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.

[ITcomposer]

Now, if they could just lower the price to the mid $30's with the tax credit that would make it a $25,000 ish car, that would start putting a dent into the pretroleum usage of this country, woot for a cleaner enviroment!

[Random_Walk]

Agreed - it's cool that there's a car which gets 3-digit gas mileage, but if only the wealthy can afford one, then it's just as useless as the more expensive Tesla Roadster.

[monkeyfun14]

@Random_Walk<br /><br />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

[jokayhn]

@ monkeyfun14<br /><br />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.

[jaguar717]

It would not make it a 25k car. It would make it a 40k car whose costs are hidden through government price distortion. Just more of the feds taking money from someone who earned it to buy votes from someone who didn't.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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...

[ikramerica--2008]

:Draft Methodology:<br /><br />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.<br /><br />230mpg is a fake number. But that's how this government rolls, baby...

[cosuna]

@Jaguar717:<br /><br />"Just more of the feds taking money from someone who earned it to buy votes from someone who didn't."<br /><br />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.<br /><br />No new technology would ever survive if it weren't for Venture capital, seed money and other incentives.<br /><br />Get Real please...

[dhavleak]

@ Ikramerica--2008<br /><br />You hit the nail on the head. Can't believe the lack of outrage over this claim. <br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.

[monkeyfun14]

@dhavleak<br /><br />It gets 230 miles with a gallon of gas in the tank.<br /><br />Why should they have to confuse people?<br /><br />Whats easier to market. 230miles per gallon or 50 miles per gallon and 180 with electricity either way the car is getting 230 miles.

[cbscowards]

@monkeyfun14:<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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)"

[dhavleak]

@ monkeyfun14 <br /> <br />No dude -- it doesn't get 230 miles on 1 gallon of gas. <br /> <br />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. <br /> <br />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. <br /> <br />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).

[Renegade Knight]

I'd like to see more info on how the generator impacts long distance driving. Is running a generator with gas more efficient than a small gas motor for highway driving?

[Hammerhand]

Yes - running the gas generator is much more efficient than hooking a gas engine up to a transmission/drive axle. There's much less drag on the engine.

[wolivere]

Depends on how you generate the electricty? Is it gas? is it Hydro is it Nuke? Is it coal? Is it wind Solar?<br /><br />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 :)

[jtlintstockings]

Absolutely. All internal combustion engines have a certain "speed", depending on how they are engineered, that they are the most efficient running at. Any lower and any higher and they start to loose efficiency. With this model the engine is always running at it's most efficient speed because it is only charging batteries and not having to deal the randomness of a human stomping on and off the gas. That's the theory anyway, we'll see if GM can pull it off. I sure hope they can. This thing is either going to be ground breaking or one gigantic letdown.

[Random_Walk]

Actually, yes. a normal internal combustion engine is mostly mechanical, with power loss at nearly every step of the way (that is, you get power loss at every cam, crankshaft journal bearing, valve, pulley-driven pump, etc). The transmission and gearing also suck down their vig. IIRC, a car with a typical engine only manages to transfer something like 6-10% of the original available energy to the wheels. I'm not sure how much drag an electrical arrangement would have, but with motors at each wheel, and a small motor feeding the generator, you likely don't have nearly the losses.

[MadLyb]

-"Is running a generator with gas more efficient than a small gas motor for highway driving?" <br /> <br />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. <br /> <br />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.

[cosuna]

@ wolivere:<br /><br />Nuke cars... reminds me of the Ford Nucleon... that was a good concept... wonder why it didn't get past the media blitz.

[mike_ekim]

A car with a small diesel can get better milage than a prius. ;) I'd like to see a hybrid with a diesel range extender, that would be awesome. <br /> <br />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. <br /> <br />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. <br /> <br />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 :).

[jasonaorr]

Since it looks like the transportation industry is entering into an era of fuel diversity, the EPA really ought to rethink its fuel economy models. MPG or miles per gallon simply makes no sense when applied to an all electric vehicle or a plug-in hybrid like the Volt, which consumes no gasoline (as I understand it) until the batteries run out of juice.

[Hammerhand]

The Volt does use gas. It's a "plug-in series hybrid" vehicle. You can plug it in to charge. But if you didn't, or you were driving farther than the batteries could take you, the engine kicks in and charges the batteries.

[SteveW928]

The problem is that MPG is extremely deceptive marketing. MPG is kind of a useless rating for an electric (or hybrid) vehicle unless it is properly calculated (which it is not in this case).<br /><br />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).<br /><br />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).<br /><br />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:<br /><br />Run a 100W lightbulb for 100 hours (or for over 4 days).<br />Run a typical bathroom heater for 5 to 10 hours (depending on size/type).<br />Leave your oven run full blast with the door open for like 5 to 6 hours.<br />or<br />About 10 pounds of coal.<br />About 1 pound of CO2.<br /><br />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.

[gwailo247]

And don't forget that slapping a few "I donated money for carbon offsets" also lowers your MPG, by like, 150% or something.

[wahoospa]

There is no way on earth that a car will get 230 mpg. They are making it look like is gets such tremendous miles from gas alone when stated like that. The majority of the miles is obtained by electric, not gas. I bet if the car ran only on gas it would get more like 35 mpg which is more believable. Now, what is the COST of electricity added to the COST of gas going to equal? I would like to see them put just one gallon of gas in the tank and drive it without electricity. I think Henderson is blowing smoke here.

[Sourdust]

They're claiming that they can generate enough electricity with one gallon of gas to go 230 miles, starting with a fully charged battery of course. I don't see what's so bizarre about that claim.<br /><br />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.

[Hammerhand]

If the car ran on gas only, it wouldn't be a hybrid then, would it?<br /><br />And if you read the article:<br />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)<br />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.

[ewsachse]

Dude,<br />Please post a disclaimer that you own stock in Toyota and own a Prius.<br />You lack of understanding the facts of the article is glaringly obvious.

[egghead1619]

So what is the MPG when you use two gallons and a fully charged battery? What about 3,4, ...10 gallons? What about if you are on a long road trip and don't have time to recharge the batteries, what's the MPG without a pre-charged battery?<br /><br />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!

[Sourdust]

@egghead1619 <br /><br />"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)<br /><br />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.

[Random Pilot]

hey surely you all know that this car is probably gutless! I don't see any horsepower here nor do i see engine type or size. Do you really think that you will be satisfied with this small car? and as soon as these go out electricity is gonna go as high as fuel, not to mention that batteries are harmful to the enviroment i myself prefer the hydro conversion so what is the difference? just another way to rip us off.

[ferricoxide]

@Random Pilot<br />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.<br /><br />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.

[egghead1619]

@Sourdust:<br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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."

[Random_Walk]

"hey surely you all know that this car is probably gutless! I don't see any horsepower here nor do i see engine type or size. Do you really think that you will be satisfied with this small car?"<br /><br />Some of us grew up - and realized that we didn't have any use for a giant sheet-metal-clad ***** enhancer. <br /><br />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.<br /><br />Some of us realized that at $4/gal, the money could be put to better use elsewhere.<br /><br />Some of us really don't give a damn how we get there, as long as we do so safely and comfortably. <br /><br />Or, it could be that some of us would rather spend our money at the destinations, and not on the trips.

[SteveW928]

@ wahoospa - "There is no way on earth that a car will get 230 mpg."<br /><br />You got that right. GM needs to be sued for false advertising.

[biffhenerson]

Miles Per Gallon is simply a marketing ploy since that is a term to which people relate. We could also say that it goes over 6 million miles without consuming any orange juice. Pretty impressive! The handful of hybryd cars being introduced over the next few years will not make a measureable dent in the amount of petroleum consumed. But seriously, one should look at the 10 year cost of ownership to get a better idea of energy costs and the cost of replacing/maintaining the battery system. The true, hard costs. Not the invisible, pretend, made-up costs to climate change.

[subslug]

If I could install a hitch to the rear and pull my diesel powered generator down the highway connected to an extension cord....then what might the MPG be?<br /><br />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?<br /><br />Nevermind

[w0rdwarri0r]

So.... in the late 90's, the EV1 got infinity miles per gallon because it was a fully electric car. GM and the other car companies decided that electric cars weren't profitable enough and that they should instead kill them and push (what were at the time) more profitable hummers and SUVs. There are rumours that they destroyed the technology behind electric cars instead of simply burying it.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />I tell ya.... sometimes marketing is just a euphemism for B.S.

[dlauber]

One of the joys of the Internet is the revival of the "Know Nothing Party," so well reflected in your post. Any all-electric vehicle like the EV1 has a limited range pr "tank of electricity." While that range of 30 to 60 or so miles (200+ miles (in the case of the Tesla 2-seater) is more than enough for the typical daily use of a car, Americans are too insecure accept that short a range. That's why the Volt includes a gas engine. So in the typical day a Volt driver won't ever use the gas engine, but it's there in reserve for longer trips. So there's nothing technologically inferior about the Volt compared to the EV1. The Volt just reflects the reality that for people to buy a motor vehicle, they'll want one that has a greater range than 30 or 40 miles between charges.

[viper396]

@w0rdwarri0r ..."sometimes marketing is just a euphemism for B.S."<br /><br />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.

[sartor1]

I saw the movie 'who killed the electric car' and a youtube video that summed it up..<br />I am pretty sure, that the battery technology for it was - as it was killed off - at <br />a range of 150 miles per charge. At the end of the movie I believe they said that they<br />had developed a new battery technology that would take the range to 300 miles per charge!<br />Then apparently TEXACO and another company bought out the rights to that battery technology!<br />And they are sitting on it still! Are they?? Did they?? ***!!! see: Who killed the electric battery..<br /><br />http://www.daxdesai.com/2007/12/21/who-killed-the-electric-battery/<br /><br />"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."

[prone2xs]

The technology is interesting but still kind of sucks. Basically it means you will need two cars to function normally. One for short distances and one for longer trips. Personally, I'm not too interested in owing two cars when one should do. If you can't drive from LA to Las Vegas without stopping overnight to recharge, it's not practical.

[Random Pilot]

I like what you said, but if we really cared about our existence they wouldn't just keep sucking us dry anyway?

[SactoGuy018]

The big problem with the EV-1 was the fact the battery packs took up pretty much most of the interior space of the car, not to mention woefully short range and 7-8 hour charge times! At least with the Volt, you can actually seat four passengers comfortably and still go a long, long way, thanks to the small gasoline motor to keep the batteries charged. In fact, as battery technology improves, a Volt-like vehicle will get even better fuel economy, thanks to going to a smaller battery pack, which will allow for a smaller vehicle with the same interior space as the current Volt.

[ferricoxide]

@dlauber<br />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.

[Sourdust]

I saw 'who killed the electric car' and don't completely buy the claims. If people really wanted efficient cars they would have been buying them already since there have always been options to SUVs. Gas guzzlers are top sellers because that's what people want. So I don't think the EV1 would have been a big seller if they had continued the program. Also, people's main gripe about the Volt is the price and that would have been an issue with the EV1 also. Sure there was a waiting list to get a *subsidized* lease on the EV1, but how big was the list and how much were they really willing to pay? How many cars would have to get made to justify the research, manufacturing, etc? You could argue that they didn't have the foresight to see that this would be big, but neither did any of the other car makers. Gas was cheap and the masses didn't care about global warming.<br /><br />The movie puts all the blame on the companies but I think it's mostly with the consumers.<br /><br />@w0rdwarri0r - "introducing *inferior* electric car technology, because their car won't even be fully electric"<br />Because the batteries are charged by a generator in the car the car is not electric???

[Random_Walk]

"Americans are too insecure accept that short a range."<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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).

[ikramerica--2008]

A car with an artificial short range that must be recharged by a "grid" is the ultimate communist car. It controls your movements, limits your mobility.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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...

[jlopezcnet]

So basically my hard earned tax dollars are going to allow rich white folk with good credit trash their pimped out nice cars and get a newer ride ala the cash for clunkers. On top of that you are going to give them a tax credit for an electric car. Total savings to them - $12,000. Lovely. I love how this country works when a populist democrat is in power.<br /><br />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.

[mattie121]

Um, your bias is showing..... Rich folks of any ethnicity can take advantage of the subsidies as well. And your math sucks. The cash for clunkers will be out of money by the time you can buy a volt, so the subsidy to whomever buys one will pretty much cap at $7500 federal, plus whatever you state kicks in.

[Super2online]

I'm not sure why you are making this a race/poor/rich issue. The cars costs are made up from the cost of research and expense. The governments cash for clunkers program does not discriminate against any one. I'm not sure if you were laid off and that helped cause your credit issues, but bad credit will always negatively impact anyone no matter the current economic conditions are or which party currently holds power in the oval office, senate, or house of representatives. <br /> <br />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.

[Hammerhand]

Poor credit is your problem, not anybody else's problem. Your credit score reflects on you as a debtor. People who pay their bills on time end up with good credit scores. People who don't end up with bad scores. It's as simple as that.<br /><br />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.

[wolivere]

If you are so credit aware and worried maybe you should have been more careful to not let your credit get trashed.

[jlopezcnet]

The fact is more people of color get turned down - especially lately - for credit. I would love to see the numbers for those who are 'qualified' to take advantage of this program. <br /><br />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.

[monkeyfun14]

You know whats interesting is these "Rich white folk" pay taxes too and alot more then you do. <br /><br />[CNET editors' note: Personal attack deleted]

[metomjr]

My credit rating has been dropping steadily for the past couple years at no fault of my own. <br /> <br />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? <br /> <br />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. <br /> <br />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. <br /> <br />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. <br /> <br />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. <br /> <br />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? <br /> <br />7 years of a perfect credit history should matter. But the banks/credit score companies make up their own rules. <br /> <br />So don't rip on us responsible folks "who let our credit get trashed".

[ikramerica--2008]

You should not have closed your BofA card! It dropped because it shortened your credit history.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Hope others learn a lesson here.<br /><br />As for the racist at the top?<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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...

[wolivere]

@ metomjr <br /><br />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????

[monkeyfun14]

"The fact is more people of color get turned down - especially lately - for credit. I would love to see the numbers for those who are 'qualified' to take advantage of this program.<br /><br /> 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."<br /><br />Source?<br />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.

[dlauber]

Some real world mileage figures from our 2001 Honda Insight hybrid. While we regularly get 60+ mpg on the highway, we have had stretches of 2 or 3 miles where we get 130 mpg (the dashboard shows real time mpg). So the claims of 235 mpg for the Chevy Volt are not outlandish. It is conceivable.<br /><br />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.

[ewsachse]

If you knew anything about how the internal combustion engine works, you would understand why shutting the engine on and off is a very bad idea.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.

[pixelpusher220]

@ewsachse:<br />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?<br />.<br />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.<br />.<br />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.

[ferricoxide]

@pixelpusher220 <br />Most standard car engine starters are rated at in excess of 100,000 starts.

[Sourdust]

Although you guys have good points I think ewsachse may be right in that it isn't so simple to implement. Otherwise every car manufacturer would boost their fleet mileage by 17% with almost no effort. Mileage is a big factor in their ads now so you know they would love to increase mileage right away with affecting performance. You would think that at least Honda would do it since they have hybrids and have resolved most of the issues with this.

[dlauber]

To those who insist they know how an internal combustion engine works, I ask why do the hybrids all include the engine shutoff switch? It's because it does not damage the engine nor the starter. It works only if the outdoor temperature is over 37 degrees and only after the engine has reached a certain temperature. Your fears are simply groundless.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />So I must beg to differ based on what I've read and my own experience with our almost 8 year old Insight.

[doodlebug260]

With the economy the way it is, who does GM think can afford a $40,000.00 price tag. That not only goes for GM but all the other things that can be done green. The people that can afford to go green will not make a dent in our problem. Things that help the enviorment are so expensive that the average person is unable to go green because of cost. The average person makes up 95% of the population. These companies should be happy to make a small profit and not a grand slam. Greed is the killer here.

[sanenazok]

Environmentalists? The same people who put $10K solar panels of their roof which offsets $1000 of power costs per year? The car will be a success if it sells a few thousand units in its first year. About 6000 Priuses were sold the first year it came out and of course it was a complete success. Let's see 300 million people, 6-8K cars, which means all of 0.0002% of the country must buy one of these and it's a success.<br /><br />"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.

[Sourdust]

How can you expect the first gen of any new technology to be affordable? If an affordable electric car were possible someone would have made it by now. Besides, GM will supposedly not make any money off the first gen Volt.

[rapier1]

Okay, think of this car as being marketed toward early adopters who are more than happy to pay top dollar for the latest toy. Subsequent generations of this will come down in price but people who want the first will have to pay for it.

[cbscowards]

Actually, the $40,000 price tag is what is COSTS GM to build the car. Pricing has not been set for it yet. I was really interested in this car when I first heard about it a few years ago. But the estimated price back then was the high $20K's. At $40000+ I'm not interested. Hopefully the cost and price will come down over time. In the meantime I'll stick with my conventional hybrid.

[mattie121]

Here we go again... All the naysayers complain that new tech is just toys for the rich, ignoring the pretty standard technology introduction curve that pretty much every product goes through. I wish they all would just stop.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.

[SteveW928]

To get 230 MPG... there would have to be a lot more than ONE recharge cycle for free.<br /><br />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).

[gsmiller88]

NOW the smiling outlets with the number 23 next to them make sense.

[drara07]

I'm not sure how the figure of 230 MPG is derived at. From what i read in another ariticle on cnn, this estimate is based on the 50 mile a day average a person drives. So for the 50 miles, 40 miles will be through electric and 10 miles via gas. So roughly estimating at 0.2 gallons for the 10 miles, u can get 250 miles per gallon.

[ballmerisanape]

Why don't they use some of our tax money.. the welfare money they took from the government... to subsidize these? <br /><br />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)?

[boilerman7]

Ahh, but you see electricity can come in the form of Solar Power, Wind Power, and Water turbine. Of course, let us not forget Nuclear Power (gasp!) ;)

[SteveW928]

Electricity is better just in terms of stuff like CO2. However, overall environmental impact is somewhat questionable to me at this point. Current battery technology isn't all that great (production... as well as can it all be 100% recycled at the end of life?).<br /><br />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.

[ballmerisanape]

boilerman7, i'm not concerned about "can".. i'm talking here and now.. and the next 20 years or so. Solar, Wind, and Water will be but a speck in the power grid for many years to come. The vast majority of the country relies on coal.... That should be our comparison.. not vaporware.

[boilerman7]

What a TOTAL load of crap. Private groups have developed all electric cars that run on currently available lithium batteries. The cars get to 100+ miles an hour, and have great range. Why is Detroit pushing "gasoline" anything? Since the technology is available already to develope much cars, why hold on to the pump at all?

[wjsteele]

It's simple, pumps are conviently located in just about every town out there. For a car to be successful, you need to have the infrastructure in place to support it, so the Volt can use either the plug in variety or the pump variety at the convenience of the owner/operator. <br /> <br />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. <br /> <br />Bill

[ferricoxide]

Two words: range extension.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.

[SteveW928]

These other cars with much greater range (though not all that much) have LOTS more batteries and cost lots more $. I think the Volt is a good step (if the car is descent to drive)... but this marketing campaign is totally deceptive. The Volt doesn't get 230 MPG in any kind of sense. My guess would be more like 50-60 MPG equivalent.

[ferricoxide]

On the face, $40K isn't bad. I'd have to compare it with other $40K cars to see what it is I'm getting for that money, though. I mean, for $40K, I could get a couple different makers' turbo diesel versions of cars that are pretty comfortable to begin with.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.

[texaslabrat]

re: hydrogen power plant. That kind of concept is exactly what GM was talking up when they were first designing the Volt's platform: fuel source diversity. The whole platform has been designed to make it easy (ier) to swap out such things later down the road if/when they become practical. People look at the Volt and think it's just a rehashed EV-1....there's a LOT more tech behind the scenes than they realize and all the R&#38;D to get the smooth transitions between battery and generator power and the like will pay off huge later on. That's something that only has to be done once, but will be applicable to all future models, and future generator/fuel cell packages.

[JHankwitz]

The claim should be "230 MPG + xx KWH", not just "230 MPG". Leaving the electricity used out of the claim's equation is clearly a misrepresentation of the facts. Half-truths always sound better when telling a lie, and the new "Government Motors" is being true to their standard political form.

[fokkwp]

"draft methodology for electric vehicles developed by the Environmental Protection Agency"<br /><br />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.

[SteveW928]

I guess they forgot to tell us about the feature that allows the Volt to extract electrical charge out of thin air. ;o)<br />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.<br />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.

[willdryden]

My electricity is 87% natural gas. It says so on my bill. I forget the rest of the numbers. I could sign up with Green Mountain Energy. Then my electricity would be 100% renewable, but my bill would go up $5.00.

[SteveW928]

@ willdryden -<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.?<br /><br />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.

[Stormspace]

There is an old movie I'm reminded about where someone is fleeing from a scene. He jumps into a car and floors it. He's several miles away and is being chased, but the pursuers are far away, when the car just quits and he has to wait on it to cool down. I wonder if at certain speeds the generator can't keep the batteries charged which would simulate the recalled event. The car dies for a few minutes while the generator catches up.

[bigmc6000]

If it did you'd have to be going in excess of 100 mph. Given the aerodynamic efficiency of the vehicle (very low coefficient of drag) and the low weight of the vehicle that 70ish equivalent HP engine can sustain you at about 80 mph which is good enough for virtually every environment out there (except maybe west texas where the speed limit is 80). So, basically no, you don't run into that.<br /><br />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).

[jillsfavorites]

How long have they been sitting on this one? Now that they need to pull a rabbit out of their hat they remember it... hhhmmm. Still, glad at least there are technologies finally coming out to the public. I always wonder - I understand emissions are not coming out of the back of the car now, but what's being produced as a result of all the extra electricity consumed. You don't get something "in" without having something come "out" somewhere. And same old probably what to do with all those old batteries...

[rapier1]

They've been working on this for around 3 or 4 years now.

[Shaun822]

Hopefully the batteries are recycleable otherwise it just creates a ton of solid waste that is dangerous.

[SteveW928]

@ jillsfavorites -<br /><br />Oh come one now... don't get all technical and try to apply physics or reality or anything. ;o)<br /><br />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.

[willdryden]

EMD division of GM has been using this technology for the last 85 years without the batteries.

[inachu1]

But will the volt be on sale early this year and sold for under 20k. <br /> <br />The volt will never see the light of day. EVER!

[Shaun822]

And you have what information to support that claim? Oh, that's right none.