Chevy Volt nabs shaky 230 MPG rating, might not ship in 2010
By Darren Murph 
posted Aug 11th 2009 9:03AM
posted Aug 11th 2009 9:03AM
Now, for the bad news. This past Sunday, GM reportedly submitted a regulatory filing with the US Treasury, and while it can't be taken as official word per se, it does provide reason to believe that the promised November ship date will slip to an undisclosed month and year. The report also noted that there is "no assurance" that it will qualify for any remaining energy loans to develop advanced fuel technology automobiles, and if you needed more reason to doubt the whole ordeal, have a look at this zinger: "Our competitors and others are pursuing similar technologies and other competing technologies, in some cases with more money available; there can be no assurance that they will not acquire similar or superior technologies sooner than we do." Ah well -- at least we know the four or five prototype models destined for eBay will do Ma Earth proud, right?
Update: CNN has a nice look at this incredibly large MPG figure, and -- surprise, surprise -- it's not nearly as fantastic as it looks at first glance.
Read - Chevy Volt gets "230 MPG" rating
Read - Chevy Volt may be delayed [Via AutoblogGreen]
new standards for extended ranged EVs?? what a load!
Here is the important question- How far will it drive on one full tank of gas (and I'll let them cheat with a pre-charged battery), and how many gallons are in a tank?
That is your miles per gallon. Period. No recharges / refills.
who needs 230, its not a BENZ!
I would NOT let them "cheat" with a fully charged battery. The actual miles per GALLON is what the vehicle is actually getting in real time while operating on gasoline. Otherwise, how can you claim the miles are "per gallon" when you're not using a liquid to power it?
The only reasonable way to rate series hybrids like this is to give them a dual rating: Miles per kilowatt AND miles per gallon. When you're operating in EV mode, you go off the miles per kilowatt rating. When the gas engine starts up, you begin calculating in miles per gallon. Otherwise, why don't they just claim infinite miles per gallon? If your commute is 12 miles each way (and mine is), then I'd be getting infinite mpg. Of course that would be a ridiculous and inaccurate claim - just as ridiculous and inaccurate as 230mpg.
Umm, we could just do the math... GM said you could go roughly 40 miles on a charge before the gas engine kicks in to provide power. So, lets see, 230 - 40 = 190, so, 190 mpg. ^_^ Though the other method of filling up the tank, seeing how far you can go, and then dividing by the number of gallons in the tank would work as well. Though for right now, that rating is daying that you can go roughly 190 miles on 1 gallon of gas, not bad right?
Uh Yodaman, I think you mean miles per kilowatt-hour or Joule...The Watt is simply a measure of power (instantaneous), not energy... But otherwise I agree.
love the cnn article, its going to take 8KwH to charge this thing, so at $1 per charge, lets call that $350 a year more to your electrical bill. nowhere near the cost of gas yes, but not anywhere near free
"in some cases with more money available" Huh? Didn't they just get $50 Billion free money ??
'
uh, yeah.... at least that's what I thought.
GM is pretty much guaranteed to fuck this up. I'd say there's only about a 3% chance they'll EVER be able to turn a profit by selling EVs, about a 20% chance that the Volt as we know it doesn't EVER get released, and about a 75% chance this thing doesn't drop in 2010.
SET FAIL!
It was anything but free!
How much does a gallon of electricity cost these days anyway?
Same question here - MPG = miles per gallon. Gallon of WHAT??? In an electric car!
Read the CNN Article. It explains how they came to this number. Also, the Volt does use Gasoline.
Just because it uses gasoline doesn't mean that a one-size-fits-all MPG rating is enough.
With a 40 mile electricity-only range, there are many people who will not use a drop of gas during a regular work week. Those people need to know just how much juice is it using to charge the batteries overnight. We can't keep shoehorning new technology into our old standards.
At andir3.0
yeah, it runs on pixie dust and rainbows.
Cost is about 40 cents per charge for 40 miles of travel
230mpg of gas + 5 buckets full of coal. Yay.
The Volt has a 16 KWh (kilowatt-hour) battery pack. My off-peak electricity rates (between 8:00PM and 6:00AM) are $0.08/KWh.
It would cost me $1.28 to completely charge the battery from empty.
I see from the article that the car only utilizes 10KWh of the 16KWh capacity. This would be to extend the cycle life of the batteries, much like how the Prius only uses between 60%-80% (Its NiMH batteries are much less forgiving than LiON).
It also turns out my off-peak rate is only $0.05/KWh.
My math was wrong, charging price for the Volt at my house would be $0.50. Not bad for 40 miles.
My prius is averaging 50MPG, and with gas prices at $2.58 I would only manage about 9.5 miles at $0.50.
I live down in Texas, We don't get off peak rates. I pay 14 cents / KWH and that is a good rate. Some pay 19 cents / KWH. What does everyone in California pay? something like 25 cents / KWH. Some of you are forgetting that it takes more than energy to charge a battery than it can acutally store. This is due to heat loss in the charging system. Also if you don't get a 220V outlet in your garage, its less efficient. Be prepared to spend $800 to get a 220V GFI installed in your garage.
This is nothing more than a stunt to get the stock price up, so someone can make a profit, before it comes crashing down.
I already worked this math months ago
http://blog.whitesites.com/Chevy-Volt-Charging-Math-doesn-t-add-up__633585085743050177_blog.htm
great, GM is asking for us to give them more money? I'd much rather have congress pass billions of more dollars to the cash for clunker program that will actually MOVE cars and GIVE back money to the people, as opposed to just giving money to the incompetent motor company.
To be fair, you would actually be better off keeping your paid off (or soon to be) car than to take on another loan even if $4500 of it were given to you by the taxpayer. It's also better for the environment than having your engine destroyed, forging a new one and burning up all that energy creating a new car that will save you a very small amount of MPG over the long run. It's a very clever way of taking money out of your pocket under the guise of giving you money to spend... and you will spend it of course.
CARS was clearly a political move to put money into the UAW. One thing's for sure, the current administration looks to heavily support union labor given this program, health care (think about it... unions won't have to pay for healthcare plans now... but your dues will stay the same...), Union Organizing Act and who knows what else on the horizon. You'd think they had ties to the union in some way... like granting him the power to pass all this legislation while making the unions more powerful so they can back him in his re-election...
Saw this cars months ago on David letter they showed it off for some reason, Looks like crap just a huge clunky looking cars. I'm no expert but i would assume making a vehicle as always reduced drag therefore increasing efficiencies? this thing is big like I said earlier.
I don't think this looks any worse than 90% of the cars coming out today. It's fairly nondescript, designed to not offend the largest amount of people. Unfortunately that's the way most cars are styled nowadays. 48% focus groups, 49% wind tunnels and the last 3% mean you might get interesting tail lights on it.
@Ethos:
1. The Volt is not big. It's underpinned by the Delta II platform, which is the same as the upcoming Chevy Cruze (replacement for the Cobalt).
2. Bob Lutz went on Letterman because a couple weeks before Elon Musk, CEO of Tesla, had been on showing off the Tesla Model S and didn't correct Letterman when he slammed the Volt and GM for the 40 mile range without mentioning the range extender.
3. This car is as efficient if not more efficient than the Prius (one of the most aerodynamic production cars) in the wind tunnel, and was designed mostly with aerodynamics in mind. However, as a designer the challenge is creating a form that achieves this efficiency while maintaining appeal. This brings me to my next point:
4. To each his own, but wait to see it in person before making a judgment on its looks. Place this next to a Prius, and the Prius looks stodgy. The Volt a stunning car live.
Oh, so THIS was the thing behind those damn commercials on Hulu. I never looked into it, just waited until today to find out.
Well, now I know.
*whistles as I walk away knowing why*
I was wondering what it was about as well. Now I know, and I really don't care.
Too bad the mpg logo sucks.
That logo looks like the number 23 to me, not 230. What a dumb marketing decision.
so was it this event that the ad was referring to? it had 8-11 on the bottom...
Yep, this is it. 4 weeks of annoying ads and "sightings" and it's not even something I give a crap about. It would have been more efficient for them to just put out a few ads that actually showed the car and told me why it was worth thinking about.
This is what happens when you keep throwing free money at a business. There is no incentive to succeed.
GM sucks let em rot. If the need to buy American is pulling your heart strings buy a Ford.
I hope the people who can afford this buy the hell out of it.
30 years ago they had a name for these engineers. It was "unemployed".
Much as these cars appear to be the future, I think the whole, powering an electric motor with a gas motor is just asking for trouble. Just wait a few more years for batteries to get more refined and spend that time figuring out new ways to safely distribute battery weight and prevent thermal runaway. People will love EV's eventually, but think more like 2020 and less like 2010. Imagine charging your car at night and getting 600 miles, we truly aren't far. Tesla S has near a 300 mile range on a full charge (assuming you don't go 130mph everywhere), battery capacity increases roughly 8% a year. So, with some voodoo math, we arrive at around 600-700 miles per charge. Assuming batteries also decrease in charge time, a trend that seemingly is also staying true, we'll arrive at a reasonably priced car, with 700 mile range, that charges in 2-4 hours. That would be amazing. It will come just in time for us all to stop driving to work because we do all our work with webcams and google wave.
The speed at which your wall outlet can provide power does not change much.
There is nothing wrong with using a gasoline generator in a car. Most modern locomotives use diesel generators to power electric motors. Seperating the engine from the drive train yields significant increases in efficiency.
I wouldn't mind charging my car at a charge station for an hour as long as I had a podcast or a hand held system on me. But then again I'd really make the push for my landlord to upgrade the garage.
Powering an electric motor with a gasoline or diesel engine is actually a great idea. Here's why: Gas engines burn differing amounts of fuel based on how fast they're spinning. That's a simplistic explanation, there are more factors involved, but basically the more power you ask them to put out, the more fuel they're going to use.
Every engine, however, has a perfect power to fuel use point. That is, at a specific power output level, the engine is using the least amount of fuel per horsepower possible for that particular engine's design. Ideally, if you want to maximize fuel economy, you'd run the engine at this power level at all times. Now you can't do that when the engine is driving the wheels directly, the output power of the engine is constantly changing based on the demands of driving. If you want to go faster you push on the gas pedal which delivers more fuel to the engine, if you want to slow down you let up on the pedal which delivers less fuel, etc. So the engine is rarely running in it's most fuel efficient power range.
Using the engine as a generator to charge batteries to drive an electric motor, however, changes everything. You can now run the engine in it's perfect output range, using the least amount of fuel-per-horsepower possible. Stopped at a light, on the freeway, and everywhere in between, the engine stays in that perfect range and the electric motor, which is much more efficient, gets to handle the stop & go duties. Even accounting for the losses in power conversion, a series hybrid like this is still much more efficient than the "old way" of using engine power to drive the wheels.
You know how you get better gas mileage on the freeway vs. the city? It's like that, except as far as the engine's power (and fuel use) is concerned, you're always on the freeway and the cruise is always set in the optimal position.
The Volt is a perfect solution for an all electric car and here is why. You can use whatever fuel source you want to in place of the gasoline engine. You can use a diesel engine, a fuel cell, a hydrogen powered engine, a propane engine, etc., etc. Anything that can convert fuel into electricity can be retrofit to power this vehicle and keep the batteries charged as a back up generator. And you can plug the car in at home to charge it from the grid, solar, wind, or whatever you use to generate power in your house to power the majority of your commute.
Trains, large industrial equipment, large ships, all use a similar type of propulsion. Many of these vehicles all have diesel or turbine engines that run a generator that powers an electric motor to propel the vehicle.
This method of propulsion is also very efficient. In a normal car, you lose a lot of energy going through transmissions and because of the constant throttle position changes of the engine. In the Volt, the engine can pretty much run at a constant speed to charge the battery and then shut off when the battery is full. Engines are more efficient at certain RPM ranges. Also the engine is directly coupled to a generator which eliminates the necessity and inefficiency of a transmission. Also the engine can be much smaller than those in a traditional vehicle.
Finally, the Volt's power train eliminates one of the downsides of a Tesla. You don't get stuck on the side of the road if you run out of electricity because you have a backup generator with you to recharge if needed. Also, if the batteries die, the smaller size of the Volt's batteries compared to the Tesla's mean they will be much cheaper to replace in the Volt.
I don't care if GM comes out with a car with this type of propulsion system first or someone beats them to it. This is the future of electric vehicles because of how flexible a platform like the Volt's can be. It is the best combination of an electric vehicle and a traditional fueled vehicle. It allows us to continue to use current fuel infrastructure in the interim time between the switch to hydrogen as a primary fuel source since hydrogen is obviously the best choice for future fuel because of its abundance.
Wait... competitors? Tesla has more money than GM?
Whoever designed that sign needs to be fired. When I first saw it, I thought to myself: "What is the freaking big deal with 23 MPG?"
Oh cmon - give em a break. SO what if it only gets 50 MPG while the engine is running. Most people, myslef included, dont got more than 40 or so miles in a day. Sure, some days I do, but most the time I go about 25-30, and go home. Thats no gas used. Zero!
Zero gas used is indeed awesome; however, the electricity still has a significant financial and environmental cost. Burning fossil fuels to produce electricity that is generated inefficiently, distributed inefficiently and then stored inefficiently before it gets used by the car isn't all that helpful.
A better solution would arise if someone were to ask why it should be necessary to drive 20 miles to work and back just to sit in front of a computer and talk on a phone - activities that could be done anywhere.
This^^
I was just commenting to my wife that during the week just going to and from work we would not use any gasoline. Sure we'd be paying for electricity to charge overnight, but from what I understand that is a lot cheaper.
@scjessey
Management has a hard time with telecommuters. It's hard to quantify work hours. They also have to pay for at least part of the user's internet connection, and phone bill. Then you have the IT issues. Do you allow the user to connect their personal computer to the company over a vpn(fuck no!), well then you have to issue them a computer. Now how do you keep the software up to date? Sure auto update works, but only if they keep the computer running 24/7. Now you have to pay for part of their electric bill. Then comes the time IT needs to update/install a new piece of software. They don't want to give the user the license key(no really, that's a bad idea), so they have to remote desktop the machine. Wait! They have the slowest dsl connection available, because the bean counters decided that a 512kb connection was all they were going to pay for. Or, the user is half way across the country, or even in another country. Yea, it sounds good on paper, but in the end it's a big pain in the ass.
@scjessey: Besides the valid points made by barry99705, it's incorrect to think that we can get more efficiency by managing millions of distributed factories for producing energy out of fossil fuels (i.e., gas-powered autos) than managing only a few factories and then pushing the electricity out. I'd much rather manage the pollution and efficiency of a few big plants.
@scjessey: Yeah, we're not all burning fossil fuels here. Ever looked at hydroelectric? I just spent the weekend visiting Grand Coulee Dam in Washington State. They produce enough electricity to power 100% of the needs of 11 Western states and put just shy of a billion dollars a year back into the federal government's coffers, while simultaneously irrigating millions of acres of otherwise dry farmland (read: food for you and I). All in one dam, all of it completely green, clean and renewable.
Over 95% of my electricity here in the Pacific Northwest comes from hydroelectric. It really is the ultimate green power. Now, we just need to get the price of these cars way, way down. $40k is ridiculous. Get 'em closer to $20k and I'll trade my Hummer in on one, but for now, it's cheaper to keep feeding the Hummer.
Dear Engadget,
What a garbage report on the Volt, . 4 Prototypes? they produced already more than 30 Volt's for testing and they are used in daily driving around Arizona and Michigan. Why all that negativity? I think its a big step forward to get the country off the oil addiction. GM needs all the support they can get. Taxpayers are part owner so why would you shoot yourself in the back by avoiding GM products?
Engadget never did like the Chevy Volt.
$40,000.00 is rediculous from a rediculous company that can't understand why it doesn't make profits but does, unfortunately, understand that if only a few citizens buy their cars (employees, relatives, politicians, etc), they can simply take the money (via the government) from the rest of us to continue business as usual. Another words Chevy Volt = another bailout needed. Are they still too big to be allowed to fail? What do you bet, that the answer is YES from our government. So why would they build something that will sell (even if they could)?
Finally, the crazy youtube ad about 230-811 before each and every video makes sense now, but still these ads are irritating enough.
I wouldn't put much stock into the Treasury filing. These types of documents (like Red Herrings) emphasize all the possible things that can go wrong so no one gets sued later, and are not usually a balanced assessment. Doesn't mean that it's NOT true, just that it doesn't have to be.
EPA controlled by Govt Libs REVISE the rules.
Govt Owned corporate entity "run by libs" comes out with BS car adopting news rules.
Ignorant uninformed, poorly educated but highly opinionated and naive "ELITIST" fools come along and proclaim holy smokes 230 Mpg.
Break out the Bullshit Meter boys and Girls you are getting played. But hey...If you feel green and you are saving the enviroment...Go buy one!!
I sit back like the rest of the educated world and snicker...silly Americans :)
You've been taught that "liberal = bad" regardless of context.
It seems that it was you who's been played.
Hey, I just realized that this is a more efficient "Cash for Clunkers" government program. It is more efficient because we taxpayers don't even have to get ripped off by buying the clunker this time, the government will just give them our money directly! Hmmm, I wonder if this could be applied to health care and other government programs so that the unpleasant requirements of producing quality goods and services at competive prices can be mitigated or elimanated in favor of increased efficiency. Wow! An efficient government! Why does that still leave me thinking something is wrong with this picture?
Really interesting regarding it's MPG but now GM needs to make fuel expensive again in order to make some money. As for the price range it's been rumored between $37,000 to $42,000 vs a Prius which is $25,000 to $32,000.
Yes, but which one gets the equivalent of 230mpg?
Or a Honda Insight which is about $20,000.
Toyota is also coming out with the plug in Prius which will be about the same as the Volt.
Yeah, $40,000 is a bunch of money. You could buy an Insight and fill it up about forever for the extra $20,000. You should be able to drive for over 300,000 miles before you have to spend more than a Volt buyer that has driven 1 mile.
@tagbert: Who cares? The extra money isn't worth it. Consider my paid for Hummer getting 12 miles per gallon. I could spend $40k on a Volt, or I could spend $40k on fuel over the next 10 years. The Volt will eat about $150 in electricity every year, but if I never drive more than 40 miles in a day, I'll never have to buy gas. Total investment for the vehicle and fuel for 10 years of city driving, $41,500.
The $40k in fuel will take my Hummer 120,000 miles at $4 per gallon. So, given that the Hummer is paid for, it's going to cost me the same amount of money to drive my Hummer vs. a Volt. We're assuming maintenance is roughly the same on both vehicles. It's easy to claim the Hummer's maintenance will be higher, but the Volt is a new product and there will be a lot of expensive kinks to work out down the road. Realistically, it's probably a wash.
So would I rather drive a bad ass 4x4, or an ugly ass Volt under the guise of "saving money?" I'll take the 4x4, thanks.
Further, that $40k I would have spent on the Volt can sit in a money market account and earn me interest and I can draw from it every two weeks to fuel the Hummer up. At the end of the 10 years it's likely I'll still have several thousand dollars left due to the interest earned. Alternatively, if I'm broke and I finance the Volt, I'm going to have so much money into paying interest that the Hummer will be that much cheaper to keep and drive.
Vaporware, but for cars. Just wait and see.
The fact that an actual Volt has been submitted to a Federal agency for testing would indicate to most people that the Volt is indeed real.
In case you missed it, here's a link to a video of Chief engineer Andrew Farah driving IVER #1.
http://www.autoblog.com/2009/06/25/chevy-volt-chief-engineer-takes-drive-in-first-pre-production-pr/
GM's new motto: Buy a Chevy or Bail Us Out - A company that offers tax payers a choice!
it should be the chevy trabant
the tools at GM can't even announce it clearly... at first glance, the banner in the image made me think it was 23MPG
Well, they are using a proprietary electric socket...... Wouldn't you know it? GM has "re-invented" electricity.
@Andy
And the tool I'm responding to clicked on a link Engadget put together that says 230mpg. So I ask which did you see first?
But seriously. Lets say that the Volt has a 13 gallon tank and and it falls a bit short and only gets 220 mpg.... thats 2,860 miles from F to E! An oil change is 3k miles! Do the math on this one: 40 bucks to fill the tank and 40 for an oil change. Both every 3 months or 2,800 miles whichever's first. Maybe 6k worth of maintainance on the year including tires makes it well worth the 40-45k for the car IMO.
Am I the only one staggered/sceptical that they say it'll get 50MPG when running off the gasoline powered generator?
I always thought the catch with this car would be if you drive further than 40 miles per charge you're crucified (but not stuck, at least) on economy.
Something doesn't add up here, actually. How can a crappy generator be more efficient than actually turning the damn wheels? Why don't they just build a car without the expensive lithium batteries and just purely run it on electric motors powered by a gasoline electricity generator?
Something's fake!
They do make cars like that, they are called.... let me think.... "hybrids". The point is that the generator shuts off when sitting still as long as the battery has juice. The battery just acts like a capacitor so the car can move at a moment's notice without waiting for the engine to start. Also the generator can always run at it's most efficient speed, since it doesn't have to drive the wheels.
No, today's hybrids generate electricity by harnessing the lost energy when you hit the brakes and temporarily storing it in batteries.
This is the first car (that i'm aware of) that has an actual gasoline generator.
Nothing confusing about it. The range-extending ICE can do a certain amount of work most efficiently by staying in its optimum rpm range. By not requiring the ICE to constantly change RPMs, as in a regular car or a hybrid ala Prius, it is more efficient.
Garbage Motors is bait and switching. Making diversionary noise about the vaporous Volt while still trying to peddle same-old, same-old 4-wheeled pieces of crap that got them into bankruptcy in the first place. There are some good cars in the range but their whole business is predicated on getting cheap and crappy cars into a market that is full of cheap and pretty good cars. In the case of GM, the cash for clunkers deal is about the government giving you $4500 off a "new" clunker. The tax payer pays three times (once for the bail-out, once for the CfC and once for the actual vehicle).
The EPA has been figuring out the correct equation to calculate mpgs for electric vehicles for awhile now.
Plug-in hybrids will use the same calculation that are being used for the Volt. Battery electric vehicles use a different, but similar procedure. Since the calculations aren’t the same, it helps demonstrate the difference between electric vehicles and extended-range electric vehicles - like the Volt.
The 230 number is based on development testing and the current draft federal fuel economy methodology developed by the EPA for EVs. Its not finalized and still could change.
Here's how it's calculated: It looks at data from urban drivers in the city and on the highway and assumes that the car uses both gasoline and electric energy as fuel. It also assumes that the driver charges their car each day and also takes into effect things like running the AC, having passengers and cargo in the car and outside temperature. Remember, the Volt is expected to achieve up to 40 miles of electric-only, petroleum-free driving based on both the EPA city and highway preliminary test cycles. GM is optimistic that the Volt will reach the 40 mile EV range target and expects the combined city and highway number will be in the triple digits.
Wow a whole lot of bashing going on here. What you think Toyota wouldn’t do the same if it could?
The problem with a series hybrid is it’s all about how far you drive and how your drive. Like the saying goes your mileage may vary.
The Volt is meant to be a commuter car. The vast majority of people go what 20 or 30 miles a day? I drive 60 which is more than most and I’d still get impressive mileage from a Volt. It will be a bit expensive initially but the federal tax credit will help and as technology advances it will become cheaper.
One of the reasons the Prius is the best selling hybrid is because it’s a Prius not just because it gets great fuel economy. Many who buy these and buy the Volt aren’t buying them just to save money on gas. Just like a lot of BMW owners don’t buy there cars for performance and luxury but the badge on the back.
I say good job GM, sure others will follow and copy and even improve on the technology but I give credit where credit is due.
And the Volt will qualify for $7,500 tax credit.
And therefore add to the mega-trillion deficit (like all of the other eco-friendly cars that use eco-unfriendly battery components). This is not free-enterprise, its re-Volting.
1 kW/h of renewable energy costs me ~14 cents. A typical lead-acid battery pack might hold 10 to 12 kilowatt-hours of electricity, giving a car a range of 50 miles or so. This would cost around $1.50 to go the same distance 1 gallon of gas would take you. Then again, that price seems high to me (How many Amp/hours of power does a EV have, or need to recharge? I thought it was going to be around 50 cents). Around here, I wouldn't use any power when stopped at traffic lights, idling, in traffic jams, or at the fast food drive-thru.
There is also a lot less wear & tear on an electric motor compared to starting and stopping a gas/petrol engine for short trips.
Dude, Physics Learn it...Please!
might as well rate it a billion or a trillion mpg since gm can't actually deliver the car.
Even if the car gets 230 mpg, the electricity it uses comes from a charging station or your house. And do you know how your house gets electricity?? BURNING FOSSIL FUELS!! It's essentially the same thing, except you are burning the fuels at a power station instead of in your car.
The power station burns it in a much more efficient manner. Why do you think it only costs 40 cents of electricity to go 40 miles?
The power station is far more efficient in producing energy than the car.
Also, not all electricity comes from fossil fuel .. we also have nuclear, solar, wind, and hydro. Furthermore electric cars will make it easier to transition out of dependence on fossil fuels because now it's a matter of converting the power stations to produce clean energy (solar, nuclear?).
Not mine (although I will still not be getting a volt). 90% of my power comes from nuclear, the other 10% from wind and hydroelectric.
You are an idiot. For the love of god go back to school and get some kind of education.
" So let's say the car is driven 50 miles in a day. For the first 40 miles, no gas is used and during the last 10 miles, 0.2 gallons are used. That's the equivalent of 250 miles per gallon. But, if the driver continues on to 80 miles, total fuel economy would drop to about 100 mpg. And if the driver goes 300 miles, the fuel economy would be just 62.5 mpg. "
ha the lies. who would have guess from GM.... No way...
Huh? I don't see the lies.
MPG is tested for specific conditions. For example, my car may say 23 mpg. But that's assuming the car is driven in a typical manner. If for example, I accelerate to 60 mph. Then press the brakes and slow down or stop .. and then again rapidlly accelerate to 60 .. etc. over and over for miles then .. my mpg will be ridiculously low.
How often do you drive 300 miles continuously? Very rarely.
The typical drive is under 40 miles, and on occasion 50 miles. That covers about 85% of drives. So then the mpg is correct if not an underestimate.
@Westley
"ha the lies. who would have guess from GM.... No way.."
As much as I don't really care about the volt (I just bought a camaro :D) Truth be told, it amazes me how people don't understand what EV cars are suppose to be for. They are developed for short range city driving (GM has stated this a lot about the volt), not long range highway driving. The prius is the same way 51city/48highway. Hybrids and EV get worse gas milage on the highway then in the city, because it's not using the electricity. An EV would never be practical for me since I live far out in the country, but for someone you lives in new york that drives 40 or a little more to get to work and back home in stop and go traffic. It works.
This explains the phalanx of guerilla marketers handing out T-shirts around metro stations in DC yesterday. They had stacks and stacks and stacks of them -- with that stupid logo and the tag "whatis230.com" -- which, by the way, doesn't mention the damned car.
I really hate some New Marketing.
"Most Volt drivers will operate on a daily basis without having to use a single drop of gas,"
So they'll be dragging around an extremely heavy engine and a tank of fuel only for it not to be used - what a great idea that is! I really don't see the appeal of hybrid cars and all electric seems much more sensible to me.
Sensible until your battery runs out and you are stuck.
Think of the range-extending ICE as a safety net. It will calm people's fears about running out of battery power - and the correlating recharge times.
Just like people carry around extra weight today. Safety equipment like air-bags, spare tires, steel door intrusion beams, etc. could easily be discarded, and the loss of weight would increase the efficiency of the car from which they have been removed. Some people would argue the single biggest reason for the porker-size cars people prefer to drive is because they are "safer".
I really don't give a $hit if these are accurate or not. Either way I'm getting a plug-in hybrid, or preferably all electric, as soon as one is available.
If you live in the west coast then your electric grid will self destruct with everyones car plugged in as well as all those air conditioners.
$40,000? If this was slashed to $18,000 this would fly off the lots.
Everyone needs to get their energy from the grid and then make the grid more efficient but a $40,000 price tag simply won't do it.
At least GM didn't copy the Priuslook like Honda's new Insight.
You mean like the Prius copied the original Insight, like that car copied the CRX... wait. There's a term for this design. It's called a "Kamm" tail (or back) and it was conceived as an optimum shape for aerodynamics - in the 1930's. You might as well complain that Toyota's Tundra is a copy of the Ford F-150 because both vehicles have a cab and a bed.
The purpose of the vehicle determines what shape the designers will create. Fuel-efficient sedans will pretty much always end up looking like the Volt/Prius/Insight/A2...etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kammback
GM has been so short sighted, mis-managed, produced such poor quality vehicles, and out of touch for so long. Who cares anymore? The real victims are the loyal workers being given the shaft. Though I'm not sure how much sympathy I have for unions either...
"GM has marketed the Volt as the model to turn the company around, but the report claimed it “has not yet proven to be commercially viable”.
And it never will be. But of course now that GM is owned by the government, "commercially viable" (as in we will sell enough to actually make a profit) doesn't matter. Just another Big G money pit.
WTF!?!?
GM, f-ing GM, just made an electric car that most people don't need to feed any gas. For some people this car will have ∞ miles to the gallon.
Why the nay saying?
As a European the problem with American cars is
Cheap plastic interior
handling and suspension are from the drak ages.
Tend to explode and are not very safe.
I do like the automatic gearboxes mind you, driving a manual is as far from 21st century as you can get.
The 40 mile range on their electric batteries is a joke. Their later EV1 production cars could get up to 150 miles on just NiCad batteries.
And as others touched on, your power station is a lot more efficient than your car is. Your standard internal combustion engine has an efficiency of converting the gasoline to energy at only 15%. It's a joke.
Hell I'd sooner build a pure electric car from my 99' Accent and while I'm at it build a mini pull trailer (small battery pack on wheels) that I can attach and plug in to extend my mileage. You can even have several of these plugged in at all times between the house and work (or wherever) and swap them out at will.