Print 121 comment(s) - last by .. on Aug 30 at 8:49 AM

Nissan LEAF
Nissan tells GM to take a hike with mpg bragging rights

Earlier today, DailyTech reported that the Chevrolet Volt will be rated at 230 mpg in the city thanks to its hefty lithium-ion battery pack (good for a 40-mile range) and "range extender" gasoline engine/generator. The Volt is said to be good for 100+ mpg when the city and highway driving ranges are combined.

Although General Motors and the EPA have yet to disclose how exactly the 230 mpg figure is calculated, GM did provide the following nugget of information in today's press release regarding the Volt's fuel economy:

Under the new methodology being developed, EPA weights plug-in electric vehicles as traveling more city miles than highway miles on only electricity. The EPA methodology uses kilowatt hours per 100 miles traveled to define the electrical efficiency of plug-ins. Applying EPA's methodology, GM expects the Volt to consume as little as 25 kilowatt hours per 100 miles in city driving. At the U.S. average cost of electricity (approximately 11 cents per kWh), a typical Volt driver would pay about $2.75 for electricity to travel 100 miles, or less than 3 cents per mile.

Taking that methodology into consideration, Nissan is now taking the opportunity to rain on the Volt's parade with some lofty EPA numbers of its own for its new LEAF EV. Nissan even went so far as to take a swipe at the Volt's $40,000+ price tag.

"Nissan Leaf = 367 mpg, no tailpipe, and no gas required. Oh yeah, and it'll be affordable too," noted the company on its NissanEVs Twitter page. Nissan went on to backup the previous statement adding, “To clarify our previous tweet, the DOE formula estimates 367mpg for Nissan LEAF."

Nissan boasts of the higher mpg rating because its LEAF features a 24 kWh lithium-ion battery, while the Volt makes do with a 16 kWh lithium-ion battery. This gives the LEAF a battery-only range of 100 miles compared to just 40 miles for the Volt. However, the Volt has the advantage of being able to rely on its generator to travel an additional 300 miles -- something that Nissan cannot say about its LEAF EV.

The trash talking has begun, so it should be an interesting battle in later 2010 when both the Chevrolet Volt and the Nissan LEAF hit U.S. roads.

Comments     Threshold

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

Actuarial Jiggery-Pokery
By MrPeabody on 8/11/2009 2:28:30 PM , Rating: 4
"Nissan Leaf = 367 mpg, no tailpipe, and no gas required."

So we can apply MPG values to batteries now? Hm. The UPS under my desk is basically a big battery. I wonder how many miles per gallon it gets. Maybe, if I take it into a dealership, I can get $4,500 towards a new UPS.

RE: Actuarial Jiggery-Pokery
By Brandon Hill on 8/11/2009 2:35:27 PM , Rating: 4
How do you think that GM is getting 230 mpg? It certainly isn't by using the gasoline engine much at all.

230 "miles per gallon" is based on it tapping the battery for 40 miles and the gas engine for 11 miles for a total of 51 miles altogether.

Nissan is simply saying, if you're gonna base your EPA ratings mostly on the using the battery, why can't we?

RE: Actuarial Jiggery-Pokery
By weskurtz0081 on 8/11/2009 2:42:25 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe because the Nissan isn't using any gas to create mileage while the GM vehicle is?

The GM vehicle IS getting a certain amount of mileage out of a certain number of gallons of gas used, the Nissan isn't. There are natural gas power plants which don't consume by the gallon, but never heard of a gasoline power plant.

RE: Actuarial Jiggery-Pokery
By adiposity on 8/11/2009 3:29:11 PM , Rating: 5
Right, so theoretically the Nissan is getting infinite MPG. Which means, anything between 0 and infinity is a reasonable claim. Sure, it gets MORE than 367 MPG, but they are just understating it a bit. :)

It makes as much sense as the Volt, because the Volt is using a CHARGED battery as part of the calculation. If they used an empty battery, then the MPG would make sense and could be compared to other hybrids and non-hybrids (how far can you go using the energy from 1 gallon of gas). If you get to add in power from another source, it's just retarded and makes no sense.

If I push my car for a mile, and drive it for a mile, I double my MPG. Yay!


RE: Actuarial Jiggery-Pokery
By mdogs444 on 8/11/09, Rating: -1
RE: Actuarial Jiggery-Pokery
By adiposity on 8/11/2009 4:07:13 PM , Rating: 5
Fine, I will splash some gasoline on the wheel, now can I say I get 99999 MPG? Yeah, I know it's retarded, so is inflating your MPG with a battery charged from another source.


RE: Actuarial Jiggery-Pokery
By Spuke on 8/11/2009 4:29:23 PM , Rating: 2
The EPA makes this decision, it's not up to the manufacturers.

RE: Actuarial Jiggery-Pokery
By adiposity on 8/11/09, Rating: -1
RE: Actuarial Jiggery-Pokery
By Souka on 8/11/09, Rating: -1
RE: Actuarial Jiggery-Pokery
By ianweck on 8/11/2009 8:46:07 PM , Rating: 5
2. If cruzing at 60mph in the Volt...would being on just the gas engine, or a gas+electric generator provide the best MPG? (remove the battery from this test..)

I was under the impression that gas generators are more efficient than ICEs due to the generator being able to run at the most efficient RPM setting. If that's true, then I would guess the gas+electric would be the best way. Is that reasonable?

RE: Actuarial Jiggery-Pokery
By MrPoletski on 8/12/2009 5:50:42 AM , Rating: 2
Yes that is completely reasonable. You are correct, there are more benefits than just running at the most efficient RPM though.

RE: Actuarial Jiggery-Pokery
By AngryNJ on 8/12/2009 9:24:43 AM , Rating: 2
The volt never "runs" on the gasoline engine. The volt ALWAYS runs off the battery. The gasoline engine is used to keep the battery charged.

RE: Actuarial Jiggery-Pokery
By tjr508 on 8/12/2009 1:25:18 PM , Rating: 2
It sort of is when the EPA and GM are both run be the executive branch of our government...

RE: Actuarial Jiggery-Pokery
By gunzac21 on 8/15/2009 4:37:42 AM , Rating: 2
While you my know EPA policies on this sort of thing, they actually have not yet rated the mpg themselves (this is GM's mpg number). The "charged battery" could just be a ploy by GM to slightly inflate numbers for short term advertising sake (which is common with car makers). But if u know that starting with a charged battery is part of EPA policy then I take back my skepticism.

RE: Actuarial Jiggery-Pokery
By foolsgambit11 on 8/11/09, Rating: -1
RE: Actuarial Jiggery-Pokery
By adiposity on 8/11/2009 6:04:55 PM , Rating: 5
In case you didn't know, 0 divided by 0 is also not defined. So it does not get 0 MPG, it gets an undefined MPG.

But technically the method being used here does assign a certain amount of "use" of fuel for electric. It's just much, much lower than the equivalent amount of gasoline.


RE: Actuarial Jiggery-Pokery
By pnyffeler on 8/12/2009 7:54:30 AM , Rating: 5
Chuck Norris can divide by zero.

RE: Actuarial Jiggery-Pokery
By namechamps on 8/11/2009 3:28:40 PM , Rating: 5
You are missing the point.

The point is to allow the consumer to compare:
conventional ICE
plug in hybrid
extended range EV
pure battery EV
hydrogen vehicle

using a single standard.

i.e an EV w/ 360 mpg(e) is going to have 1/6th the "fuel cost" of a gasoline engine with 60mpg rating.

Sure they could say 0.2 kwh per mile instead but does that help the consumer any?

RE: Actuarial Jiggery-Pokery
By drmo on 8/11/2009 4:01:33 PM , Rating: 4
I think you are right. It seems like they are converting to a virtual MPG. So they are using a conversion of kWh to MPG based on how much the different fuels/electricity cost (and then how far the car can go under battery alone.)

Those who are arguing about how it doesn't use gas so it doesn't have any MPG are technically right, but are missing the point made in the article.

RE: Actuarial Jiggery-Pokery
By Entropy42 on 8/12/2009 10:57:10 AM , Rating: 2
I would much rather see the following become the standard.
If a car can run solely off its battery, tell us the miles per kWh.
If it can run off a gas engine (even if its just charging its battery), tell us the mpg.
If it can do both, tell us both.
Otherwise we are left guessing what the EPA thinks our driving habits will be, and how far we will drive in a single trip.

RE: Actuarial Jiggery-Pokery
By bhieb on 8/12/2009 12:09:10 PM , Rating: 3
Otherwise we are left guessing what the EPA thinks our driving habits will be, and how far we will drive in a single trip.

And how is that different that comparing 2 regular gas vehicles using EPA numbers? It is just an estimate under a set condition used only for comparison purposes only. It is NOT a formula that has to be 100% perfect, we are not calculating the volume of a cube here there is not a 100% right formula, since no 2 car trips will be the same.

Confusing the standard by adding sub divisions would complicate things even more, and make comparing a gas/hybrid/electric/Volt completely impossible, thus making all of the numbers irrelevant.

RE: Actuarial Jiggery-Pokery
By itzmec on 8/11/09, Rating: 0
RE: Actuarial Jiggery-Pokery
By MrPeabody on 8/11/2009 3:48:49 PM , Rating: 3
Sure, I get it. I don't disagree that GM is partially responsible for this nonsense.

However: if I own a Volt, I can put x gallons of gas in it, then drive it until it stops. I can then measure the distance I've driven, divide that by x gallons, and get a value for MPG that's at least somewhat useful. In other words, with a Volt, I know that I'll need to buy so many gallons of gas if I want to travel so far.

Yes, I'm aware that this isn't exactly what GM is doing for their three-digit MPG number. But I presume that they're still basing that number on some combination of Distance-Traveled/Gallons-Consumed. So it's still at least a little meaningful.

With a Leaf, which is a silly name for a car, I'm not putting any gas in the car. Declaring any kind of value for MPG is pointlessly confusing.

RE: Actuarial Jiggery-Pokery
By Spuke on 8/11/2009 4:32:58 PM , Rating: 4
Yes, I'm aware that this isn't exactly what GM is doing for their three-digit MPG number.
GM isn't doing anything for this rating, this is an EPA figure. Automakers don't decide what mpg rating they get in the US, the EPA decides it. And the MPG rating that the Volt RECEIVED was GIVEN to them by the EPA.

RE: Actuarial Jiggery-Pokery
By adiposity on 8/11/2009 4:39:27 PM , Rating: 3
With a Leaf, which is a silly name for a car, I'm not putting any gas in the car. Declaring any kind of value for MPG is pointlessly confusing.

Yes, it is. And despite your statements, it is just as confusing for the Volt. The fact that gasoline is including in "some combination" only makes it that much more confusing. Now we have to decipher their combination formula.

The bottom line is, neither are using 100% gasoline consumption as the basis for consumption part of the formula. They are using a hybrid formula, where part of the MPG can be calculated from energy that doesn't come from gasoline.

If GM's half of the formula that calculates MPG from electricity is valid for GM, it is valid for Nissan. Too bad for GM, Nissan doesn't have the other half of the formula.

Of course, if GM wanted to inflate their mileage even more, they could measure if for a 40 mile range. If they wanted to decrease it more, they could measure it for the 100 mile range. And that's the whole problem with the measurement. They take their battery mpg, which is super high, and combine it with a few real MPG, and suddenly the number is supposed to make sense. But the number of miles for each is arbitrary. And zero is as valid as 20.


RE: Actuarial Jiggery-Pokery
By foolsgambit11 on 8/11/2009 5:44:35 PM , Rating: 4
if I own a Volt, I can put x gallons of gas in it, then drive it until it stops. I can then measure the distance I've driven, divide that by x gallons, and get a value for MPG that's at least somewhat useful.
Is it useful though? Call the distance driven 'y'. First, are we assuming a charge in the battery? If we are, without approximating its 'gallon equivalent', then the amount of charge will change 'y'. Furthermore, depending on how much gas you put into the car (assuming you start with some charge in the batteries), the distance 'y' you can drive will result in wildly different MPG ratings.

For instance, if you start with an uncharged battery and a full tank of gas, you may see 50 MPG (+- 10?). But if you start with a fully charged battery and .00000001 gallons of gas, you'll make it about 40 miles (40 miles/.00000001 gallons = 4 billion MPG). So how is your methodology at all helpful if it results in answers that are about 8 orders of magnitude different?

Given how difficult the process is, and how new the technology is, the EPA has done a pretty good job of standardizing a methodology that roughly approximates real world driving conditions and allows for a number people can use to compare the energy efficiency cars. And it turns out that electricity is more efficient than gasoline per unit energy stored (but much less efficient by volume).

MPG ratings were already skewed before this issue came up - diesel is a different fuel than gasoline, and would get higher MPG ratings due to the greater fuel density. Consumers owe it to themselves to be informed not only of the EPA's MPG numbers, but of their methodology and how that will affect their actual cost of ownership.

RE: Actuarial Jiggery-Pokery
By rs1 on 8/11/2009 4:05:05 PM , Rating: 4
How do you think that GM is getting 230 mpg?

Isn't this answered by the quote you included in your own article? It looks like what they basically did was say "one gallon of gas costs about $2.75, and one kilowatt-hour of electricity costs about $0.11, so therefore 25 kilowatt-hours of electricity is equivalent to one gallon of gas". Then they just extrapolated from there (hopefully at least taking into account their charging efficiency and so on) to reach their estimate.

I still don't think that's an accurate way of doing things, but at the same time it's not quite as half-assed as your comment suggests.

RE: Actuarial Jiggery-Pokery
By adiposity on 8/12/2009 12:22:46 PM , Rating: 3
They should do miles per dollar, then. Neither the price of gas nor the price of electricity is fixed. You'd have to re-index every week in this country to be accurate!


RE: Actuarial Jiggery-Pokery
By Keeir on 8/11/2009 4:32:09 PM , Rating: 1
Actually... this is really confusing

The method your suggesting does yield ~250 mpg for the Volt, (40 miles of battery + 1 cycle of non battery)

but Nissan says the DOE method yields 367 mpg for them... which makes no sense, since the same method can not be applied.

If we use Energy Equivalanet, both the Leaf and Volt, when in battery mode, are ~160 miles per energy of 1 gallon of gasoline.

If we look at cost, at .11 cents per kWh versus 3.00 dollars per gallon of gasoline, its more like ~100 Miles per 1 gallon cost.

RE: Actuarial Jiggery-Pokery
By foolsgambit11 on 8/11/2009 5:55:26 PM , Rating: 1
Your 'energy equivalent' rating of 160mpg for 1 gallon equivalent of battery power must be wrong. There's no way for 160mpg + (some smaller mpg rating for the gasoline phase of the Volt) to equal out to 250 mpg. Or anything over 160mpg. My guess would be the 'energy equivalent' ratings for both the Volt and the Leaf are about 367 mpg on electricity. And Nissan just said that, given the same distance traveled by the Volt, they are still at 367 mpg, while the Volt's rating goes down for every mile over 40. And Volt simply countered that after about 100 miles, the Volt is still going. They both have good points and bad points. It just depends on your driving habits which one (if either) fits your lifestyle.

RE: Actuarial Jiggery-Pokery
By Keeir on 8/11/2009 7:38:40 PM , Rating: 2
See, thats just wrong however

1 gallon of gas containts ~ 33.4 kWh of energy. On 33.4 kWh of energy a Volt/Leaf can travel ~160 miles (40 miles per 8 kWh) (Pure gaslone btw would be ~36.5, but the stuff sold at the pump is more like 33.4, even if we use this number however, we still have ~170)

Far more likely this is the method used

On LA04 cycle, the car is driven until out of battery. Then 1 additional cycle is completed. Total use of gasoline over this distance is the MPG.

So for the Volt, lets assume it can travel 40 miles, then gets 50 mpg after that. It would then travel ~51 miles using .22 gallons of fuel for a combined rating of 231.8 mpg. Seems reasonablely close to the reported figure.

Maybe, the Leaf assumes you will travel 100 miles and then 1 EPA city cycle ~36 mpg (why this number no clue) for 111 miles and .3 gallons used and thus 367 mpg!

Its very confusing at this point...

RE: Actuarial Jiggery-Pokery
By Keeir on 8/11/2009 9:36:50 PM , Rating: 1
I have thought some more about this and I guess this is as good of a place as any to detail.

Electric Car Efficiency has an issue. The issue is that there are many ways to measure efficiency.

#1. Battery to Wheels. This is similar to calculation to MPG in that EPA tests measure -direct- consumption of gasoline only.

A Volt gets 40 miles to 8 kWh for a BTW efficiency of 200 Wh/mile or a MPGe of 167.4.

#2. Plug to Wheels. Due to regulations that news cars be leak proof, this is essentially the same things as MPG in EPA testing. But in early cars this would be a gas pump efficiency. My car apparently (if the trip computer is correct) losses about 3% of the gasoline through leakage. Lithium Ion batteries often have very high efficiencies. Sometimes higher than 99%. Lithium Ion typically have very low self-discharge. For the purposes of this comment, I will assume total leakage from Lithium based batteries is ~5%.

Volts Plug to Wheel efficiency= 159 miles per gallon

#3. Generation to Wheel efficiency.

Here is where it gets complicated. The source of the electricity matters a great deal is this type of equation. However, to be as pessimistic as possible, I will assume 100% Coal produced at the average efficiency today, ~0.35 (Check DOE). I say this is pessimistic as possible because a new coal plant would have significantly higher efficiency. Average Natural Gas and new Natural gas do as well. Nor am I counting the ~30% of electricity that is produced from non-fossil fuel sources. Transmission losses have been estimated by the DOE at ~7% So including a reduction factor of 0.93

Volts Generation to Wheel efficiency = 51.2 MPGe

It is important to note that a Toyota Prius relies on the refinement and distribution of gasoline. Its Generation to Wheel efficiency is 51 mpg * .83 = 42.33 MPGe

More realistically, if we look going forward, Combined Cycle plants with efficiencies of ~60% can be run off of fuel oil. A substance very similar to Diesel/Gasoline.

In such a situation, the Volt will be propelled 88 miles from a single gallon of fuel oil, which is a huge improvement over the 35 mile that fuel oil would propel a TDI.

RE: Actuarial Jiggery-Pokery
By HotFoot on 8/13/2009 6:52:49 AM , Rating: 2
There's little point getting that complicated unless you're also going to throw in other consumables, such as the degredation of the battery, for which there's no equivalent in purely fossil-fuel based vehicles. Actually, you might as well just do a total cost of ownership for the full life-cycle of each vehicle and publish a $/km value based on an average vehicle life of, say, 250,000 km.

The thing is, things are getting complicated, and folks seem to want the simplest possible way to look at something - one number to rule them all. Forever shall technically-minded people be bending over backwards to help the commonfolk understand.

RE: Actuarial Jiggery-Pokery
By Screwballl on 8/11/2009 4:41:20 PM , Rating: 2
I wish their site was up so I could get exact number, but everything here is from memory:

They say the Volt is expected to be able to travel for around 300 miles on a full tank of gas. The gas tank is expected to be around 8 gallons.

If you look at raw numbers, 300 / 8 = 37.5 Miles per gallon of gas.

So 300 miles minus 40 miles for fully charged battery = 260 miles driven.
260 miles divided by 8 gallons = 32.5 miles per gallon

Another way to look at it is say the gas engine runs out of gas but the car can still run on battery only for another 30 miles.

So 300 - 40 - 30 = 230 miles driven with gas engine assistance
230 / 8 = 28.75 MPG

Either way it is still better than most vehicles on the road but using a 24kWh battery pack instead of a 16 should increase these numbers greatly, we would be looking at around 350-360 miles.
Raw number means 350 / 8 = 43.75MPG

RE: Actuarial Jiggery-Pokery
By Keeir on 8/11/2009 5:02:52 PM , Rating: 2
Ummm... right except the goal was 400 miles, not 300.

So 400/8= 50 mpg.

or 360/8= 45 mpg.

Goal was to Match the Second Generation Prius in City/Hwy modes without Battery power....

RE: Actuarial Jiggery-Pokery
By Screwballl on 8/11/2009 8:25:23 PM , Rating: 3
400 was the goal but the latest numbers from their website showed that at release it would most likely be 280-300.

RE: Actuarial Jiggery-Pokery
By ianweck on 8/11/2009 8:53:19 PM , Rating: 2
Due to a smaller gas tank. I thought the final number was a 6 gallon tank?

RE: Actuarial Jiggery-Pokery
By nevermore781 on 8/11/2009 5:37:34 PM , Rating: 2
Im excited to see what actual real world MPG or MPKw actually works out to be. I bet none of these "calculations" take into account someone running their heater, radio, ipod, iphone, netbook, gps or any other plugin device to and from their destination. Im sure your range decreases the more you're running other electric devices off the same batteries the motor is running off. Granted the new prius has the option to run the fans off solar cells, but i doubt AC can be ran off solar and that would probably be the biggest drain on a battery next to the heater.

RE: Actuarial Jiggery-Pokery
By Samus on 8/11/2009 8:47:12 PM , Rating: 3
my rc car can go over a mile on a full charge and its batter is only (using ohms law 2.6amps*7.2v) 18.72 watts. thats like 1/50th of a kilowatt. Not even very aerodynamic and no regenerative breaking.


RE: Actuarial Jiggery-Pokery
By Nik B on 8/12/2009 8:14:05 PM , Rating: 2
If your battery is 7.2 V and 2.6 Amp-Hours, then the computation you've done is correct, except for the units, as 18.72 Watts is a measure of power (which is a per-time-unit quantity, like speed or velocity) whereas total energy in your battery might be 18.72 Watt-Hours, which is a absolute quantity (this is how much the battery has in it. The Watts measurement is just how much your car might be able to put out at any given time. I'm guessing that you're probably at 18.72 Watt-Hours, based on typical RC values. :D

But yes, mile for mile, your RC car might be more efficient on a straight track compared to the LEAF's EPA numbers, especially if you have nice brushless motors and are driving on a smooth track without slowing down. It just depends on the regimes that the cars run in.

The EPA numbers count driving patterns with merging and reasonable amounts of slowing and accelerating if I'm not mistaken, which makes the car perform worse relatively.

I wouldn't be surprised if you could go significantly more than 100 miles (not just 100+) in the LEAF if you were going straight highway driving without stopping--but that depends a lot on the transmission and gearing from the electric motor to the ground.

RE: Actuarial Jiggery-Pokery
By darkblade33 on 8/12/2009 8:24:54 AM , Rating: 2
My biggest thought is they need a new system to show total cost of driving since mpg is not well compared.

Example.. how often will people plu in the volt to the ouutlet to charge it like I saw on the news to get that full 40 miles on electric. How fast does the engine charge the battery since most city drivers will use mostly electric. Is my home 'electric bill gonna go from $100 a month to $250 ?? Paying a 30k or 40k loan over 5 yrs with interest over paying for a $20k also is another money factor.

230mpg is great.. but not if my car payment is $650 a month bersus $275

RE: Actuarial Jiggery-Pokery
By sweatshopking on 8/11/09, Rating: -1
RE: Actuarial Jiggery-Pokery
By gstrickler on 8/11/2009 5:22:30 PM , Rating: 3
We need to stop using MPG, it's become almost meaningless even in the context of gasoline powered vehicles simply because of the cost difference of regular, midgrade, and premium gasoline and the switch from 10% MTBE to 15% Ethanol. Add diesel, CNG, propane, E85/Flexfuel, biodiesel, hydrogen, hybrids (anything using two or more power sources), fuel cell generators, and all-electric vehicles, and MPG becomes completely meaningless.

You can calculate mileage per unit for any of the above, and that's a good starting point, but, by itself, it's not very useful to the consumer. Measurement units vary, energy density varies, etc. Costs for each of those energy/fuel sources vary, and each pollutes in different ways. Some are renewable, others are not.

Likewise, you can calculate an energy efficiency rating, which is interesting, but not particularly useful to anyone other than the scientists and engineers. You can calculate pollution per mile, which is interesting to those concerned about the environment. Of course, each of those brings about the question, do we measure from the point at which the vehicle is charged/fueled (e.g. the "pump"), or do we try to include the production and distribution of that energy source? How do we measure those?

What IS useful to consumers is something that you can calculate from the energy usage per mile, and that's energy cost per mile. Since most/all automobiles in the US now include an estimated fuel/energy cost per year (based on xx miles per year) on the window sticker, that's the number we should be using for all vehicles, regardless of fuel/energy source. Estimated monthly fuel/energy cost would be even easier for consumers to understand, but that's easily calculated from yearly, so yearly can work.

You could also create a "pollution index" for each vehicle (which is based upon fuel type, vehicle efficiency, etc.), then consumers can make informed choices regarding pollution and the environment.

With energy cost per mile (or energy cost per month/year) and a "pollution index", consumers would have information necessary for them to make decisions based upon the factors that are most important to them: styling, luxury, performance, size, capacity, capability, monthly costs, and/or environmental impact.

Energy costs vary, so the cost estimate would have be be recalculated at least yearly, possibly more frequently, and the cost used in the calculation would need to be stated on the sticker. That's currently shown on the stickers that state estimated annual fuel cost, so it's viable to do so.

Multi-fuel and plug-in hybrids are a bit harder because you have two or more different energy/fuel sources with varying costs and varying usage ratios. But this would at least get us something that's far more useful and informative than a completely bogus "230MPG" rating.

RE: Actuarial Jiggery-Pokery
By lco45 on 8/12/2009 1:30:36 AM , Rating: 2
Even better would be miles per dollar.

The figure could be calculated using the average fuel or electricity costs at the time the vehicle is released.

At the end of the day, the only thing that really matters to the consumer is how much it costs to drive the vehicle. Everything else is just swings and roundabouts.

Imagine how simple it would be:
Vehicle A : $28 per 1000 miles
Vehicle B : $63 per 1000 miles
Vehicle C : $128 per 1000 miles

eg. my Jeep Grand Cherokee uses around 18 litres per 100km, and fuel in Australia is around $1.20/l.
So it costs $21.60 per 100km.
I drive around 20,000km per year, so the car costs me $4320 per year (ouch).

Rather than mileage it would help me (when buying) to know that a car was $21.60/100km, and that the equivalent Volt or whatever was $2.50/100km, based on the cost of elecricity at the time.

The consumer would then be free to simply choose which vehicle gives them the least cost by using the initial cost of the vehicle, plus a per-mile cost for the number of miles they normally drive per year.

It wouldn't be future-proof, because a sudden spike in fuel or electricity prices would change the values, but it would be better than usually imaginary 'gallons' to describe the efficiency of a car that has no fuel tank...


RE: Actuarial Jiggery-Pokery
By MrPoletski on 8/12/2009 5:55:36 AM , Rating: 1
I'm sure the GW crowd will be happy with miles per MOTHER EARTH DEATH RATTLE ;)

RE: Actuarial Jiggery-Pokery
By gstrickler on 8/12/2009 3:10:46 PM , Rating: 2
If you use cost/1000mi (or 1000km in most of the world), I agree. Don't make the consumer have to do much math, many of them aren't good at it. The number reported has to be something that gives the average consumer a quick way to estimate his monthly cost. Since the "average" driver in the US supposedly drives about 12000mi/yr, a cost per 1000mi gives a decent approximation of monthly fuel costs. Some drivers may have to divide by 2 or multiply by 2, 3, 4, or 5, all pretty easy to do in your head.

Even though it's trivial to do, ask 20 people to multiply by 500, 1000, 2000, 3000, 4000, 0r 5000 in their head and they will fail, so giving an estimated cost/mi would be too complicated for the average consumer. Do it in units of 1000mi/1000km and most people can handle it easily.

RE: Actuarial Jiggery-Pokery
By Hiawa23 on 8/12/2009 8:47:00 AM , Rating: 2
I watched CNN last night they said the gasoline engine in the Volt power's a generator & after the first 40miles on straight electricity the gas motor kicks in & recharges the generator which recharges the battery. If the Volt even gets the mileage they are claiming I think that's amazing in itself, plus the Volt atleast looks pretty good & doesn't look like the ugly Prius, or the one Honda makes, plus it's made by GM. If the claims GM is making are off a few miles the Volt still is an amazing piece of technology. I drive 60 miles a day, my 06 Mitsu Lancer Ralliart goes 260-270 miles to the tank, my 1997 Honda Civic goes 300, my fuel bil was running $80-100 a month, now with the gas companys again shafting us this month's bill is $139, so if the Volt is what GM claims that will be amazing for alot consumers in 2010. Forget Nissan, buy American.

RE: Actuarial Jiggery-Pokery
By Starcub on 8/12/2009 12:10:59 PM , Rating: 2
CNN only got it partly right. Even GM's exec got it wrong. The Volt will run completely off the battery for 40 miles. After that, the gas engine will turn on and run the generator which powers the motor. If the gas engine/generator produces more electricity than is necessary to drive the motor, that excess will be stored in the battery. However, in practice, maximizing the efficiency of the gas engine requires that the electricity be used up as much as possible in running the motor. There are efficiciency losses in using the gas engine to charge and discharge the battery.

Apples and Oranges
By MozeeToby on 8/11/2009 2:24:59 PM , Rating: 1
This is really comparing apples and oranges in my opinion. At least the Volt is capable of completely replacing the vehicle I own now; the LEAF, with an effective maximum 100 miles per day, is not. Hell, I could strap an electric motor to a bycicle and probably get the equivilent of 1000 mpg, that doesn't mean I should try to advertise my product with those numbers as though it were the same as a full size vehicle.

RE: Apples and Oranges
By Brandon Hill on 8/11/2009 2:29:01 PM , Rating: 5
The Volt is achieving its 230 mpg rating primarily on its 16 kWh battery being able to used for 40 miles (which should be enough to not have to tap the gasoline generator during EPA city testing).

Nissan is simply saying, if you're gonna brag about using the battery alone to inflate your numbers, we're gonna do the same.

Yes, it's a bit childish and yes it's not exactly apple to apples since the LEAF doesn't have a backup, it's an interesting argument to make given that the LEAF has twice the battery range and will cost like tens of thousands less.

RE: Apples and Oranges
By Mojo the Monkey on 8/11/2009 2:31:36 PM , Rating: 2
And i bet upgrading the system for improving battery technology might be as simple as swapping the batteries out - either for the new models or for the drivers who want to upgrade.

RE: Apples and Oranges
By Chudilo on 8/11/09, Rating: -1
RE: Apples and Oranges
By threepac3 on 8/11/2009 3:15:59 PM , Rating: 2
Reading comprehension anyone?

RE: Apples and Oranges
By Brandon Hill on 8/11/2009 3:16:11 PM , Rating: 2
You've got your numbers reversed. The Leaf has a 24 kWh battery. That explains its longer battery only range.

RE: Apples and Oranges
By adiposity on 8/11/2009 3:18:01 PM , Rating: 2
Check your facts :) It says right here in the article that you're replying to, that the Volt has a 24kWh battery. It's the Leaf that has a 16kWh battery.

No, it doesn't. It says the opposite (or at least it does now):

Nissan boasts of the higher mpg rating because its LEAF features a 24 kWh lithium-ion battery, while the Volt makes do with a 16 kWh lithium-ion battery

In any event, the Volt has a 16 kWh...


RE: Apples and Oranges
By Brandon Hill on 8/11/2009 3:21:44 PM , Rating: 2
The article text never was changed. He/she just misread it :)

RE: Apples and Oranges
By adiposity on 8/11/2009 3:24:25 PM , Rating: 2
Heh, thought so. :)

Never can be sure, I wish those who make corrections would at least acknowledge them. Silent corrections run the risk of not being seen by those who already read the article, and also strange wordplay arguments like this one :)


RE: Apples and Oranges
By krichmond on 8/11/2009 3:37:46 PM , Rating: 5
Yea this is not Jason Micks article

RE: Apples and Oranges
By gstrickler on 8/13/2009 1:09:14 AM , Rating: 2
Also, GM only allows the Volt to use about 50% of it's 16KWh battery in order to maximize the useful life of the battery. That's why it only has a 40 mi range despite having 2/3 the battery capacity of the LEAF. Limiting the battery usage in this way limits the range on a single charge, but allows many more charge cycles for a longer total battery life.

RE: Apples and Oranges
By dragonbif on 8/11/2009 3:27:30 PM , Rating: 2
Because buying 2 cars (LEAF for city and one fore travel) is more cost effective then buying a 1 do all $40,000 car. Not that I am going to buy a Volt but still it looks better then the LEAF.
One more thing that is not noted is how much do these cars weigh? The LEAF looks like what it is called, a leaf; and the Volt looks like a normal car and has a gas engine with a gas tank. I bet if you pulled the gas engine and the gas tank out of the Volt it could go more then 40 miles on the battery.

RE: Apples and Oranges
By BladeVenom on 8/11/2009 3:49:31 PM , Rating: 2
Most families have two or more cars. Typically only one would need to have long driving range.

RE: Apples and Oranges
By Spuke on 8/11/2009 4:24:30 PM , Rating: 2
Nissan says it will be "competitively priced in the range of a well-equipped C-segment vehicle". According to the US EPA, a C-segment car has an interior volume anywhere from 100-109.9 cubic feet. The Ford Fusion and Toyota Camry have around 101 cu ft so I expect the Leaf will be in the $25k to $30k range. I think it will be closer to $30k because that's the "well-equipped" pricing for that class.

RE: Apples and Oranges
By Keeir on 8/11/2009 6:06:14 PM , Rating: 2
I am pretty sure Ford Fusion and Toyota Camry are "D-Segment" Cars.

Your quoting the Interior Volume number for those cars, but the "Interior Volume Index" number used includes Luggage Capacity (which seems silly... but thats how its used)

In that case, the Ford Fusion for instance, EPA has passenger volume at 101 but the Interior Volume Index is 117.

In Comparison, the "C-segement" Ford Focus has an Interior Volume of 93 and a Interior Volume Index of 107.

However, I don't disagree with your statement. A 24 kWh Lithium Manganese Spirel Battery would cost more than 18,000 if produced by LG. Even if Nissan has significant savings over this figure, your still looking at a single component costing as much as most "C-Segement" cars.

RE: Apples and Oranges
By Spuke on 8/12/2009 6:52:23 PM , Rating: 2
Even if Nissan has significant savings over this figure, your still looking at a single component costing as much as most "C-Segement" cars.
Well, if that's the case, the Leaf would still cost around $25k because that's the upper end of the C-Segment. Still not cheap enough for the DT set.

RE: Apples and Oranges
By Bateluer on 8/11/2009 2:29:06 PM , Rating: 2
You drive more than 100 miles per day?

My daily commute is less than 50, and I do a lot of driving to and from work. If I need to drive to Prescott or Flagstaff, I'll call Enterprise.

RE: Apples and Oranges
By Nfarce on 8/11/2009 2:39:00 PM , Rating: 4
My commute around metro Atlanta is 45 miles one way (not unusual for the area). Unfortunately I can't afford the half million dollar plus homes closer to the city where my office is. This is the case for a lot of Americans in and around major metropolis areas.

RE: Apples and Oranges
By Shlong on 8/11/2009 3:20:30 PM , Rating: 2
45 miles one way? You can get good $150k - $300k homes in the Alpharetta, Dunwoody, Roswell, Duluth, Lilburn, Norcross, Marietta, Suwanee, Lawrenceville areas. And these places are just 10 - 30 miles from city center.

RE: Apples and Oranges
By Nfarce on 8/11/2009 8:22:33 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe I should have been more clearr: good luck finding a new three-sided brick 3,000+ s.f. home in Alpharetta with a decent lot, basement, and square footage in the $150k-$300k range. Not even close. Roswell is even worse and Dunwoody is an older part of town comprised mainly of older homes. You won't find a decent new home in those areas under $400k. I've lived in Duluth/Norcross areas and don't like the area in general. Besides, I like living somewhere with trees, a little land, and a separation between my neighbor wider than 6-10 feet. To do that closer in, you've got to pay double, triple, or even more.

RE: Apples and Oranges
By weskurtz0081 on 8/11/2009 2:38:57 PM , Rating: 2
I drive more than 100 miles a day, and it's almost all in Houston. It's not all stop and go in the city because I am taking some of the major freeways to work, but it's almost almost all in Houston, to and from work, and back and forth to school. 41K miles on my car in 1 year.

So, yeah, it's not uncommon for your daily commute to be well outside the range of the Nissan.

RE: Apples and Oranges
By daenku32 on 8/11/2009 2:51:35 PM , Rating: 4
No. It IS still uncommon. You are just a very uncommon driver.

And I say this as a person who will be driving 50+ miles a day in the fall with school and work.

RE: Apples and Oranges
By invidious on 8/11/2009 3:07:23 PM , Rating: 2
How could Nissan have the audacity to make a vehicle that doesn't suit 100% of the publics needs?!

Seriously people shut up, no car is perfect for everyone. Some people live in the rain forest that doesn't mean every car should have high traction tires, 4x4 lo transmissions, and a tow cable. If your commute to work is an hour an a half then neither the volt or the leaf are meant for you.

I would like to see an electric vehicle that wasn't so battery dependant. Something along the lines of how the volt works once the battery is low. Just a standard combustion engine that drives the alternator which powers an electric drive train with a smaller battery as a buffer. If the Volt still gets 100mpg in this mode and you dont have to worry about replacing as huge of a battery every 5 years that sounds like a car I would be more interested in driving. You still get the regenerative breaking and the ability to keep a smaller engine at a more efficient lower RPM.

RE: Apples and Oranges
By Spivonious on 8/11/2009 3:13:08 PM , Rating: 3
Apparently the Volt gets about 50mpg once the battery runs out. The 100mpg figure is the average mpg it gets city/hwy.

RE: Apples and Oranges
By The0ne on 8/11/2009 5:01:33 PM , Rating: 2
When charging stations pop up, like those being set up here in San Diego specifically for the Leaf, You wouldn't have to worry, too much, about running out of juice. Granted if you drive more than 100+ miles a day you are not the average; you are the exception.

In addition to the charging station there are options for quick charges. Specifics weren't mentioned but if it does what you need then you'll be off risking your life on the 100+ mile drives again in no time. The catch is that these quick charge stations are 220V instead of your regular 110V. I'm excited and curious to see if SD&E/Honda will be successful in doing this.

RE: Apples and Oranges
By Keeir on 8/11/2009 5:50:24 PM , Rating: 2
When charging stations pop up, like those being set up here in San Diego specifically for the Leaf, You wouldn't have to worry, too much, about running out of juice.

Its important to note that the Charging stations compatabile with the Leaf will provide 80 miles of LA04 driving in 30 minutes. Also, the announced quick charge stations will use 440V (not 220V)

A Volt can use a gas station to get an extra 300+ miles in 5 minutes.

Both the Leaf and Volt can accept 220V inputs to reduce charging times. The Leaf will require roughly 8 hours of charging at 220V standard outlet to acchieve 100 miles.

RE: Apples and Oranges
By The0ne on 8/11/2009 6:31:03 PM , Rating: 2
Good to know some specifics. The NPR interview didn't really have much info other than SD&E and Honda teaming up for their upcoming Leaf release. I don't recall for the 440V charging however but I'll take your word for it since I'm clueless myself.

RE: Apples and Oranges
By Keeir on 8/11/2009 7:42:18 PM , Rating: 2
I would head over to Autobloggreen.

Initial reports indicate a three phase 440 V charging station which can provide fast charging at a price of ~45,000 per station.

RE: Apples and Oranges
By tjr508 on 8/12/2009 1:33:17 PM , Rating: 2
It should be way cheaper. I have a 480D forklift charger in my shop and it was quite cheap and good for 200A at 50VDC.

On a second note, why are people using voltage values that haven't been in use since the 1940s?

Single phase in USA: 120/240
3 phase: 240D/120 (open delta) 208Y/120 240Y/139 480Y/277

RE: Apples and Oranges
By MozeeToby on 8/11/2009 2:42:40 PM , Rating: 2
Daily, no, I don't drive more than 100 miles per day. But about twice a month I go to visit family or friends or go on vacations or whatever. If I owned a LEAF I would need a second car for that purpose; with the Volt and its built in generator I would not.

Even at $50 a day, 2 weekends a month, a rental car would cost me an extra $3600 a year. Not to mention all the hassle that goes along with renting. For that amount of money I may as well just buy a KIA for the long trips.

RE: Apples and Oranges
By adiposity on 8/11/2009 3:21:49 PM , Rating: 2
It's a great point about longer trips. The Volt would almost cover my commute (about 48 miles round trip), and the LEAF would easily cover it. But if I drive to SF, the LEAF isn't an option, where the Volt is. Also, the Volt will have no trouble with my 48 mile commute, it will just use a little fuel.

Still, when 98% of my driving is commuting, it almost seems like I could hitch a ride the few times I need to go to SF or further. Still requires someone with a non-LEAF car, though.


RE: Apples and Oranges
By Keeir on 8/11/2009 5:42:34 PM , Rating: 2
You drive more than 100 miles per day?

This is something that really needs to be addressed.

The Leaf's 100 mile range is project on the LA04 cycle. This is better known as the pre-2008 EPA city rating. It favors electric and Hybrid cars excessively.

If the Leaf were subjected to EPA 2008 tests, and the number of miles were calculated till "run out" it would be more like 90/70 (City/HWY) Excessive Cold or Excessive Heat or Excessive Weather will reduce this even further.

Furthermore, since the Leaf is using much more of its battery to accheve "100 miles", the Leaf will lose capacity over the years regardless of usage.

Tesla provides that thier Lithium Cobalt battery loses 70% capacity over 5 years/50,000 miles.

Even if we assume 2x the battery durability (Lithium Manganese Spirel is much much better than Lithium Cobalt)
The Leaf's 10 year/100,000 mile EPA ranges are likely to be more like 63/50 than 100 miles.

If you drive more than 40 miles between charging oppurtunities in excessive heat or excessive cold, the Leaf may not meet your needs for a reasonable "10 year" time frame.

RE: Apples and Oranges
By Spuke on 8/12/2009 7:12:11 PM , Rating: 2
The Leaf's 100 mile range is project on the LA04 cycle.
Why would Nissan do that knowing full well that the owners will complain (and possible litigate) if they don't get the 100 mile range?

RE: Apples and Oranges
By Mojo the Monkey on 8/11/2009 2:29:54 PM , Rating: 4
maybe not for you, but it might supplant one of the cares in a 2 person household. This could be a great commuter car for one person, while the other uses the gas car for the shorter (cheaper) daily commute or errands. That way, you still have one car for longer drives when necessary.

I am intrigued - or rather i WILL be if the price is right.

RE: Apples and Oranges
By Jeffk464 on 8/11/2009 2:54:54 PM , Rating: 2
Yup, the only way I see the leaf working is for a two car family. The leaf could be used by one spouse for commuting and the other car used for family trips and the other spouses all around car. But the leaf will need to be backed up with a second car and for one person this doesn't make sense at all. But still there is a huge market out there for two car families.

RE: Apples and Oranges
By rs1 on 8/11/2009 3:54:56 PM , Rating: 4
You're right, they are comparing apples and oranges, though not because they're comparing the Volt to the LEAF. The faulty comparison here is counting range traveled on battery power the same as range traveled with a gasoline engine when computing mpg. Neither car can come close to its rated mpg in real-world usage, which makes the inflated rating pretty meaningless.

If "miles per gallon (of gasoline)" is going to be the metric by which we measure our vehicles, then it should only be measured based upon when the vehicle is actually consuming gasoline. That puts the Volt's efficiency at about 50 mpg, and the LEAF's efficiency at 0 mpg, since it never uses any gas.

Alternately, if we want to start including range increases granted by including battery packs in electric vehicles, then maybe "miles per gallon" should no longer be the metric. Maybe we should start measuring "miles per kilowatt-hour", which would allow for combined ratings that accurately account for both the battery pack and the efficiency of the gasoline engine. Assuming, of course, that there is a known and accepted value for the amount of kilowatt hours contained in a gallon of gasoline if it could be converted to energy at 100% efficiency.

RE: Apples and Oranges
By andrinoaa on 8/11/2009 6:00:51 PM , Rating: 1
Surely we have outgrown this school yard BS. MPG is now defunct. Anyone who buys one of these cars is surely "in the know" and couldn't care less. Just knowing its cheaper to run and getting into a routine will be enough. Its like saying my penis is larger than your vagina, its total nonsense. As some one said, if its totally electric how do you get mpg? Total BS. Are you guys in america so STUPID or are you being taken for a ride by marketing geniuses? Don't answer that question, I hate to think what the answer is, lol.

RE: Apples and Oranges
By japlha on 8/11/2009 6:06:54 PM , Rating: 1
A new metric needs to be created.
Maybe "dollars per mile"? This way it doesn't matter what energy source is used.

RE: Apples and Oranges
By Dr K on 8/12/2009 10:46:40 AM , Rating: 1
Yes, dollars per mile would be a better metric than MPG. People would still complain about difference in the cost of fuel, whether it be gasoline, electricity etc. I'm not sure what the difference in electric cost is between the US and other countries, but I know gasoline is very different -- stray off on discussing socialist governments and taxes, shall we?

Well, back to dollars per mile. Running the numbers, it doesn't look like the Leaf vehicle reflects 367 MPG. My current vehicle gets about 20 MPG and gas costs about $2.50 per gallon. That means it costs me about $0.13 per mile. Comparing 20 MPG to the Leaf mileage of 367 MPG, the implication is that I should expect a reduction in my fuel cost by a factor of about 18. Well, if we do the advanced math, the Leaf vehicle can travel 100 miles on 24 kWh (full battery charge) and electricity is about $0.11 per kWh, which gives a result of about $0.026 per mile. That's about a factor of 4 reduction. Don't get me wrong, I think that's good, but it certainly doesn't support the expected 18X improvement based on the quoted MPG. I should also note that somewhat higher costs can be given for the Volt; again, no where near the implied improvement in MPG over my current vehicle.

It does seem that the evil marketing guys tend to rule the day until the evil lawyers come along. I wouldn't think there would be anything wrong with advertising an electric vehicle as getting the equivalent of 80 or 90 MPG -- what a simple calculation suggests is closer to reality. It's far better than the over-priced, over-hyped hybrids that eek out a few extra MPG while making the vehicle more expensive to buy, more complicated, more likely to fail, etc.

Knock Out
By Machinegear on 8/11/2009 2:43:11 PM , Rating: 2
The trash talking has begun, so it should be an interesting battle in later 2010 when both the Chevrolet Volt and the Nissan LEAF hit U.S. roads.

A car buyer can by a whole Nissan 'tree' for the price of one GM Volt.

The LEAF $15k price noted here:

I am not sure how much fight the GM Volt can put up, even with government bailouts, tax incentives, etc. having a $40k-ish price tag.

RE: Knock Out
By rudy on 8/11/2009 2:57:29 PM , Rating: 2
The volt is going to do fine. You will need to buy, insure and store 2 cars if you want the leaf, not bad if you have kids or an extra person, then the leaf is probably the way to go with a second car. But if you dont or do not want the hassle the volt is still a great car many people will use the battery exclusivly except on long trips.

RE: Knock Out
By Machinegear on 8/11/2009 3:04:07 PM , Rating: 2
I hope the Volt does OK. I would enjoy seeing the new techonology it has hit the road.

RE: Knock Out
By cabjf on 8/11/2009 3:54:51 PM , Rating: 2
You're still ignoring the cost. I figure it would take me ten years to recoup in fuel savings what I have to spend up front to buy the Volt. The Volt seems even more smug that the Prius: "Look at me, I spent a ton of money for a 230 MG rating!" The Leaf, on the other hand, costs about as much as a normal commuter car, can handle the range of the average round trip commute without shaving it too close, and would be perfect as a second car for the average family with (or without) kids.

RE: Knock Out
By smackababy on 8/11/2009 4:22:59 PM , Rating: 1
And you could buy a Kia for another $10,000 and still have spent less than the Volt...

RE: Knock Out
By Keeir on 8/11/2009 4:51:34 PM , Rating: 2
"The Leaf, on the other hand, costs about as much as a normal commuter car"

Hahahah... This is similar to Elon Musk saying his 50,000+ Model S is the same as a 35,000 Auto.

The Leaf will be in no way shape or form as cheap as a "normal" commuter car. The 24 kWh battery alone is the price of a "normal" car at optomistic 10,000 replacement cost "down the road".

More realistically, 30k is the entire price of the Leaf+Battery. 15,000 for the Car and 15,000 for the Battery.

Either the Volt or the Leaf will need to be driven significantly to ensure price parity is reached with comparable traditional cars. My analysis for each shows the Leaf will, for me, reach price parity much sooner than the Volt. However, If the battery for the Leaf is not warranties for 100,000 + miles to maintain a certain level of capacity, this introduces significant risk and potentially expensive replacement costs. The Volt battery system will be warrantied to work in the -same- fashion for 10 years/150,000 miles. Less risk, higher cost.

RE: Knock Out
By rudy on 8/11/2009 7:54:23 PM , Rating: 3
No I am not, if people only made cost based decisions there would be no place for BMW or Cadillac. The fact is as of current the Volt is the ONLY mass produced car of its kind that will give you the advantages of battery like the Leaf and the flexibility of a hybrid like the Prius or gas engine. For that they will be able to charge more and still sell 10s of thousands of vehicles a year. Chances are they will sell more then they can make for a while even. After that they can start bringing the platform to cheaper cars.

RE: Knock Out
By Starcub on 8/12/2009 12:19:30 PM , Rating: 2
You're still ignoring the cost. I figure it would take me ten years to recoup in fuel savings what I have to spend up front to buy the Volt.

Actually, the Prius takes about that long to recoup costs. The Volt is going to take significantly longer than that even if you figure in the tax credit. Most likely, the Volt will not be able to pay for itself over its useable lifetime. The car will probably be marketed to city dwelling yuppies, whom I would imagine might be interested in it, but probably very few could afford it at 40k+. At it's introductory price, it's going to be a huge risk I'm afraid. Personally, I think we should just have let GM tank.

RE: Knock Out
By Spuke on 8/11/2009 4:34:40 PM , Rating: 2
The LEAF $15k price noted here:
The Leaf will not be priced at $15k. See one of my other posts.

By Machinegear on 8/11/09, Rating: 0
By Nfarce on 8/11/09, Rating: 0
By Machinegear on 8/11/2009 3:09:05 PM , Rating: 2
Don't get me started. :-P

By lco45 on 8/12/2009 1:44:38 AM , Rating: 4
Oh yes, that nasty government.

Your government has been running your country for a few hundred years, and it seems to be going fairly well.
Last I checked the US was the wealthiest and most powerful nation on earth.

Which other country's government would you prefer? If you can't think of one then you're saying either:
1. I am ignorant of world politics and know nothing about other governments, or
2. The US Government is the greatest government on earth

Which is it, cutey?



By foolsgambit11 on 8/11/2009 6:00:51 PM , Rating: 3
At least there's a government entity trying to make a sensible number. Without it, corporations would have fudged their metrics to the point of uselessness long ago.

Both are BS
By Jovec on 8/11/2009 6:53:48 PM , Rating: 2
The only MPG numbers for the Volt people will car about are when the care is running completely off the gas engine (charging the battery). IE. "I can go 40 miles on the battery after that I get XX MPG until I can plug-in and recharge." The combined numbers are just marketing fluff.

RE: Both are BS
By VooDooAddict on 8/11/2009 9:55:30 PM , Rating: 2
Personally, I'd like to see 3 numbers. 1) This crazy high EPA combined number. 2) The internal combustion engine only N/A on the Leaf. 3) Battery only numbers (This would be the same as the Leaf.

The combined number is a relative energy cost of driving number to compare with existing more traditional cars.

The Battery only number could shed some major differences on the efficiency of the electric power design.

RE: Both are BS
By Spuke on 8/12/2009 2:12:00 PM , Rating: 2
2) The internal combustion engine only N/A on the Leaf.
The Leaf doesn't have a gas engine. Battery only.

And, what if...
By peebee on 8/11/2009 5:30:56 PM , Rating: 2
Anyone ever figure out exactly what's going to happen with these "MPG" figures when you kick the AC on in the middle of July?

RE: And, what if...
By IcePickFreak on 8/11/2009 6:04:46 PM , Rating: 2
Good point and one that is never addressed. I'd also like to see some testing in cold weather, in the mid-west it can be below freezing for a month or more at a time.

Or maybe with all this enviro-friendliness driving down the road it will be 68°F with 36% relative humidity at all times.

They are just confusing consumers
By Gentleman on 8/11/2009 2:24:58 PM , Rating: 2
My recycling the MPG for electric cars that don't have Gallons is misleading.

In a related matter...
By The0ne on 8/11/2009 4:55:13 PM , Rating: 2
Nissan with SD&E (San Diego Gas/Electric) is partnering up to create some charging stations here for the Leaf. That's good news if you're planning on buying one when it comes out. The bad news is I believe there are only 4 nodes planned. Volt I have no idea if they have anything similar at this stage. That's a plus Leaf IMO.

How it works is you charge your vehicle and it shows up in your electric bill :) Boy it's going to be fun seeing those electric bill numbers.

Dubious rating scheme
By rbfowler9lfc on 8/11/2009 10:23:39 PM , Rating: 2
This rating scheme proposed by EPA is next to useless, since it seems to be insuficcient to accurately determinate a car's running cost in either city or hwy cycles.

A much more sensible rating would be in terms of cost in $$ per mile ran. So it doesn't matter whether you're running 10 miles on electric and 40 on gas or the opposite. You just take the average cost of a kWh, then the average cost of a gallon of gas, figure it out how many of each you needed to run each test cycle, and then bingo, ratings in a fashion that actually tried to tell the customer something useful, not a whole load of marketing crap like the lemniscate MPG's we're about to see.

New comparison labels required
By Emma on 8/12/2009 1:25:08 AM , Rating: 2
Providing MPG for vehicles who get some/all of their power source via other means is silly.

Each type of energy source should have its own label. For a Volt, it would look like this:
Plug: 16kWh/40miles
Fuel: 55MPG

For a LEAF, it would simply be:
Plug: 24kWh/100miles

MPG What?
By robe1221 on 8/12/2009 9:21:34 AM , Rating: 2
I don't think it will matter anymore about MPGs, they are just using them in their announcements to outsell 100% gasoline vehicles which is a misleading advertising. Especially when you are only gonna be able to drive about 40 miles on one charge....pretty worthless for anything other than within city driving and based on a <20mile range from a recharging station.

Please check my maths.
By drycrust3 on 8/12/2009 2:15:08 PM , Rating: 2
Looking at the website

a normal car is considered to need (at the wheels) 20E+6 joules to drive 15 miles / 20 kilometres. To this we add another 6% for transmission losses and 10% loss for the electric motor (this car has no accessories), thus we get ... 23E+6 joules used. So, driving at a nominal 30 mph / 50 km/hr (engine isn't used when stationary), it would take 30 minutes to cover the 15 miles, thus the 23E+6 joules would be expended in 1800 seconds, thus using 12777 joules per second or 12.7 kw = 25Kw/hr (yes, I know my maths isn't to hot).

If my calculations are correct, regardless of the car type, a 1 hour drive use 25 kw to drive a car for at 30 mph / 50 km/hr or 50 kw to drive at 60 mph / 100 km/hr.

Come on
By cruisin3style on 8/14/2009 1:09:02 AM , Rating: 2
As usual I didn't read all of the posts but...

I realize dailytech is probably mostly frequented and posted on by logic driven technocrats and geeks like myself, but some of you really can't wrap your head around the idea that the MPG claims are simply to help the consumer understand what kind of dollar amount it will cost them to "power" the cars?

Sure, another standard would be better. Maybe a Miles Per Dollar or something.

But really, come on. This is like measuring how good sex with your friend's moms are. Sure, one might have screamed loud enough to validate giving her an exhaust ticket had her mouth been in Virginia, and another might have sprayed her juice all over with legs-a-shaking. But if you just tell me how many times, with each mom, you were able to forget that even her taint had wrinkles on it, doesn't that really say it all?

So yes, zero divided by zero is undefined...great. Now if i could just direct your attention to this equation that expresses your sex life...

By on 8/22/2009 11:56:31 AM , Rating: 2

(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


By on 8/30/2009 8:49:25 AM , Rating: 2


(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

Great, but...
By alkalinetaupehat on 8/11/2009 8:42:37 PM , Rating: 1
I'm still not going to buy it. It looks like crap and has a sassy marketing team backing it up.

-1 to Nissan for another retarded appliance-thing-car. Let me know when they make the Skyline look gay so I can formally bury my hopes and dreams, as they're already working on screwing up the Z-series.

SO .......
By upster on 8/12/2009 5:23:20 PM , Rating: 1
How much fossil fuel is required per KWH? That's your MPG rating.

By Blood1 on 8/11/09, Rating: 0
By TomZ on 8/11/09, Rating: 0
I'm confused
By IcePickFreak on 8/11/09, Rating: -1
"Can anyone tell me what MobileMe is supposed to do?... So why the f*** doesn't it do that?" -- Steve Jobs
Related Articles

Most Popular ArticlesTop 5 Smart Watches
July 21, 2016, 11:48 PM
Free Windows 10 offer ends July 29th, 2016: 10 Reasons to Upgrade Immediately
July 22, 2016, 9:19 PM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki