NWO.


RE: um..
By Nutzo on 4/25/2011 4:59:21 PM , Rating: 1
I'm sure that is why gas was only $2 per gallon when Obama took office, and why it's now $4. Must all be Bush's fault.


RE: um..
By ClownPuncher on 4/25/2011 6:16:25 PM , Rating: 2
Damnit, not only is Obama/Bush a Kenyan Wahhabist Socialist Nazi, he also controls the price of oil!


RE: um..
By YashBudini on 4/25/2011 11:17:54 PM , Rating: 2
Is there anything he can't do? Look at the way he showed Wall St and BP who's boss. (Clearly not him.)


RE: um..
By Schrag4 on 4/25/2011 12:56:51 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
All I know is if the people get on the band wagon with these vehicles the rest of us will be paying 10 to 15 dollars a gallon or more because the oil companies will jack up the price to make up for lost income at the pumps, capitalism at its best.


Actually if supply stays the same and demand significantly reduces, prices should reduce as well. But take my words with a grain of salt, I'm not wearing a tin-foil hat so I can't be trusted.


RE: um..
By Hulk on 4/25/2011 1:02:55 PM , Rating: 5
1. Initial owners of this type of technology are generally really into it and it is fun for them to charge as often as possible to achieve high mpg figures. "Normal" people that don't enjoy this game won't plan ahead so much and use it like a normal IC only car. Hence mileage will be lower for most people.

2. If charging is accomplished at night, and most of it is, then electric companies are more than willing to shed this extra electricity at current rates or lower. Unless they are hydro they can't ramp up and down capacity quickly so they generally waste a lot of electricity at off peak. We may need some sort of internet communication among chargers to coordinate demand, supply, and grid capacity but we have the technology to implement that rather easily.

3. The number of these vehicles on the road is not enough to make a dent in current demand of gas. And if there were enough on the road to make this happen gas prices would go down as supply increased. That's simply economics. Or some of the oil that is currently going to cars would go to diesel powerplants, thus powering vehicles just the same but in a more efficient manner since one big diesel generator running steady state is more efficient than 200,000 small IC's (in cars).

4. It takes roughly 10kWHr to charge a Volt fully, 12 when you consider loss of efficiency. At 15 cents/kWHr that's $1.80 and that will take the average owner 35 miles (give or take). Miles per kWHr is generally between 3 and 4 for electric vehicles depending on temperature outside (use of heat) and driving style. Still gas would have to be about $1.80/gallon for a 35mpg car to achieve the same cost efficiency.

5. While the greenhouse gas production per mile for an electric car is lower due to the high efficiency of electricity production (hydro, nuke, and yes even coal and diesel are very efficient at mass quantities) we don't know the total "green-ness" due to the battery production (and other electric parts) and disposal/recycling. Or at least I haven't read any hard evidence. And modern IC engines are very, very clean.

Not for or against series, parallel, or fully electric vehicles. Just wanted to point out some facts that are worth knowing if you're going to make informed opinions.


RE: um..
By jharper12 on 4/25/2011 2:10:05 PM , Rating: 2
Fantastic reply!

Yes, this is good for power companies, as it will typically smooth consumption. That will make it less wasteful to bring new power production online to meet peak demands, and will ultimately mean less firing of those expensive natural gas turbines for peak demand.

We don't matter when it comes to gas prices any more... look to China. Our gas consumption is estimated to drop from here on... but prices are still rising. Why? US car penetration, 98%, China, 6%. As the developing world gains access to cars, expect gas prices to jump significantly. EVs are too expensive for the developing world.

At the moment we pay well under $0.10 per kwh in Georgia. If you are a GA Power customer you pay up to $0.0867 per kwh. GA Power will pay you $0.174 per kwh for solar energy production though, because that also alleviates peak power demands. In other words, if you buy enough production to cover 1/3 of your usage, your net bill will be near zero. For me, that's about $8k up front. So for $8k I can pretty much not have a power bill, and avoid most of my gas bill. That sounds like the future to me.

By the way, even if you don't care to do solar power, that's still only $1.04 for a full charge here in Atlanta. Even with the air blasting that will take you 35 miles. When I drive, I typically drive 60-100 miles. So that means on any given day I'll use .675 to 1.75 gallons of gas or 88.8 MPG to 57 MPG. Georgia also has its own EV credit, but it remains to be seen whether or not Volt owners will get that $5k. That's $12,500 in total credits. Suddenly the Volt is looking very economical here in Atlanta. The city with the highest per capita gas spending just two years ago.

I'm probably going to wait until next gen, but only because I have a general aversion to buying new cars in the first place. I'm a total believer in the technology though, I know first hand it works and works well.


RE: um..
By JediJeb on 4/25/2011 3:50:01 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Georgia also has its own EV credit, but it remains to be seen whether or not Volt owners will get that $5k. That's $12,500 in total credits.


So does the government just hand you the money at tax time or is it simply applied to reduce your taxable income? If the latter is true, then will you truly save $12,500 when you purchase an EV/Hybrid or just save some money on your taxes next year?


RE: um..
By Nutzo on 4/25/2011 5:18:45 PM , Rating: 2
No, the Government doesn't have money of it's own, only what it takes from the taxpayer. So they are handing you other people's money, making us all poorer in the long run.


RE: um..
By Belegost on 5/3/2011 5:40:40 PM , Rating: 2
That's wonderful, if you have $0.15/KWh power rates. Where I am, the 'high-use' tier rate is $0.31/KWh (and if you're charging a car every night, you'll end up in that tier.) Now 12KWh costs $3.72, and drives the same 25-50 miles. Taking the average in that range is 37.5 miles, so about $0.10/mile. Gas prices here are at the $4.15/Gal level, so that 35MPG car runs for $0.12/mile.

Doesn't seem so exciting now...


RE: um..
By Spuke on 4/25/2011 7:12:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
4. It takes roughly 10kWHr to charge a Volt fully, 12 when you consider loss of efficiency. At 15 cents/kWHr that's $1.80 and that will take the average owner 35 miles (give or take). Miles per kWHr is generally between 3 and 4 for electric vehicles depending on temperature outside (use of heat) and driving style. Still gas would have to be about $1.80/gallon for a 35mpg car to achieve the same cost efficiency.
Except quite a few of us don't live in 12 cents/kWh states. Some of us have tiered rates regardless of whether it's day or night. Yes, there are special rates available for EV's BUT the best rates (~15 cents/kWh) are ONLY available if you have a second meter which can cost a couple of thousand to you're not allowed to install one period. I really do appreciate the info posted but this is most certainly NOT a one size fits all situation and should not be approached as such.


RE: um..
By Hulk on 4/26/2011 10:47:53 AM , Rating: 2
No matter how impartial you try to be when posting there will always be ONE person who finds some teeny tiny way to come down on the poster.

Okay so for YOU, who somehow didn't understand that 15 cents/kWHr was just an example I should have wrote "for example if..." instead of what I wrote which was obviously a "one size fits all example" of "at 15 cents/kWHr."

Somehow a bunch of other posters were able to extrapolate my example to their current electric rates to help allow them to make informed opinions regarding Volt usefulness in their area.


RE: um..
By Reclaimer77 on 4/25/2011 10:32:03 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
All I know is if the people get on the band wagon with these vehicles the rest of us will be paying 10 to 15 dollars a gallon or more because the oil companies will jack up the price to make up for lost income at the pumps, capitalism at its best.


Well if we ever see mass adoption of EV's and Volt's, we're going to be in serious trouble. We'll have to resort to burning gas straight up to generate enough power for the grid. So in that case, the gas companies should make it up in the end.

And this really has nothing to do with Capitalism because of the INSANE government subsidies for buying a Volt and of course the Governmental takeover of GM and forcing this thing to the market in the first place. If Capitalism were being used, Gm and the Volt would have to sink or swim based on what the CONSUMERS wanted, not the Government telling everyone what they want and paying people to buy cars that they want them to.


RE: um..
By YashBudini on 4/25/2011 11:37:23 PM , Rating: 2
The way it's suppose to work "in theory" is when the government wants something new to get rolling (become commercially viable, common place, and affordable) subsidies would reduce the time it takes to reach this point, see "economies of scale." Once achieved such subsidies are no longer required and should cease. Note this is theory with significant problems:
1. Those enjoying the gravy end of the subsidy don't want it to stop. This is far more people and groups than just what's relevent to this article.
2. It's the government, ergo "temporary" is not a well understood concept. There used to be a "temporary excise tax" on tires that started in WWII. Let's just say it ran a couple of 2, 3, what? Decades after the end of the war before the tax finally ended?

Suppose the government had used this approach correctly and successfully for large screen TV's (yes it's more far fetched than even science fiction or the Comedy Channel could conceive.) Such TV's could have dropped in price in far less time (assuming production could keep pace with demand). I chose this as something you may actually want.

While many are not interested in such vehicles this same technique could be useful to advance LED lighting more quickly. Unfortunately combining the words should, could, and would with government tend to leave real taxpayers with the sh!t end of the stick. This too may be something that you, everybody would want. Really low cost lighting.

Nobody has mentioned anything about how some utilities offer 2 rates with special meters. With "peak" and "non-peak" rates wouldn't total running costs be substantially lower?

Also - For its limited electrical range how many batteries do I need on something the size of a Suzuki Burgman to achieve the same results?


RE: um..
By Masospaghetti on 4/26/2011 2:56:39 PM , Rating: 2
Subsidies certainly have their problems and I agree, usually they should be avoided.

But the only time they make sense is to get new technology over the "hump" - the startup phase where R&D expense and low volumes make it expensive. And while there is abuse from those on the "gravy" end, as you call it, it's better than doing nothing and never having the new technology emerge and develop.

With the Volt, personally i think the vehicle would have succeeded without the tax rebate. There are enough people out there that are willing to pay for REAL cutting edge technology. Seriously - would you rather pay for a high tech powertrain or silver-buffed leather and wood trim?


RE: um..
By YashBudini on 4/26/2011 11:05:36 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
But the only time they make sense is to get new technology over the "hump" - the startup phase where R&D expense and low volumes make it expensive.

That's the justification, whether used correctly or not is another story.

I'm not too interested on becoming addicted to Chinese rare earth materials, but maybe that's just me.


RE: um..
By wallijonn on 4/27/2011 2:26:43 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If Capitalism were being used, GM and the Volt would have to sink or swim based on what the CONSUMERS wanted, not the Government telling everyone what they want and paying people to buy cars that they want them to.


What consumers want? No, consumers want what marketing says they want. How do you think SUVs became the choice to buy? Marketing.

Ever watched the documentary "Who Killed the Electric Car"?

I have no problem with Government using the carrot on a stick approach. It's either that or the whip.


RE: um..
By YashBudini on 4/27/2011 8:36:02 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It's either that or the whip.

Ssssshhhh. Don't give this group any ideas.


RE: um..
By stimudent on 4/25/2011 1:23:23 PM , Rating: 2
That would save me about $175/month on gas.


RE: um..
By Pneumothorax on 4/25/2011 4:08:51 PM , Rating: 2
The Volt would save me about $25/month vs. my current diesel expenditures on my 335d. Unlike the rest of you guys who pay a measly 15c per kwh, I'm perpetually stuck paying 31c per kwh at SCE Tier 5 rates.


RE: um..
By Nutzo on 4/25/2011 5:11:00 PM , Rating: 2
California's/SCE's high rates (mainly due to the green mandates) are going to climb even higher. After the law Brown just signed, they are estimating SCE prices will climb another 30%. @ $.31 per kwh, that's $3.72 to recharge, and with this increase that's $4.84 to charge your Volt. Might be cheaper to just use $4/gal gas.

20 years from now if they ask who killed the electric car, it won't be the oil companies, it will be the Democrats in Sacramento, and the crazy high prices we are paying for electricity.


RE: um..
By gixser on 4/26/2011 12:56:25 PM , Rating: 2
Historical analysis of California's high electricity prices. Indeed air quality and emissions (green mandates) look to be at least partially responsible.

http://www.pacificeconomicsgroup.com/jad/Books/204...


RE: um..
By BSMonitor on 4/25/2011 2:37:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
GM cites the total driving range of the Volt as 379 miles on a tank.


Try reading the article.


RE: um..
By Shadowmaster625 on 4/26/2011 8:35:45 AM , Rating: 2
nope. Electricity comes out of a plug in the wall. The plugs in the wall cost 99 cents at the hardware store. Therefore electricity costs 99 cents. Is that fuzzy enough for ya?

Seriously though... 3417 miles is only $400 in gasoline. If he's driving so few miles a day why even bother spending so much on a vehicle?


RE: um..
By Masospaghetti on 4/26/2011 2:51:11 PM , Rating: 2
It's obvious the Volt, even at $4 gallon gasoline, is not the most economical choice. But the same argument was used with the Prius first came out. The first generation of pretty much anything is not economical because you are paying for the high R&D expense of developing an entirely new drive system. But the point is that the next generation, and the one after that, will eclipse pure gasoline vehicles.

Besides, there's plenty of people that don't buy the most economical vehicle. Personally, I would much rather pay extra for a revolutionary new powertrain than to pay extra for acres of leather, twenty-way adjusting head rests, 20 speaker sound systems, or 20 inch chrome wheels.


Solar or wind powered charging station anyone?
By Rob94hawk on 4/25/2011 12:54:44 PM , Rating: 2
If this is indeed true then I wonder if it's possible to create your own wind or solar charging station at home?




RE: Solar or wind powered charging station anyone?
By kattanna on 4/25/2011 12:59:01 PM , Rating: 2
unless you work at night so the car can be at home during the day to charge, solar isnt much use there. now at an office parking garage so it can charge during the day while your at work, could work.

and wind.. good luck getting permission to stick a tall turbine in your backyard.


By HotPlasma on 4/25/2011 1:16:16 PM , Rating: 3
If you used a grid-tied system, you wouldn't need to be home during the day to see a benefit. The solar or wind power would just help to offset your electric usage from nightly charging.


RE: Solar or wind powered charging station anyone?
By vazili on 4/25/2011 1:51:32 PM , Rating: 3
or...

you have your solar system charging batteries and then when you plug your volt into that it just draws power from the batteries...


RE: Solar or wind powered charging station anyone?
By Nutzo on 4/25/2011 5:21:47 PM , Rating: 2
Less efficent than a simple grid connected system.

Not only do you have the cost of the batteries, you loose 10% or more of the power during the charge/discharge of the batteries. You would be better off spending the $ on more solar panels instead of batteries.


By Spuke on 4/25/2011 10:06:20 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Less efficent than a simple grid connected system.
You'll need a TON of expensive batteries to charge at 12kWh. Not to mention, losses from conversion from AC to DC via an inverter. I agree, grid-tie is the most efficient in this case.


additional factors?
By zoogoober on 4/25/2011 12:52:19 PM , Rating: 3
How long do these people spend plugged into the grid? How often are they plugging in? I know these numbers exist somewhere but they may not be easily accessible. However they are very important to me when considering things like this.




RE: additional factors?
By gregpet on 4/25/2011 1:49:55 PM , Rating: 2
My understanding is that it is about 8 hours to charge the volt. You can also program the volt to only start charging at certain times - like if your power company gives you reduced rates for off-peak charging...


By kattanna on 4/25/2011 12:55:29 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It’s become a game to achieve as many miles as I can in EV mode,” said Steve Wojtanek, a Volt buyer in Boca Raton, Florida. “I have made it my goal to drive as efficiently as possible and I am seeing the results


the one thing that has annoyed me about a few prius drivers is how some, thankfully not most, seem to pay more attention to the MPG rating screen on the dash then they do to the actual road. and you can usually see them from a distance.. that distracted driver look.




By CharonPDX on 4/25/2011 5:16:37 PM , Rating: 2
I will admit to nearly crashing at least half a dozen times in the first few months of owning my Prius (2004.)

They should have that screen turn only be visible for a few seconds at a time until the car has passed 5000 miles.


By CharonPDX on 4/25/2011 4:18:32 PM , Rating: 2
I love how Chevy likes to use that photo, taken in front of my work, to show off the Volt charging.

Yet they STILL don't sell it in Oregon.




By CharonPDX on 4/25/2011 5:15:15 PM , Rating: 2
But there is a Leaf parked there right now. (With a "For Sale" sign in the window, even...)


I Wonder...
By mmatis on 4/25/2011 3:56:21 PM , Rating: 2
how many miles they get between fire department runs? But what the hey, what's a couple of fires between friends, as long as you can brew that fresh hot black tea...




By RamarC on 4/25/2011 8:47:57 PM , Rating: 2
and his "efficient" driving in the fast lane!




Solar panels
By macca007 on 4/26/2011 12:13:32 AM , Rating: 2
I read a post stating panels are increasing in price due to demand, Ummm that aint right at least where I am, It has been dropping every year and yes thanks to cheap Chinese goods, I would guess it has dropped at least 10% each year if not a lot more than that. While on the other hand electricity bills have increased and are continuing to increase by 10-20% depending on your state and supplier, I am speaking about Australian conditions here not US. Only thing that doesn't make sense is the stupidly high prices of the cars, They are being sold way above sticker price which means it defeats the whole purpose of saving money on fuel. Also for the most part I would say for the average joe the proper retail price is still $10k too high for most.
Plug in hybrid like volt between Au$20k-30k and I am sold(yes I can dream can't I). :)




apples to oranges but
By aguilpa1 on 5/2/2011 2:30:25 PM , Rating: 2
I fill up only every 45 days also. Granted it is a 22 gallon tank and not a hybrid of any type but I don't drive very far from work either. It is also paid for obviously no payments and no waste on manufacturing expensive lithium ion batteries.

If you really want to be green buy a used car or keep your old one for at least 10 years.




Paying for the roads
By Dr.Death on 5/3/2011 12:26:01 PM , Rating: 2
Okay so that get many miles per gallon more. Who is going to pay for the roads they drive on? The tax comes from gas not electricity. I say keep them off my road/paid by taxes/ until they pay their fair share.




annoyed with you people
By Queonda on 4/25/2011 2:46:58 PM , Rating: 1
I love how every article on DT is followed by a hundred goddamn naysayers with their heads up their conservative asses. For christ's sake people, quit choking on progressivism!




Capitalism
By hiscross on 4/25/11, Rating: -1
Safety
By p05esto on 4/25/11, Rating: -1
RE: Safety
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 4/25/2011 1:16:40 PM , Rating: 2
Today's cars are VERY safe. Why should I buy a pickup and/or a three-row SUV when it's just me and my wife? It's stupid and wasteful for us to get such a beast.

Now if it's a vehicle that fits your needs, that's fine. But not everyone fits into the pickup/SUV mold.

As for my car, it gets 22 in the city and 33 on the highway and it gets top marks all around (IIHS Top Pick) in crash tests:

Frontal Offset:
http://www.iihs.org/ratings/rating.aspx?id=1302

Side Impact:
http://www.iihs.org/ratings/rating.aspx?id=1304


RE: Safety
By HotPlasma on 4/25/2011 1:17:42 PM , Rating: 2
I ride a motorcycle so my opinion is moot.


RE: Safety
By omnicronx on 4/25/2011 1:24:09 PM , Rating: 2
You do realize a 2 door Tahoe only weighs ~700lbs more than a Volt right?

I live in Canada and all I have to say is on the snowy days I see far more SUV's crossovers in the ditch than I see cars.

I find this mainly to be a case of bad perception, thinking that somehow these vehicles can be driven as usual in any condition.

Cars have become heavier and heavier over the years, and much of that is due to the safety features that have been implemented. (though in the Volts case the battery surely impacts the curb weight)


RE: Safety
By kingmotley on 4/25/2011 1:38:36 PM , Rating: 2
20% extra is quite a lot when talking about vehicle weight.

45% extra for the 4-door Tahoe.


RE: Safety
By gregpet on 4/25/2011 1:54:08 PM , Rating: 2
Where do you buy a two door Tahoe? Are we talking like 1990s Tahoes? I own a Tahoe and have never seen a 2-door...


RE: Safety
By BSMonitor on 4/25/2011 2:41:09 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You do realize a 2 door Tahoe only weighs ~700lbs more than a Volt right?


There have not been 2 door Tahoe's in over 10 years.


RE: Safety
By joex444 on 4/25/2011 2:38:38 PM , Rating: 1
As long as you're being ridiculous, what makes you think it's okay to drive a self-described very heavy vehicle that will murder people? If you value human life -- rather than just your own -- why won't you trade it in for something safer to society?


RE: Safety
By jfelano on 4/25/2011 3:27:19 PM , Rating: 2
Everyone on this forum is missing the point. It's not about how much you pay in electricy, or how many fuel taxes your paying or not paying, it's about decreasing our nations reliance on foreign oil.

Hello ??


RE: Safety
By Dr of crap on 4/25/2011 3:38:14 PM , Rating: 2
Yea, that's good thinking, but judging by the amount of speeders, and the amount of pickups, SUV, and big sedans on the road,
no one cares about the need to get off foreign oil!


RE: Safety
By Nutzo on 4/25/2011 5:30:44 PM , Rating: 4
We would do alot more to reduce our reliance on foreign oil if we would start drilling for our own oil.

A few weeks ago, Obama made a big deal about how Brazil is now energy independant, pointing to thier ethonol and other "green" energy programs. What he failed to say, is that the real reason is that Brazil has increased thier domestic oil production by over 800% the last several years.
All the Green energy in Brazil is still only a few percent of the total.


RE: Safety
By Dr of crap on 4/27/2011 8:48:20 AM , Rating: 2
Wrong Brazil runs on sugar cane ethanol. Brazil, if I remember correctly, uses no imported oil.
The green part is that they make their own gas.

Drilling for our own oil do NOT solve anything!


RE: Safety
By Dr of crap on 4/25/11, Rating: 0
RE: Safety
By JediJeb on 4/25/2011 3:59:55 PM , Rating: 1
Problem is if you have a crash between a well built small car and a poorly build SUV, the occupants of the car may well have a higher chance of survival than the occupants of the SUV. Sheer weight does not equal survivability. Angle of impact, relative speeds, design of vehicle ect matter more to survivability than weight does.

Little tiny car spins, hits something and goes air born and ends up in your windshield, the car driver survives and you die, simple as that.


RE: Safety
By mmatis on 4/25/2011 8:14:02 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, right! Looks like you're one of those fools making Uncle Sh!+head's regs. As long as there is any significant difference in vehicle weights, even the insurance companies admit that survival is more a factor of vehicle weight than safety rating.


RE: Safety
By Belard on 4/25/11, Rating: 0
RE: Safety
By acer905 on 4/25/2011 11:11:57 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Our oil money feeds terrorist or repressed govt and creates dependence with these countries.


Damn those Canadian Terrorists... oh... wait... that doesn't sound right...

http://www.eia.doe.gov/energyexplained/index.cfm?p...

I guess one could argue Canada being a repressed gov though...


"Death Is Very Likely The Single Best Invention Of Life" -- Steve Jobs














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki