Chevy Volt to pull 230 mpg in city
WARREN, Mich.--The gas-electric Chevy Volt will get triple-digit mileage, including an estimated 230 mpg for city driving, General Motors said Tuesday.
The 230 mpg--teased in a stealth advertising campaign on billboards and during baseball games--is based on a draft methodology for electric vehicles developed by the Environmental Protection Agency, GM CEO Fritz Henderson said here.
The struggling auto giant held a media event to offer an update on its product and technology plans as it tries to stimulate sales following a bankruptcy and restructuring that has left it 60 percent owned by the U.S. Treasury Department and 11 percent owned by Canada.
GM CEO Fritz Henderson at company's Tech Center in Warren, Mich.
(Credit: Martin LaMonica/CNET)Henderson said that GM is confident that the combined highway and city mileage for the Chevy Volt, due to go on sale in late 2010, will be in the triple digits. Expressed in electrical terms, the performance will be 25 kilowatt-hours for 100 miles.
"Having a car that gets triple-digit fuel economy, we believe, will be a game changer for us," Henderson said.
Other plug-in electric sedans are also expected to have triple-digit fuel efficiency once they come to market. The all-electric Tesla Motors' Roadster, which is available now, advertises triple-digit fuel economy as well.
The EPA model is being developed for cars used in different climates and a mix of electric and gas driving conditions, GM executives said. City mileage will be better for the Volt because the extended-range electric power train runs for 40 miles on battery alone and then uses an internal combustion engine to recharge batteries.
The cost of fueling a Volt will be significantly less than gassing up at the pump, Henderson said. In Detroit, where off-peak electricity rates are 5 cents a kilowatt hours, it will cost about 40 cents to recharge batteries overnight.
On the cost of the car itself, Henderson said that GM has not priced the Volt but that it will be expensive because it is a first-generation product. Unconfirmed estimates are said to be around $40,000.
The car will qualify for a $7,500 federal tax credit and GM is working on bringing down the cost of future generations of the Volt, particularly the battery system, he said.
Martin LaMonica is a senior writer for CNET's Green Tech blog. He started at CNET News in 2002, covering IT and Web development. Before that, he was executive editor at IT publication InfoWorld. E-mail Martin. 
40k is not bad and this car more then enough pays for its self at the gas pump. Imagine driving to florida from michigan for $30 instead of $240
Florida from Michigan is more than 40 miles. After that it would be the highway fuel economy that has to be factored in. I love the car, and that suggested city fuel economy, but unfortunately that particular scenario doesn't have anything to do with city mileage.
I don't see why I should be buying you a car--if you think it's worth the actual cost then pay for it, otherwise wait until it's more economically feasible.
Hell, why not have them lower the price of the 100k Tesla to 5k and then everyone can drive one! Also, make minimum wage $50/hour so we'll all have plenty of money...
In other words, the EPA, working with their now state owned car company GM, is going to cook the books in order to rejigger the impact of this car so much that it lowers the fleet CAFE standard for the entire GM line, making it easier to meet the tougher restrictions that everyone faces. Then they will mandate X number of these cars be purchased by Federal agencies, to make sure enough are sold to keep this scam going.
230mpg is a fake number. But that's how this government rolls, baby...
"Just more of the feds taking money from someone who earned it to buy votes from someone who didn't."
Not really. It's called "ramping up" new technology. Or how do you think we got $10 polyester jeans if the technology needed to created them need more than a billion (today's money of course) during WWII to be developed. It was thru subsidies and other forms of leverage.
No new technology would ever survive if it weren't for Venture capital, seed money and other incentives.
Get Real please...
You hit the nail on the head. Can't believe the lack of outrage over this claim.
The car *does not* I repeat *does not* get 230mpg by any rational calculation. If you want an apple-to-apples comparison, you need to never (ever) charge the Volt from the grid. And in that circumstance it gets 50mpg. That's it's real mileage there -- 50mpg.
Note -- that's not to say that the Volt isn't innovative, or a step in the right direction. By all accounts it looks like an awesome car! But tell the truth please -- don't let dubious specs cloud people's judgement. There are still a few questions about the true cost (to the consumer and to the environment) of charging a car from the grid. There are power generation related pollutants (is the power generated using coal, a nuclear power plant, natural gas plant, hydroelectric power, etc. etc.) and grid distribution efficiencies to take into account. You simply cannot cook up some 230mpg number by allowing the car to charge from the grid every night, and then claim that number as your MPG.
It gets 230 miles with a gallon of gas in the tank.
Why should they have to confuse people?
Whats easier to market. 230miles per gallon or 50 miles per gallon and 180 with electricity either way the car is getting 230 miles.
It certainly doesn't get 230 miles with a gallon in the tank in one day! It gets 90 miles (if the 50mpg that GM is quoting is accurate when the engine is charging the battery): 40 miles from the grid charge + 50 miles that used the gallon of gas that was in the tank. Then you're empty with a dead battery.
I agree that this looks like a great car for people in the right circumstances. But the different circumstance mean that they really cannot market it with a realistic number. If they want to be honest about it they should say something like "worst case is 50mpg, best case is unlimited mileage)"
No dude -- it doesn't get 230 miles on 1 gallon of gas.
It gets 50 miles per gallon of gas. The rest depends on how much you charge the battery. Unlike a Prius, a Volt can run on 100% battery power for a short while.
For the 230 miles per gallon calculation, certain assumptions have been made. i.e. lets say you use your car to essentially drive to work and back each day. Every day when you bring park at home, you plug your car in and charge it. That being the case, if your commute isn't too long, you're running off the grid power more than gas.
Now that could be a good thing or a bad thing. But the point remains -- using grid charging in an MPG equation is quite simply lying to your customer. Your customer still has to pay for that grid power. It's just an MPG caclulation in a different form. But you do need to account for it. Basically in those 230 MPG, how many Ah (Ampere-hours) of energy did you pull from the grid, and at what price? And for the environment, you still need to account -- how much pollution was caused in generating those 'X' Ah of energy (and when doing that, you also need to account for losses in the distribution grid).
I know where I live we have a huge over capacity on power and its 99% Hydro. But even with that I have a 5kw wind turbine in my back yard. Its ona 50 ft pole does not make a lot of noise, and will easily handle charging my car when and If I get it :)
Absolutely. This approach has been used for decades in locomotives and ocean going vessels. The challenge has been to achieve the same degree of efficiency in a small enough form factor to work for a car and that technology has really taken off in the last few years.
When you combine that with the ability of plug-in charging (to take advantage of even more efficiently generated electricity), then you deliver a viable solution to deals with the challenges of range, infra and time in today's real world.
Nuke cars... reminds me of the Ford Nucleon... that was a good concept... wonder why it didn't get past the media blitz.
Yes, the small generator has an advantage over a traditional gas powered car, but it has little to do with drive train efficiency. Gasoline engines in traditional cars are sized to give acceleration as well as to maintain highway speeds. They are oversized when it comes to simply cruising down the road, and that results in the engines that operate less efficiently at steady speeds. Basically, the more the throttle valve closes, the less fuel efficient the engine becomes (FYI, diesels don't have a throttle :)). Other factors are involved, of course, I might be flamed for oversimplifying. Vehicles with smaller engines get better milage because the engine is working closer to it's full potential.
A small 'range extending' engine will be more efficient because the engine is small, they make just enough power to drive down the road and slowly recharge the battery, with the battery on tap for acceleration, and the range-extending motor turns on or off as needed, so it always runs at that 'sweet spot' it's designed for.
And, for everyone's FYI, the act of using a generator to run an electric motor, with electrical losses associated with inverters and charge controllers, brings it's own inefficiency. A 5-speed manual transmission and a small (sub 2-liter) engine is very economical. And cheap :).
The Volt will take some amount of energy to get it from point A to point B. Whether or not it is GAS only matters if that is your only criteria. For people who care about the environment or cost, energy usage is the key (along with what the cost associated for that energy is).
First the cost. Yes, it would be currently cheaper to run on electric by a considerable amount if you're sticking close to that 40 mile commute. The article indicates approx. 10 KWh to charge it. That costs about $0.70 for that 40 miles where I live. In gas that would probably cost around $3 in a similar gas-only car. However, if charged on peak times (which off-peak rates will disappear or get close to on-peak if everyone goes to electric vehicles) would be more like $1.20 in California or $1.40 in NY. Still a savings, though the gap is closing. The only way you really get to the types of numbers GM is claiming here, would be if you generated your own 10 KWh with solar panels on your roof (assuming you already had those and didn't have to calculate that into the cost).
But, for environmentalists, we need to get an idea of the actual ENERGY used... at least until the electricity coming out of our outlets is made from things like solar or possibly wind. Here are some equivalents to that 10 KWh it takes to charge the Volt each day:
Run a 100W lightbulb for 100 hours (or for over 4 days).
Run a typical bathroom heater for 5 to 10 hours (depending on size/type).
Leave your oven run full blast with the door open for like 5 to 6 hours.
or
About 10 pounds of coal.
About 1 pound of CO2.
Now, I realize that with gas, these numbers are higher... and that much has been left out of the calculations. For example, more electricity has to be produced at the plant (burning more fuel) to get that 10 KWh at your actual outlet (due to transmission losses, etc.). Gas also takes a lot of energy to obtain, refine and distribute. My main point, though, is that many (including these GM ads) seem to think the electric part is somehow free and only count the gas used. That is HIGHLY deceptive. That sad part is that many people fall for it.
Most if not all hybrids run on electric only when at slow speeds, which is why they get better mileage in the cities. Following your logic their mileage claims are also bogus.
And if you read the article:
1) it said that the combined City/Highway mileage would still be in the triple digits (even 100 mpg would still make it much better than the Prius)
2) the article said that the off peak cost of charging the Volt - in Detroit - would be about 40 cents. 40 miles. 40 cents. That's a cent a mile.
Please post a disclaimer that you own stock in Toyota and own a Prius.
You lack of understanding the facts of the article is glaringly obvious.
I see his point for what it is. Take off your blinders and look at the facts. If a single gallon plus a pre-charged battery = 230 MPG, then unless the engine can achieve 230 MPG by itself, which is impossible given the pre-charged batteries contribute some, the fuel efficiency will drop significantly as more fuel is consumed without the aid of a pre-charged battery. The pre-charged battery will last for about 40 miles without gasoline being consumed (for locomotion, it was most likely consumed for generation at some point), are they saying that the gallon of fuel attains 190 MPG? How can this be possible unless they are headed down a very long incline with their foot off the gas pedal? I had heard reports that the gasoline generator alone was capable of 48 MPG not 190 MPG!
"I had heard reports that the gasoline generator alone was capable of 48 MPG not 190 MPG" - that would really depend on the batteries that are being charged, the engine that uses those batteries and the vehicle itself (weight, aerodynamics, etc)
I don't understand your concern about starting with an uncharged battery. Theoretically that wouldn't happen since the generator would kick in to keep the battery charged. All mileage claims assume ideal conditions for the vehicle, and for electric cars and hybrids that includes a charged battery.
I wouldn't count on gutless. Electric motors give full torque from zero MPH. Most of the electrics on the board and soon set for delivery, and even the most recent version of the Prius all use software to REDUCE the starting-line acceleration. It helps to conserve the batteries, that way. Without such software-based dampening, you have performance like a Tesla (0-60 in the sub four second range). WIth it, you have things like the Mini-E which does 0-60 in the 8-second range (again, it could be allowed accelerate much more rapidly, but by limiting it, they get 150mi. on a charge). The Volt is a similar story.
I wouldn't be surprised if future E-cars either come with or there are after-market mods to change the software-imposed limitations. There are already Prius mods that allow you to operate solely on battery. Other mods seem likely as these cars become more commonplace.
Their estimates are ignoring the cost of generating that first 40 mile charge on the battery. For a proper measurement, the charge on the battery should be generated by the gasoline generator and that amount of fuel taken into the equation. If you were on a long trip and did not have time to stop and recharge the battery from an outlet, the generator would be the only means of charge.
With a hybrid, the gasoline engine is running in parallel with the battery, both are contributing at the same time. In the Volt, they are running in series, the batteries are the only thing powering the car while the gasoline generator charges the battery. In the hybrid, it makes sense to ignore the previous charge level of the batteries since they are never recharged from the mains. With the Volt, however, the previous charge level of the batteries contributes to the first 40 miles or so of the trip with no assistance from the gasoline generator. If both were to travel 20 miles, the hybrid has a fuel efficiency around say 50 MPG, while the Volt has used no gasoline and has infinite efficiency. If both were to go 200 miles, the hybrid's fuel efficiency stays the same while the Volt's drops to (apparently) 230 MPG. Now if both were to travel 400 miles, the hybrid would still have the 50 MPG, but what would the Volt's efficiency be? From the data, it would be much closer to the actual fuel efficiency of the generator alone.
Now, can you see why there is a problem with the way the MPG rating is being derived for a series hybrid? If not, it's really pretty simple. The farther you drive without recharging from the mains, the lower your fuel efficiency. The shorter distance you drive without a recharge, the higher your fuel efficiency. This does not account for the kilowatt hours used for the first 40 miles of the trip, which is troubling to say the least as it hides cost.
If they really wanted to provide a rating, why not rate vehicles in Miles / Kilowatt-hour or Kilometers / Kilojoule? This eliminates variabilities due to the many different sources of power. If two vehicles with different power sources are compared, the average cost per KJ for each fuel source can be displayed and if multiple sources for each vehicle, such as the Volt, the contributions can be broken down: "First 40 miles on 25 Kilowatt-hours electric at 1.6 MPKWh and 48 miles on 1 gallon gasoline at 1.31 MPKWh thereafter."
Some of us grew up - and realized that we didn't have any use for a giant sheet-metal-clad ***** enhancer.
As a corollary, we also realized that the kind of women that go for such vehicles over all else usually aren't worth talking to, let alone for anything else.
Some of us realized that at $4/gal, the money could be put to better use elsewhere.
Some of us really don't give a damn how we get there, as long as we do so safely and comfortably.
Or, it could be that some of us would rather spend our money at the destinations, and not on the trips.
You got that right. GM needs to be sued for false advertising.
It might cost more to generate enough power to pull the weight of the generator that it doesn't offset the.........wait a minute.....did you say $40,000?
Nevermind
What's laughable is that about 10 years later, they are introducing *inferior* electric car technology, because their car won't even be fully electric. Instead of infinity miles per gallon, the Volt does only 230.
I tell ya.... sometimes marketing is just a euphemism for B.S.
So is the content of your post. You obviously didn't read the article nor do you fully understand the technology behind everything or the inherit limitations of the EV1 which the Volt overcomes.
I am pretty sure, that the battery technology for it was - as it was killed off - at
a range of 150 miles per charge. At the end of the movie I believe they said that they
had developed a new battery technology that would take the range to 300 miles per charge!
Then apparently TEXACO and another company bought out the rights to that battery technology!
And they are sitting on it still! Are they?? Did they?? ***!!! see: Who killed the electric battery..
http://www.daxdesai.com/2007/12/21/who-killed-the-electric-battery/
"General Motors didn?t wish the electric car to compete with their main-stream gas cars and trucks and sold the patent to Chevron Texaco. Chevron Texaco vigorously protects this battery technology and even sued Toyota for making a similar design."
Many commuters, particularly suburbanites working in cities, have one-way commutes that would preclude having an E-only car that only got 40mi./charge. Until such time as charging stations at malls, parking garages, employer parking lots, etc. become common, a 40mi./charge, all-electric car won't be doable. Then again, by the time those things do become commonplace, that 40mi./charge car will be considerably cheaper than $40K.
The movie puts all the blame on the companies but I think it's mostly with the consumers.
@w0rdwarri0r - "introducing *inferior* electric car technology, because their car won't even be fully electric"
Because the batteries are charged by a generator in the car the car is not electric???
Incorrect. When one routinely drives 350+ miles to visit relatives (who live nowhere near mass transit), commute long distances daily, or would like to take a holiday without worrying over train schedules (or worse, being packed like cattle into an aircraft), range tends to figure large into the equation.
Europe is nice and all, but your myopia shows. On that trip to the relatives mentioned up there, I could take the same distance and travel from one border of nearly any EU nation to the other long-ways, but that same distance only carries me from one side of my home _state_ to the other - short-wise, with plenty of distance to spare before I reached either border (I live in the Western US).
Americans are about freedom. The gasoline (or better, diesel) car is about ultimate freedom. Even in a crisis you could stockpile gasoline or diesel and drive for days, or load containers in the back and get away from an emergency and drive a thousand miles if you wanted to. An all electric? Forget about it. Live in LA and you are stuck in LA county! Extended power outage? E-car people are crippled. I was in a hurricane where we had no power for 5 days. Electric car would have been useless.
One of the biggest killers in New Orleans during Katrina was the lack of auto ownership in that city. People who wanted to get away could not as they had no means. Buses weren't called in, trains didn't exist, and over 1/3rd of the people had no car. People were left to rely on government during an emergency, and that is the LAST thing you should want. I think Katrina only reinforces that reality.
Let's not sacrifice safety and freedom for the highest mileage. Diesel electric hybrids can get 80MPG, and that's a pretty damn fair tradeoff for now. Going beyond that is a compromise I'm not willing to make...
What about those of us with poor credit or those of us who are struggling? Where is OUR credit for having to pay everyone else to get a new car while we still drive whatever car we can afford. Meanwhile, gas is not selling yet we are hovering close to $3 a gallon again.
It's extremely unfortunate that we have a situation anywhere in the world were there are people that can't afford things that others enjoy and some most certainly take for granted. I wish it wasn't so, as these people are missing out on lot with only one shot at life to enjoy it. I hope your situation improves over time, allowing you to take advantage of some of these offers as they come along.
And in a (somewhat) free market economy there will always be haves and have-nots. If you want everybody to have the same stuff, keep the "populist democrat" in power.
Don't get me wrong, i love the fact hard working people get preyed upon and offered high interest loans. It shows great advancement in equality.
[CNET editors' note: Personal attack deleted]
I had a pretty respectable score (741) just a few years ago. My debt to credit ratio was probably 1 to 5. Most of my debt has been incurred by paying for school. Student loans only go so far, and my credit card rate wasn't a whole lot worse than what the banks were offering on their loans. Plus, I would get offers all the time to transfer the money to a new card at zero percent for a year. Who wouldn't take that up as their old intro rate on their old card expired?
Well, this economy started to tumble and the banks started to take away the credit they lent me. My American Express card had a limit of 19,200 and I only carried a balance of 3,000. They dropped the limit to 3,500.
I had another American express card with a limit of 14,000 and a balance of 2,000. They dropped the limit to 2,500.
Those changes brought on by American Express (I did nothing out of the ordinary) caused my other 2 credit cards to adjust things abnormally. My Bank of America card ($10,000 limit) interest rate shot up to over 21% and my Chase card took away about $10,000 of credit. So I went from having $53,000 in credit available to me to about $20,000. Now my debt ratio is closer to 4 to 5. I was outraged at Bank of America tripling my interest rate, so my finance paid off that card. Well wouldn't you know closing the BofA card caused my credit score to drop another 20 points.
So now my score is hovering around 650. I no longer qualify for the "better" rates on items, and if I did go in to refinance my debt, I would be looked upon as a risky account because of the rapid drop in credit score.
I've never done anything wrong, have never missed a credit card payment in the 7 years I've had a credit card (first card at 18). Why should I be penalized as having bad credit? What have I done to have bad credit? Why does the bank deciding they don't have the money to offer me a higher line of credit determine or affect my credit score?
7 years of a perfect credit history should matter. But the banks/credit score companies make up their own rules.
So don't rip on us responsible folks "who let our credit get trashed".
Paying it off is not the same as canceling it. You should have paid it off and kept it open, then complained to them about the low credit limit and asked them to put it back to a level between where it was and where it started.
There are things you could have done. And while it's a tough lesson, one should NEVER finance anything on credit card if they have other options. Never. Student loans should never be put on credit cards. Ever.
Hope others learn a lesson here.
As for the racist at the top?
You got your credit score low by doing some stupid things. There is no "race" figure in a credit report. No field there for race, no way they would know. And sorry, but no rich people are going to take $3500 for a luxury trade-in to buy another luxury car. It's the middle class taking advantage of the program, and young people who are finally getting their first new car. Their old cars are worth $1000-$3000 and so it seems like a good program (though you have to bargain). But turning in a $15000 used mercedes for $3500 is not smart business, so unless these are really stupid rich white folks (stupid people with top credit?), you are not subsidizing them.
Oh, and if you really are in such dire straits, it's unlikely you are paying any federal taxes beyond medicare and social security (which are YOURS), so you aren't paying for these cars. It's the rich white people who are paying all the taxes and subsidizing the middle class and young people using this program...
That's a perfect example of poor credit management. Did you really need 53k worth of Credit cards? I have had credit now for owe 30 some odd years. I have one card with a limit of 5k that is almost never used. I am a little surprised that you paid for you schooling with credit cards.... then complained its not your fault. Yes they adjusted your cards, yes it was bad, but wow, what are you thinking taking out so many cards????
Don't get me wrong, i love the fact hard working people get preyed upon and offered high interest loans. It shows great advancement in equality."
Source?
I could also say that more people of color get cash benefits from the state more often then white people but of course at that point you would deem me racist.
Now if the auto industry really cared about conserving fuel, the manufacturers would all install on all vehicles the engine shutoff switch that's standard on every hybrid. This automatic feature turns off the engine when you come to a full stop (at least when the outdoor temperature is above 37 degrees F). The engine instantly starts when you step on the gas or engage the clutch. This nifty low-cost feature reduces fuel consumption by 17% -- at least that's what Honda was saying when we bought our Insight in 2001. Why not add the engine shut off to all gas -powered motor vehicles now? A 17% reduction in gas consumption is a massive leap in a single bound.
An internal combustion engine is at its peak efficiency when it is at a certain temperature. That temperature varies per engine design, but shutting the engine on and off would interfere with maintaining the proper temperature.
Also most cars power the power accessories like power steering via the gas engine, so shutting off the gas engine would kill the power steering.
Thirdly, constantly turning an engine on and off would result in early failure of the starter motor, and would drastically drain the battery. It would also cause premature wear of the gas engine because the engine is not turning the oil pump, therefore the engine is constantly switching from state of lubrication to a state of lack of lubrication.
Obviously the auto manufacturers have designed hybrid engines to overcome these issues, but standard gas engines would still face these issues. It would require a massive redesign of all the non-hybrid engines, which is expensive. The auto manufacturers would be better off putting hybrid engines in all cars.
Heck in Europe stopping your engine when you stop at a light has been pretty much standard practice to save on gasoline costs for decades, even on regular non-hybrid cars. Do you have any statistics to prove your claims that Europe has been wearing out starter motors faster than in the US?
.
Engine temperature: You do realize that the engines in hybrid's aren't off for more than a minute or two at most right? Certainly not enough time to cool down to the point of inefficiency. Your point is valid, but not relevant since we are talking about very short times with the engine off.
.
I think dlauber's point was that if we could change some small things about our current gasoline only cars we could get some pretty significant savings. A very small battery pack to allow for 30 seconds of engine-off non-moving electric operation would solve many of the issues you mention. Though being stopped and having no power steering isn't exactly a huge issue; rarely it is, but mostly not.
Most standard car engine starters are rated at in excess of 100,000 starts.
We have never had any problems with the ignition, starter, or engine in our 2001 Honda Insight. And while with older cars, it did waste gas to turn off the engine for less than a minute, there is no such waste with newer cars. According to research I've read, turning off the engine for at least 7 seconds and restarting it uses less gas than leaving it on for those 7 seconds.
So I must beg to differ based on what I've read and my own experience with our almost 8 year old Insight.
"We" don't have a problem. It's GM that's in bankruptcy and has turned into Ecocars, a division of the labor unions and US government. If they screw up this car then GM has no right to exist.
Sure the $7500 credit serves the better off who can afford a car in this price range (but if this really bothers you, don't complain that the Volt qualifies, complain that the Fisker Karma ($85k+) and the Tesla ($100k+) both qualify.
Or one could realize that while showing up as a current gift to the rich, that's really just a consequence of investing in new technologies that will benefit us all down the road. Screw the future! We don't need long term investment in a better tomorrow. The market will just make sure we're all happy and well taken care of later.
One of the real issues here is that the MPG claim is said to be based on a draft EPA standard (it would be nice if there were a link to it). This is bad news because it seems to assume that the full battery pack is a "freebie" for distance travelled, and what we'll end up with is larger MPG numbers for larger battery packs. While it does overstate the benefit of plug-ins and electrics (well, at least this has some value in marketing to those who don't understand the drivetrains or are stuck in the internal combustion engine is king model) and that's not good. But then, this is the same game that the Prius conversion people have been playing for a few years. the hassle here is that it is hard to come up with a better metric. If you do it in cents per mile, the never stable cost of gas comes into it, as well as the cost of electricity which is both time and location dependent. But at $0.40 to charge the battery system overnight in Detroit and a 40 mile range, at least the beginning of the trip comes out to one cent per mile. If gas were $3 per gallon, that is a 300 MPG equivalent. Here in CA, my folks had an EV-1, and that cost 1.2 cents per mile to drive when charged at night on a "time of use" meter in the SF bay area. Even if the math on the current MPG rating is screwed up, when it comes to cost per mile, cars like these are huge winners for short trips, and much better than average for longer ones.
And yes, small gas engines driving generators that drive electric motors are more efficient than small gas motors that drive the wheels. The ICE gets to work just at it's sweet spot, and you drop out all the transmission and drivetrain losses. This is traded for a some less than perfect efficiency in generating the electricity and then using it, but it's a net win. It's the "diesel-electric" locomotive model.
However, I do agree that this is the way to go for a hybrid... and that eventually electricity is probably the way to go (once battery technology gets worked out and we generate the electricity in environmentally ways). Hydrogen might be a good option as well if we find better biological ways to produce it (without using tons of energy to produce it).
Also.. .just curious, what pollutes more.. the amount coal needed to generate a full charge.. or the emissions from a full tank burning at around 30mpg (or the equivalent range of the battery)?
If we get battery technology solved.... or make lots of energy from solar... then the electric or hydrogen car will be the clear winner. My issue is the currently, too many people think electric = zero pollution. GM's 230 MPG claim reinforces that fallacy. This thing simply doesn't get 230 of anything. It is a meaningless made-up number hoping to hoodwink enough people to pay them big bucks for it.
Taking a car on a nice little journey above 40 miles would be a real problem if it was entirely based on electric, so this type of design mitigates that problem.
Bill
The point of the internal combustion engine in the Volt is not to propel the car but to keep the batteries adequately charged so that *they* can propel the car. Minus the conventional engine, the Volt has a 40mi range before needing recharged.
40mi *might* get me to work and back, but it won't get me to "grandma's house" come the holiday season (or to any other vacation destinations I'd like to hit). Hell, 40mi won't get me completely across the city I live in. You toss a range-extending motor in, and the car becomes viable. Minus that extension, the car is limited to very short trips: not real attractive for a $40K car.
Dunno how much Mini's going to charge for the Mini-E, but I know the Minis, in general, are pretty damned good cars (still, the Mini-E's likely to be a $60K car). Still: probably less than a Tesla.
Wonder if the Volt will be changed to a hydrogen power plant, down the road, to further increase fuel economy. After all, since all the engine is doing is charging batteries (rather than turning the wheels), it seems like a lot of different power plants could be used for the purpose.
Is there such a thing? if so, why don't they cite it? why can't I find it on EPA.gov? sounds like hooey to me. Where is your electricity coming from - coal most likely.
Of course, hard-core environmentalists seem to always be able to get electricity for free. They must have a secret source for the club or something.
For those of us who actually care about the environment, the calculations get a bit more complicated. If this new EPA methodology actually exists, then it is just more politics rather than any kind of reality. Very sad.
Natural gas is a fossil fuel.... but that is good you have an option for renewable. If you had a Volt, it would be a LOT more than $5 more though.
Hopefully one day you'll be able to easily get all your power from solar, etc. It just seems a bit backwards to start pushing electric cars so heavily before we get there in our energy production or battery technology, etc. Why don't we get all our current electric based stuff using renewable first... like our stoves, heating, A/C, appliances, etc.?
I really do like the technology behind the Volt... I just don't want it to be over-hyped and raise everyone's expectations too much. That would probably actually hurt the movement towards these types of technologies.
Also, as an aside, the 230 mpg city is completely believable and DOES include the cost of electricity - if it didn't the mpg would be infinity... Let's say you drive 45 miles each day, that's 40 miles of electricity (40 cents in detroit apparently) and 5 miles of gas (1/10th of a gallon). After 10 days of your commute you've driven 450 miles on 1 gallon of gas and 10 recharges at 40 cents a piece. So, let's say gas is $3 a gallon that's a total cost of $7 which is the equivalent of 2.333 gallons - that fuel efficiency is 193 mpg ($7/$3 = the equivalent gallons and then take 450/the equivalent gallons). So that's just a rough estimate - if you drop down your drive to 42 miles each day your mpg goes to 293 mpg - I'd guess the standard is, based on those calcs, 43 miles between charges and, obviously, this is going to change depending on where you live as here in Texas off peak electricity is over 13 cents/kWh so the equivalent mpg is much lower (84.375 and 99 respectively).
Oh come one now... don't get all technical and try to apply physics or reality or anything. ;o)
I'm actually kind of surprised at their claim. If they had said something like 80 MPG, I'd guess way more people would fall for it. But 230... anyone with a brain should see a problem there. Maybe the average person in GM's marketing audience is much more gullible than I realize.
- by inachu1 August 11, 2009 9:06 AM PDT
- But will the volt be on sale early this year and sold for under 20k.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
-
- by Shaun822 August 11, 2009 12:53 PM PDT
- And you have what information to support that claim? Oh, that's right none.
- Like this
-
Showing 1 of 5 pages (202 Comments)The volt will never see the light of day. EVER!