Driving the Volt
Peter Savagian is an engineer at GM who worked on the EV-1. He recently presented data from his study on the effect of driving electrified vehicles.
The presentation examines and discusses the implication of plug-in hybrid and E-REV utilization.
Per Peter, “GM’s Advanced Propulsion Technology Strategy is to remove automobiles from the environmental dialogue.”, and “another key element of the strategy is to allow automobiles to shift significant portions of their required energy from petroleum to other sources.” This is otherwise known as petroleum displacement.
The definition of an E-REV is proposed as “a vehicle that functions s a full-performance battery electric vehicle when energy is available from an onboard RESS (rechargeable electric storage system) and having an auxiliary energy supply that is only engaged when the RESS energy is not available.” He also says “the E-REV is unique from a PHEV in that the vehicle, battery and propulsion system are sized such that the engine never is required for operation of the vehicle when energy is available from the battery.”
In the study, Peters group analyzed real-world detailed driving data from a cohort of over 600 actual drivers in Southern California. As opposed to running simulation a on pre-defined test cycles such as the US06, the study analyzes what the effect of this real-world driving behavior would be if it occurred in a conventional vehicle, plug-in hybrid, or E-REV.
One key finding was that the hybrid reduced fuel consumption by 23%, the PHEV by 54%, and the E-REV by 80%.
When measured as a function of number of engine starts, the study showed that emissions were not significantly reduced using a HEV, but were reduced by 72% using an E-REV.
Peter concludes that “electrification that enables E-REVs may be well worth the effort.” and “while PHEVs can make improvements when compared to HEVs, an E-REV appears to realize a much greater portion of societal benefits.”
Further he says, “By offering full-performance on electric power alone, the E-REV operates as an EV for the majority of real drivers. By retaining an ICE-powered charging capability, the E-REV overcomes the “range anxiety” limitations of earlier BEVs. We anticipate that the E-REV will be an important and practical step forward in the electrification of the automobile”.
See Peter’s blog post and presentation of the data: (LINK)
Popularity: 4%
(No Ratings Yet) 
Loading ...
43 Responses to “Driving the Volt”
Leave a Reply
Recent Posts
- Volt Battery Supplier Chosen and GM Comments on Production Photo Leaks (POLL)
- BREAKING: Production VOLT Spied!! The REAL DEAL!!
- Chevy Volt Interior Picture Leak
- Bob Lutz Responds to Toyota’s Announcement: Large Volt Test Fleet in 2009
- Volt Competition: Mazda’s Secret E-REV Program, Toyota Forwards Plug-in Fleet to 2009
- Bob Lutz on Chevy Volt Battery Tests, Cold Starts, and Use of OnStar
- The Chevy Volt Generator Will Run at One of Several Fixed RPMs
- E-Flex Cadillac Next?
- How the Chevy Volt Operates Past the Customer Depletion Point
- The Chevy Volt Will Have iPod Connectivity (Plus More Design Issues)
February 13th, 2008 at 12:51 pm
Fantastic presentation! This is exactly the type of information that customers, dealerships and government/corporate policy makers need in order to make good decisions.
February 13th, 2008 at 1:02 pm
So …the Volt will be a lot better for the enviroment than the Escape or the Prius. Sounds like a winner!
February 13th, 2008 at 1:53 pm
well duh…
We should have gone this route back in 1900.
Even if we generated all our electricity in coal-fired power plants, it wouldn’t produce as much emissions as all the gas powered cars on the road today.
Now I just need an affordable way to retrofit my SUV.
February 13th, 2008 at 1:58 pm
dodaman #3,
Well see my comment #63 in “Congressman Jay Inslee on the Status of Plug-in Vehicle Tax Credits”, I try to give an answer about being one century late.
February 13th, 2008 at 2:26 pm
Plus, with the advances in solor “panel” technology, we can begin to capture more of our own electricity. Nanosolar and others are targeting the more normal consumer. Hopefully the tax credits for home solar and wind electricity will be created and/or extended and enlarged. Get your congressman’s ear….We are at the crossroads were technology, ecology and economy can merge into a better way to live.
February 13th, 2008 at 3:35 pm
James #5: Correction Nano Solar is not targeting the average consumer currently. They are sold out for all fo 2008 and into 2009 on future production. Most of the first batches are headed for large scale utility sized solar arrays in Germany. I doubt any consumers will be able to buy their tech for atleast 3 years. I know I wanted to buy it myself, great deal for a house as it is light weight & does not require costly structural retrofit to support it as old tech. And I would expect tax credits to do just the opposite & go away as the industry is established and prices continue to drop there will be no need for them. If anyone know where I can make a reservation to have some Nano solar panels bought & installed by Nov. 2010 let me know, my new Volt will need them!
February 13th, 2008 at 3:37 pm
dodaman #3,
Back in 1900, oil was cheap and there wasn’t that many people driving cars as today, plus we have more people in US then before. I will says that in 1970 should have been a wakeup call to the Cars company, Oil company, Goverment, and the Consumer as well.
I guess that what happen when people get addict on oil. 20 years ago, many people were laughing at tree huggers. There not laughing now. Like you knew what going to happen in the next 100 years.
I’m aware that presentation is all theory base on the data that they have. I hope the people will prove that theory is a fact in the next few years. I still think that hydrogen is crap for the mass cause it will never be cheap. They never left a time line on these presentation. I can’t see the next 100 years from now.
February 13th, 2008 at 3:49 pm
I just hope that they get the damned car into the hands of the public before it’s too late.
February 13th, 2008 at 3:49 pm
It reminds me of “who killed the electric car” when their interviewing one of the project managers.
“we’d meet with GM execs and they’d say what do we need to tell people to get them to believe”
“i’d tell them how fast, how far, how much” that’s what everyone is asking.”
Glad to see their answering those question right up front. Honestly from the way they’ve acted i get the feeling they learned alot from the whole ev-1 thing, and now their hands aren’t tied. (everyone hates big oil)
February 13th, 2008 at 3:56 pm
cybereye,
I still laugh at tree huggers. They want you to walk everywhere and not use toilet paper - ala Sheryl Crow.
GM has created an alternative that allows me to drive along doing the gangsta lean without upsetting the tree huggers at whom I splash puddles.
February 13th, 2008 at 4:23 pm
Jason M. Hendler, #10:
Speaking as a tree hugger, I rest my case.
February 13th, 2008 at 4:34 pm
Jason M. Hendler #10
LOL…Some treehugger are too far off the reality or have no lifesyle. I sure wouldn’t able to live without toilet paper.
February 13th, 2008 at 5:18 pm
In regards to Nano Solar and solar panel advances, you should also check out the stirling solar engine at http://www.infiniacorp.com/applications/clean_energy.php
3 kW of solar power without any structural changes. Just mount it in your backyard just like the old large satalite dishes.
While they are starting to sell these units this year to large power suppliers it will unfortunately be close to 2 years until they will be selling to average consumers
February 13th, 2008 at 5:20 pm
I actually got a personalized response from Senator Feinstein’s office to my e-mail about tax credits for plug-in hybrid cars. It was pretty to the point and useful. So I guess we can make an impression.
I forwarded the e-mail to the gm-volt address, so I hope that Lyle can make some use of it.
I am somewhat encouraged. If all 11,000 waiting list members each sent an e-mail to both of their Senators and their US Representative, we could really make a blip on the screen in DC.
Do it guys, please!
February 13th, 2008 at 5:26 pm
Can’t wait for this car, or cars like it. We must reduce/eliminate our oil dependence before The economy goes all to hell.
And if you think the U.S economy is going down right now, just wait until oil is at $300/barrel and above. No one will be able to afford anything unless it is made locally. This would make the recession in the 1930’s seem tame..
February 13th, 2008 at 5:49 pm
Not sure if I understand what is presented by it appears that 97% of the future Volt drivers will get more than 20 miles of AER, but only 3% will get the design goal of 40 miles. What is up with that? Why not advertise the range using the US 06 cycle?
Next the assumed design constrains of the imaginary competitor vehicles seems dated. Why is the urban PHEV limited to 53 Kw, or 60 miles/hour. That sounds like the 2009 Prius, not the 2011 Plug-in Prius.
February 13th, 2008 at 6:10 pm
I would feel a lot better about this study if it had been done by an independent person than from a person that is trying to sell me the Volt. Now, having said that and at the same time looking past that, this study sounds quite promising.
February 13th, 2008 at 7:07 pm
According to GCC, the US06 cycle would cut the Volt’s range down to 32 miles:
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2008/02/gm-study-shows.html
Which works out to about 250Wh/mile.
However, this was using the “basic specifications of a Malibu-like sedan”. Which are markedly different in weight and aerodynamics of the production Volt.
So should we expect 32 mile mules?
February 13th, 2008 at 9:17 pm
Assuming the Malibu mule isn’t going to pack the Volt ICE or Generator weight, it should be able to muster 40 “All Electric” miles.
February 13th, 2008 at 9:25 pm
Very nice article and presentation. It’s great to see that GM is behind this technology. If they stick to this philosophy transportation will change forever and it won’t take that long. With that said I have a few issues with the analysis and their thought process.
1) Hydrogen. Now I’m pretty sure why they keep talking about hydrogen but I would like to voice my thoughts. Firstly, there is a lot of government support (read cash) for hydrogen research and development. GM is getting a piece of the pie and wishes to continue doing so. Since I don’t work for GM I can talk about it. For every hydrogen dollar received by GM how much is spent on the fuel cell or hydrogen storage? That is what I would like to know. I’m betting less than 30%. Why? The engineers know it will never come to market in a big way but have to put on a good effort. Where is the other money going? To the most important part of the project, vehicle electrification. These projects include: wheel hub motors, advanced AC motor controllers, advanced computer and electrical systems, user interface and software design, material research, battery research, etc. These are all projects that will be used in GMs E-Flex and other future electric platforms. I say keep up the good work! If the government is too slow or ignorant to understand reality then sometimes you have to work around the problem. Why is hydrogen not going to make it? If you look at the presentation you can clearly tell that hydrogen will not be needed. Sure we will get 40 miles of all electric in 2011 but five years later we could easily get 100 miles for the same cost. Agreed? If so the ICE will barely be used at all for a majority of drivers. Add that to the fact that more and more people will be working at home due to internet advances (hey, huge office building are expensive to operate - having more people working at home for a majority of the time is much cheaper). Now, are you telling me that it would be a good idea to invest in a huge hydrogen infrastructure build-out, force people to again be controlled by energy companies, have to stop at hydrogen stations and pay hydrogen tax, have that hydrogen sitting idle most of the time in very complex storage systems that will require constant maintenance is a good idea?! I’m sure the engineers and people who have a clue are also laughing. Absolutely ridiculous! Vehicles in 10 years may be using less than 10 percent of the liquid fuel they do today. Renewable biofuels would be a much better fit. They can sit longer, are more efficient to produce than hydrogen, can be created using algae or waste products, etc. and require almost no modification to the current infrastructure. In 20 years the battery will be perfected for 300 mile range with quick recharge. Please tell me you agree with that! Whew. Try to make an intelligent argument for hydrogen. Please!
2) I disagree with the author’s comparison of E-REV and PHEV. I don’t think the author was clear in defining what kind of PHEV he was talking about. Is he telling us that he thinks the Volt E-REV will be that much better than Toyota’s 2011 PHEV Prius? Or how about another PHEV with the same size battery pack? It’s mostly about the size of the battery pack. Sure if you compare the Volt’s 40 mile range battery pack to a tiny battery pack the numbers would be as he charted. However, that is not really a fair comparison. Is it? Be honest and compare it to the proposed 2011 Prius with a 40 mile EV only range and it’s ability to run at 60-65 miles per hour using only its electric drive motor. The numbers will be much closer. If you don’t believe me just wait until the cars come out and run the tests. They will be very competitive. That said, the extended range EV concept that GM is proposing is sound and obvious. GM, the risk moving forward on this is extremely small. Full steam ahead! However, if people start talking about spending tens of billions on hydrogen infrastructure I’m going
February 13th, 2008 at 9:30 pm
I’m going to scream murder.
February 13th, 2008 at 9:56 pm
#6 Neutron Flux
I hear you. I myself am trying to get 100-150kW through my business…no such apples for at all for 2008, late 2009 is when I can ‘potentially’ see deliveries, and probably filtered thru their distributor out of New York. I am trying to go around them and get it off of CoEnergy on the ‘downlow’ (thats who they use as intermediary for government contracts/large power facilities).
I will certainly post when I can get them…or any CIGs manufacturer for that matter, who can give me a delivery date (and a price sub $2.00/w)…I’ve inquired to alot of companies so far only a couple are even remotely close to being able to take any order at all.
What I really need is a few companies/people that we can buy as a group for. My gut tells me 1mW is the bare minimum to get any kind of priority sequence.
February 13th, 2008 at 10:20 pm
Several items:
1. When the E-REV terminology first came out, I thought it was just some marketing hype that would only cloud the discussion. But I have come around to the conviction that it is a wise idea to coin a term that defines one (physical and logical) configuration out of the literally dozens of configurations possible with a PHEV.
2. Series hybrids can run in blended mode. Such a configuration would start the engine to drive a generator, so that electricity would come from both the battery and the generator at the same time. Thus the battery would not have to have the capability to drive the vehicle at maximum performance.
3. In one of the many statements Lutz has made since the Volt was first shown, he made a passing comment that about 80 percent of the design and part commonality envisioned for their fuel cell vehicles was achieved with the E-Flex concept and differing engine options. I don’t have a reference and that’s from memory. You don’t get that in a parallel hybrid PHEV. The context of his comment led me to believe this was a primary reason for them to focus on a broader range of electrification than only fuel cell vehicles.
4. The earlier comment was exactly right - most fuel cell vehicle development by definition greatly assists E-REV (and BEV) development. And I agree that the existing distribution systems for liquid fuels, natural gas, and electricity in developed countries means that hydrogen will not be as readily embraced there as some have imagined. But, in countries where there is no existing energy distribution infrastructure, the ability to make hydrogen if you have sunlight and water should not be overlooked. I don’t think it is an accident that the E-Flex vehicle with the fuel cell range extender was introduced in Asia - specifically, China.
5. The E-REV has the potential to change the world - energy, politics, social development, sustainability, everything. I hope GM just stays focused on getting a basic highly reliable Volt out in 2010 or so. Then the E-Flex concept can expand from a position of strength.
February 13th, 2008 at 10:57 pm
Texas #20
I completely agree with your hydrogen argument. I think one of the reseaons the Provoq was shown with the fuel cell range extender is to show (someone) that fuel cell work is still ‘rapidly progressing’ at GM. I agree there is no reason to use a fuel cell in a car; but possibly in future computers or other devices (left unnamed).
I know a few people currently involved in hydrogen fuel cell research; even they will admit fuel cell cars may not make sense for at least another 50+ years. I’m not even sure about that statement. They also will say a hydrogen economy does make sense, just not configured the way we would think about it today.
Myself, if hydrogen reseach provides the dollars to develop the E-flex chassis, then keep it up. They probably do have to throw someone a bone though, once in a while.
February 14th, 2008 at 12:05 am
#22Statik
It’s unlikely that you would even get any Nanosolar panels if you were willing to buy 1MW or more. In an interview with the Nanosolar CEO, he said that for the first few years 100% of the panels would go into installations with limited public access. Apparently, they are concerned about panels being removed and reverse-engineered. Because of this, the panels produced for the first few years are going into installations like the German power stations that can prevent any of the panels from getting into unauthorized hands.
The rest of us may have to wait a few years more.
February 14th, 2008 at 1:08 am
It’s more likely Nanosolar has agreements with these early customers for joint R&D. Probably broad guarantees and such. Remember, this is a very new product. Also, It’s not like they will be able to keep someone who wants to reverse engineer the panel from getting one. Just hire some kid to jump the fence and grab one. How hard is that? As they get a handle on their large scale production they will either gain the confidence to build new production plants or wait until their next generation product is ready. It’s not like they couldn’t sell every single panel that they make at such a low price. I know people want it now but this will take some time.
I also wanted to say one thing to Nanosolar. Intel copy exact. Since I feel that once Nanosolar gets a handle on their production they will be wanting to cover the world with panels. Intel has a great concept to make it easy to quickly expand their complex production technology. It basically ensures that everything is the same. All machines are the same. That way you can have spares in stock, a trained technician can fix any machine anywhere in the world, etc. It is hard to do but the rewards are plenty.
February 14th, 2008 at 1:48 am
Texas #20
You lost track on your point 2, The data is base on today technology to the basic idea using the electric powertrains and the e-flex. It mostly saying about how to use the most energy out of different type of design of HEV,PHEV,EV,and E-REV base on the assume same size battery, motor, and engine. plus added how people behavor of using the design of HEV,PHEV,EV,and E-REV. It didn’t talk about what battery, motor, and engine it was using. That was not what the subject is about. That why I said it all “theory” base of the data they have.
February 14th, 2008 at 2:04 am
Cybereye, Can I assume you are the author? I could not really follow your English so please excuse me (I understand English is not your native language so no worries). I guess I just disagree with the vast differences you illustrated between the E-REV (series hybrid) and the PHEV, which is the design for the new 2010 Prius. I personally do not see a huge difference between the two. In fact the Prius will most likely get greater gas mileage at highway speeds due to reduced drive train efficiency losses. However, I love the E-REV design for it’s simplicity, ease of maintenance, ability to change the gen-set, etc. Great platform. I think I would need a much better explanation of the assumptions you are making before commenting further. Other than that, great presentation.
February 14th, 2008 at 2:32 am
Texas #28
So you assume PHEV is the new 2010 Prius. I just assume base on the same battery and motor with the other type of energy resource that have to be use to charge to the battery and motor. I don’t have a name brands in my mind. Can I assume you are the Toyota dealer or Prius fan? Yeah, my english sucks. I admit that.
February 14th, 2008 at 3:21 am
Noel Park # 14 said:
“I actually got a personalized response from Senator Feinstein’s office to my e-mail about tax credits for plug-in hybrid cars. It was pretty to the point and useful. So I guess we can make an impression…
I am somewhat encouraged. If all 11,000 waiting list members each sent an e-mail to both of their Senators and their US Representative, we could really make a blip on the screen in DC.
Do it guys, please!”
Lyle,
I don’t want you to have to do everything, but if a form letter was available on this site it would go a long way toward getting everyone to e-mail relevant representatives. It sounds like Noel Park’s letter was effective and could be used as the template. I am envisioning something similar to what the “Save Darfur Coalition” has done.
I’ve been on this site for 2 months and am addicted. I check it several times a day. I’ve posted stuff at work. I hope Lyle gets his Volt for free!
February 14th, 2008 at 10:03 am
I’ve devoted some time to reducing the study Pete Savagian reported yesterday to a few simple findings, namely the average improvement in mileage for a Malibu-sized E-REV using a given amount of gasoline for the 4 categories of hybrids he used, ALL of which assume the size & weight of a current Chevy Malibu:
Malibu-size HEV: 24% better mpg than a conventional Malibu
Conversion PHEV: 54% ” ” ” ” ” ”
Urban Capable HEV: 55% ” ” ” ” ” ”
Malibu-size E-REV: 80% ” ” ” ” ” ”
Although Savagian doesn’t define the 3 last categories, it’s safe to assume he’s using the Prius technology for the Malibu-size HEV (and perhaps GM’s 2-mode hybrid technology for one or both of the last two categories). Although the two intermediate categories do very well compared to the Prius-based technology, E-REV is of course the outstanding technology.
February 14th, 2008 at 10:41 am
It just occurred to me that when driving a Volt beyond the battery range and the generator kicks in, could the battery cycle back in when charged. Run another 40 miles then return to generated power. Using this kind of cycling could reduce fuel consumption even more. This of course assumes a battery with 1000’s of cycles of life. Another little tid-bit is using shock absorbers as mini power generators. It wouldn’t be to hard to design a pole inverting generator and use magnetic resistance to cushion the ride and generate electric power. Maybe enough to power windshield wipers or a decent audio system. There is one patent I know of for generating shock absorbers.
February 14th, 2008 at 11:16 am
I think we are splitting hairs debating various systems.
Unless the vehicle is 100 percent electric, the debate to me centers around weight. Simple math…one system may be better than the other, one system may be cheaper than another.
If something weighs less, it goes farther/faster with less. We in North America truly hate this reality.
I myself don’t need a 4,500 pound 7 seater to commute to work everyday. I make due with my 40hp turbo diesel SMART (72.5MPG for first 34k so far), and drive the sedan when the family goes out on the weekends.
Aside: I hate, hate, hate to see large trucks like Titans, Rams, etc. sitting in office parking lots…looking like they are brand new, not a scratch in the box, even though they are 3 years old. If your gonna buy a truck, how about using it?
February 14th, 2008 at 11:28 am
# 25Swimdad
“It’s unlikely that you would even get any Nanosolar panels if you were willing to buy 1MW or more. In an interview with the Nanosolar CEO, he said that for the first few years 100% of the panels would go into installations with limited public access….they are concerned about panels being removed and reverse-engineered. Because of this, the panels produced for the first few years are going into installations…”
I agree with you totally. Even 1mW is not a big order. As I said I have been told late 2009 is best case for myself. Even just communicating with some of these companies require you to sign a NDA…it’s crazy. However, the technology is already spreading out to alot of solar companies and infrastructure will ramp up in this industry.
The rule of thumb is this, the larger you are….the more important you are.
Right now, I am only willing (can feasibly afford, lol) to buy up to 150 kW…which would jump me ahead of “joe consumer’s” 5kW system, probably by a couple of years. Conversely, if someone else can out the cash to buy a mW, I expect them to get their order a year or so before me.
February 14th, 2008 at 11:37 am
I appreciated Peter Savagian’s study, but I don’t find any of it either surprising or all that scientific. I think it’s pretty much a no brainer that an EV with an RE is going to use less fuel and pollute less than an HEV which uses fuel in almost if not all practical driving situations. Add to that that in this particular case the EV’s RE can run on E85.
Sorry, but I just don’t see anything ground breaking here.
February 14th, 2008 at 11:48 am
Statik, #33:
Amen. Weight is the enemy. Along with aero drag and rolling resistance, sort of in that descending order.
Where did you get a turbo-diesel Smart? I could really get excited about that.
February 14th, 2008 at 12:11 pm
That study does not go into what effect the increased electricity consumption will make in terms of green house gases. To me that’s the interesting question, the fact that on average gas use drops 80%..well, it’s nice to know, but it’s kinda expected.
February 14th, 2008 at 12:46 pm
37 Yuri….
You raise a valid concern, one that others such as the Argonne National Labs have studied in detail. Briefly, there are 3 reasons the Volt’s E-REV architecture makes good environmental sense:
1) Internal combustion engine (ICE) efficiencies max out at around 20% in automotive applications, meaning 80% of the energy in gasoline is lost!
2) The efficiencies of the electric motors (~90%) & batteries (~98%) used in the Volt are MUCH higher than any ICE-driven car having comparable performance
3) Electric power plants have the advantage of scale, meaning their energy conversion efficiencies are significantly higher than those for a conventional car’s ICE
As a consequence, it turns out that the amount of pollution and/or CO2 produced by electric power plants generating a given amount of energy needed for a Volt to go 40 miles is roughly only 1/3rd to 1/5th (depending on whether the power plant uses coal, natural gas, etc) what a conventional car would produce traveling the same distance.
Hope this helps!
February 14th, 2008 at 12:59 pm
nasaman #38
“As a consequence, it turns out that the amount of pollution and/or CO2 produced by electric power plants generating a given amount of energy needed for a Volt to go 40 miles is roughly only 1/3rd to 1/5th (depending on whether the power plant uses coal, natural gas, etc) what a conventional car would produce traveling the same distance.”
wow! thanks for the data. do you have a link to that info?
plus, E-REV is a big infrastructural step. if we only use one form of highgly transportable/manageable energy, the end user no longer determines the initial source of energy, so gradiall shift to cleaner energy sources is easy, just do it one plant at a time.
February 14th, 2008 at 7:44 pm
#36 Noel park
We have had the Smart Car for thee years in Canada. ( Statik fellow Canuc ? ) They are all diesels . I’m not sure why they were not released in the states . I understand you are getting them this year . I have a friend with one and he is not to happy when it comes time to change the oil you see they are sold by Mercedes and must be brought back in to the dealership for oil changes . It is not a standard 10 minute afair and they can charge as much as 3or 4 hundred $$$$. Hope that has changed by now.
February 15th, 2008 at 3:17 pm
Mark H. Canadian, #40:
They are availble here now since 1/1, but I believe that the ones sold here are all gasoline powered. The mileage ratings are more like 40 city/45 highway than the 70+ reported by Statik for the diesel. I guess the diesel can’t pass US emissions regulations?
Can anyone correct me if I’m wrong? Come on, I know you will! if they had a diesel here, and actually got 70+ mpg, it would be huge.
February 16th, 2008 at 12:36 pm
The February, 2008 isue of Automobile magazine has an extensive story on the US version of the Smart. I will not belabor the point, but they seemed rather underwhelmed. They reported real world mileage averaging under 40 mpg.
It’s cute as a button, but not the answer for most of us, alas.
On the other hand, they report that over 30,000 people have now paid $99 to get a place on the waiting list. Does that mean that Roger Penske is smarter (no pun intended) than me, once again?
Probably!
February 16th, 2008 at 1:16 pm
Also, if you do see Automobile, check out the Toyota concept hybrid small pickup on page 12. If Chevrolet offered something like that, I would buy one in a heartbeat for my business deliveries. When gas gets to $4-$5 a gallon, light truck operating small businesses are going to be hurting just as bad as commuters.