Weighing the Benefits of Driving a PHEV
Justin Hyde of the Detroit Free Press published a short article questioning the benefits of plug-in hybrid adoption.
He makes a point about a law of diminishing returns occurring with increasing mpg. In the example he gives, he reports that going from 25 to 45 mpg will save a 15,000 mile per year driver 267 gallons of fuel. Going further from 45 to 100 mpg will save 183 gallons.
Of course if you drive less than 40 miles per day, six days per week (12,480 miles) in a Volt, you would use NO GAS. Thats 500 gallons at 25 mpg. And lets not forget the big picture about what the effect will be when you multiply 500 gallons of gas per year by millions of drivers.
He quotes Peter Savagian, GM director of hybrid powertrain engineering as saying:
“A plug-in hybrid is a risky proposition, and a more expensive proposition than a regular hybrid, and an extended-range electric vehicle is riskier still,”
and
“We think as a company, there’s a significant chance it is worth it.”
Its’ worth it to me.
Source (Detroit Free Press)
Popularity: 3%
Related posts:
- It’s Official - Bush Signs Energy Bill Into Law
- Driving the Volt
- Massive Breaking News: GM Receives First Chevy Volt Lithium-ion Battery Packs From LG Chem and Expects to Make up to 100,000 Cars in First Year
- 60% of New U.S. Car Buyers are Against Buying American Brands
- A123 Systems Currently Makes Enough Batteries for 100,000 Cars
(3 votes, average: 5 out of 5) 
Loading ...
48 Responses to “Weighing the Benefits of Driving a PHEV”
Leave a Reply
Recent Posts
- GM’s CEO Arrives to Capitol Hill in Chevy Volt Prototype, Senate Hearings Underway
- GM CEO Will Drive Volt Mule Inside Washington DC Today, UAW Agrees to Drop Job Bank
- GM: Out of Time, Out of Money, Out of Options
- GM Submits Long-Term Viability Plan to Congress: $18 Billion Needed
- Detroit 3 Viability Plans Go To Congress Today: GM’s CEO Will Drive to DC in Hybrid Malibu
- GM-Volt Exclusive: Bob Lutz Details Volt Mule Energy Use in Highway Driving
- GM’s Canceled LA Auto Show Conference: Was it Going to be the Volt Battery Contract Announcement?
- Flextreme Concept Wins Prestigious Design Award, Still Not Production Intent
- What Would Happen to the Chevy Volt if GM Failed?
- GM Viability Proposal Leak: CEO Likely to Work for $1 and Brands Likely to be Shed
March 11th, 2008 at 6:12 am
I really don’t get the point of the article. Other than he understands basic math.
Sure 25mpg to 45mpg you will save more than 45 to 100mpg…but does he know 10mpg to 25 mpg will save more than 25 to 45?
The article title is “Benefits of plug-in vehicles weighed,” all I see is some blathering about mpg. There is one line that states, “how much they can reduce global warming gases — if at all” with zero facts.
Sounds like the article should be named “One thing about plug-ins that I barely have a grasp on - Joe Beatwriter”
/fair and balanced
March 11th, 2008 at 6:49 am
If these cars don’t have 700 horsepower, go from 0 to 60 in under 3 seconds, and cost less than $250K, these reporters all think that ANY type of electric vehicle is a dorkmobile, and they could care less in getting their facts straight!
But this is just one more reason that the Volt HAS to be available in multiple versions from supercar to no frills from day one. If the "motor head" press sees only an electric Vega, they will blast this car to death, whether it performs with 40 miles AER or not.
This car must impress both the right and left sides of the brain!!!!
March 11th, 2008 at 7:02 am
Light, sweet crude for April delivery rose $1.10 to $109 a barrel in Asian electronic trading on the New York Mercantile Exchange, by midday in Singapore, after setting a record high of $109.20.
Source: http://money.cnn.com/2008/03/11/markets/oil_prices.ap/index.htm?postversion=2008031106
Every $1.00 increase in oil and GM just looks smarter and smarter. Go Volt!
March 11th, 2008 at 7:24 am
NNDavid @ 3 nailed it; it’s an economic necessity that our economy switch to a fuel other than oil.
I’d also like our troops out of the Middle East ASAP as well. Ever wonder why we’re not meddling in Africa?–no major deposits of oil have been discovered yet.
March 11th, 2008 at 7:42 am
I understand the concept of diminishing returns but that is not a reason not to do something. For me and my 14mi commute it would be an infinite improvement in fuel economy.
March 11th, 2008 at 7:43 am
Not to put too fine a point on it, but going from 25 to 100 with a PHEV saves more gas, than going from 25-45 with a Hybrid. And the incremental gain provided by the plug also provides diversity, such that we can get to work even if there is a gas shortage like in 1973.
And finally, as Lyle pointed out, if you drive 10,000 miles in short trips per year - you use no gas, and then get 50 miles per gallon for the remaining 5000 miles, you save more than twice as much gas as the non-plug in hybrid.
March 11th, 2008 at 7:59 am
The reporter is an idiot as are most of them that don’t bother to report balanced information.
March 11th, 2008 at 8:09 am
I really don’t think there is much merit in talking about diminishing returns and fine things like that at this point. The important point is the radical change of technology from the dead-end gas burning to something that, no doubt, in a copule of decades from now will change transportation entirely. Think about it, who says there even be a need for a gas extender in the future? If cars like Volt become mainstream the technology will improve quickly and when the capacity reaches several hundred miles, i.e. the range we all are used to with a tank of gas, I think the infrastructure will begin to change from gas pumps to either charging stations that will charge your car quickly enough for you to wait, or just swap your drained standard battery to a pre-charged one…I am fantasizing, 0f course, but nonetheless, this technolgy is likely to have room to grow.
So the important thing now is to bring the techniligy into masses and Volt is practical enough for that. You can do math and analyse the details of the short term effect but to me it’s really not very interesting. Electric car just NEEDS TO HAPPEN and that’s what’s important.
March 11th, 2008 at 8:27 am
IMO no cars should be allowed to get better than 50 mpg because as the article states you don’t save as much money as you would when moving from 20 to 30. I propose we all go out and by 3 or 4 low milage cars and then buy a Volt to replace each one. That way we can get the benefit of the higher saving rate 3 or 4 times instead of just once.
Seriously I wonder how much money would be saved if there was no range extenter in the car. This cheaper version would serve me as a commuter car.
And that brings up another issue that has alway pissed me off. If I have two cars instead of one… I get to pay insurance on two cars. So if I have a truck for hunting and pulling a boat it would be more expensive for me to have another car that gets better gas milage. Where is the logic in that? Why can’t I just get insurance on both cars at the rate of the more expensive car? This would possible save them money if I were to cause a wreck.
March 11th, 2008 at 8:36 am
When gas gets to $5.00 a gallon which isn’t that far. My life won’t change. I’m actually hoping gas dosen’t go to a ridiculos height before the Volt is released, because then there will be huge premium on the 1st 10,000.
This article should of been called:
How to write nothing in a 100 words or less
March 11th, 2008 at 8:56 am
What about diminishing ability to drive petroleum-fueled autos with diminishing petroleum supplies? Does Justin Hyde and the Detroit Free Press think petroleum supplies are inexhaustable?
Such articles contribute to the reputation media outlet. I’m not impressed.
March 11th, 2008 at 8:58 am
Dave B
Could also be, we’re not "meddling" in Africa because Africans haven’t repeatedly demonstrated a complete disdain for the U.S. to the point of committing random acts of homicide against us fomenting to the point of coordinated efforts of crashing large passenger aircraft into 2 major buildings in NY, one into the Pentagon and had the FAA not grounded all planes from that point - there were plans to hit Chicago, SanFran, etc…
March 11th, 2008 at 9:17 am
I am skeptical about where Savigian got his data that led to a 100 MPG claim. For commuting, I have shown that a Volt will get 295 MPG among U.S. drivers, even without any workplace recharging, and about 400 MPG is only 1/4th can recharge while at work. That is based on official DOT commuting statistics, and is not open to doubt. I know of no other stats concerning the distributions of trip mileages and considering the fact that commuting accounts for such a large part of gas consumption and that many other drivers (wives’s second cars, retirees, etc.) will have MPG benefts equaling or surpassing those of commuters, I have to be extremely skeptical that anyone could ever come up with a VOLT overall mileage estimate of only 100 MPG. I flat out don’t buy it and would like to see the stats upon which it is based and any assumptions that were made (workplace recharging, for example).
March 11th, 2008 at 9:30 am
Of course, you can use Hyde’s same argument to show the
"diminishing returns" one gets from a 45 MPG hybrid by noting that you save a lot more gas going from 12 MPG to a 23 MPG car than going from a 23 MPG car to a 45 MPG hybrid, so why go to a hybrid? Of course,whether those "dismishing returns" are also not worth it is determined in large part by several factors, one of which, economics, changes drastically as the price of gasoline goes up. Anyody want to bet that that’s not happening?
March 11th, 2008 at 9:59 am
I have not read the article at Free Press but only the comments above. The big deal about Volt at the form that is going to come on 2010 is not how many miles that it is going to drive without gasoline. If you look at how many Volts they will sell in 2010 and in the next couple of years thereafter and the amount of gasoline that it will reduce being pumped out of US gas pumps, it is MINISCULE, you don’t need fancy math to figure that it. The BIG DEAL is, Volt will make a pronominal shift the way cars are powered in US. Yes, it drives only 40 miles on pure electric, but if you just make 10 % improvement on that every year, because of compounding improvement, within 7 years, by 2017, a Volt equivalent will be driving 80 miles on pure electric and by 2025 you will be getting 160 miles. So by 2025, it will game over for Gas companies. The above estimates is just by liner compounding, but when there is a paradigm shift from IC engines to electric motor, my gut tells me, looking at success generations of IPods or laptops or shift from CRT monitors to LCD monitors, the shift is never liner but exponential. I have a gut feeling that we are at the verge of making a big break through in battery technology. If this is correct, by 2020, we should be getting 200 miles in pure electric. You will still find pure IC engine cars in 2025, if you want to take a look at one, you will to visit your nearest automobile museum.
March 11th, 2008 at 10:01 am
I have not read the article at Free Press but only the comments above. The big deal about Volt at the form that is going to come on 2010 is not how many miles that it is going to drive without gasoline. If you look at how many Volts they will sell in 2010 and in the next couple of years thereafter and the amount of gasoline that it will reduce being pumped out of US gas pumps, it is MINISCULE, you don’t need fancy math to figure that it. The BIG DEAL is, Volt will make a pronominal shift the way cars are powered in US. Yes, it drives only 40 miles on pure electric, but if you just make 10 % improvement on that every year, because of compounding improvement, within 7 years, by 2017, a Volt equivalent will be driving 80 miles on pure electric and by 2025 you will be getting 160 miles. So by 2025, it will game over for Gas companies. The above estimates is just by liner compounding, but when there is a paradigm shift from IC engines to electric motor, my gut tells me, looking at success generations of IPods or laptops or shift from CRT monitors to LCD monitors, the shift is never liner but exponential. I have a gut feeling that we are at the verge of making a big break through in battery technology. If this is correct, by 2020, we should be getting 200 miles in pure electric. You will still find pure IC engine cars in 2025, if you want to take a look at one, you will to visit your nearest automobile museum.
March 11th, 2008 at 10:16 am
One benefit that a lot of people will appreciate in 2020 or whatever when electric cars are everywhere is the reduction in noise pollution. A lot of people move out to the suburbs just to get away from the noise of busy streets and highways. I’m hoping that the Volt’s internal combustion engine is super efficient and super quiet. It won’t be revving up to impress people anyway, so they should put a quality muffler and catalytic converter on it to get it as quiet and pollution free (SULEV rated) as possible.
I bet the nanotech guys are going to come up with some new and improved tires for trucks and cars that will cut down on noise pollution even more. Big rig truck tires and diesel engines make a lot of noise … it’ll be nice when they get the big rig trucks quieter. They’ve done it somewhat for jet engines, now it’s time to do it for big rigs. Hopefully, by 2020 the batteries will be so good, even the big rigs will be running on 100% batteries with super quiet nanotech tires.
http://www.edmunds.com/ownership/tires/articles/122130/article.html
If you’ve ever had to live near a major highway or on a busy street, you’ll know how much the stress of that road noise gets to you. Noisy environments make people irritable and less productive. Employers should be all for keeping their employees less stressed so they can be more productive.
If you want a superfast electric car, there will be plenty of models out there to choose from. The first ones will be expensive of course, but so are Ferraris and Porsches. They’ll embarrass a lot of Ferrari/Porsche owners at the drag strip because of their instantaneous torque.
http://www.lightningcarcompany.com/performance.php It even has an "programmable external engine sound generator" if you want to hear engine sounds as you accelerate.
http://www.teslamotors.com/ One of these days, I’m hoping to get a 4 door 100% electric sports sedan with performance like the Tesla and all the amenities you’d see in a high end Caddy or BMW, etc. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGpqxZmRA9w&feature=related
http://www.fiskerautomotive.com/
March 11th, 2008 at 10:25 am
>> I have to be extremely skeptical that anyone could ever come up with a VOLT overall mileage estimate of only 100 MPG.
Anyone claiming more than 100 MPG deserves the same skepticism. Only real-world data is acceptable, period.
That’s the only way to remain objective.
Like it or not, the history of hybrids so far have proven that all too well. Those wanting to undermine just get selective about what they quote, sight special circumstance information, and twist what you say… leading to a false impression, and people assume it’s true. They intentionally attempt to create misconceptions.
Real-World data has been the only protection against that. They have a very, very difficult time disputing actual experiences.
Remember purpose. 100 MPG easily achieves that. Don’t provide antagonists with the opportunity to stir trouble.
March 11th, 2008 at 10:30 am
At 40 mile range more than 65% of drivers will not need to use gasoline. At 100 mile range more than 85% will not need to use gasoline. At a given battery range and number of vehicles the US will no longer need to import oil from the Middle East. At a given point we will not need to spend trillions of dollars to help secure foreign oil resources. Diminishing returns? How about the return of the Golden Child? Let’s just politely ignore this author and continue to plan for the complete electrification of our transportation fleet.
March 11th, 2008 at 10:37 am
Once again, I think that Bill R said it very well at #7 under the post comparing the Volt to the Toyota PHEV:
"99% of buyers will just want to feel good about what they drive."
I can do the math all day. On a strictly ROR basis, I am best off to just keep driving my paid off 15 mpg city/20 mpg highway Impala until the wheels fall off. We’ve already slashed our fuel consumption by simply driving it less. But that’s only part of what it’s about.
It’s about NZ David’s comment at #3 above, Dave B’s at #4, technological bragging rights for the good old USA, preserving US jobs, "It’s the economy, stupid", the cool factor of being an "early adopter", and many other intangible, feel good, benefits.
Come on GM, bring it on!
March 11th, 2008 at 10:46 am
I think this falls under the idea of "false anchoring." When talking about how much is saved, you start with a baseline and the "returns" start from there. But you can start your baseline wherever you want, it all depends on how concerned you are about the amount of oil use.
March 11th, 2008 at 10:47 am
Doesn’t the law of diminishing returns also apply to things like safety features? No one would make the argument that crumple zones, antilock brakes and side impact air bags for the back seats aren’t worth it because they add considerably to the cost of the vehicle while adding only marginal additional safety.
March 11th, 2008 at 10:54 am
Another term for what I was saying in #19, is "anchoring bias." For example, say you were asked would it be worth it to you to save 100 gallons per year? Yes? Well that’s stupid because you already saved 300!
March 11th, 2008 at 11:03 am
Notice that you can use the same faulty logic to "show" that
you gain far more gas savings going from a 12 MPG car to a 23 MPG vehicle than going from a 23 to a 45 MPG hybrid. So why go to a hybrid?
March 11th, 2008 at 11:21 am
Yury #8 “The important point is the radical change of technology from the dead-end gas burning to something that, no doubt, in a copule of decades from now will change transportation entirely.” Right on Yury, and others! The big point of the Volt is that, the automobile will change from being part of the problem, to being part of the solution.
March 11th, 2008 at 11:26 am
The diminishing returns argument is silly… but don’t forget that that was the very argument that GM used for years to justify not producing a hybrid car. In comparison this reporter only dedicated one paragraph.
March 11th, 2008 at 12:03 pm
The point of the article is to let everyone know that Justin Hyde receives a salary from the oil companies. LOL.
March 11th, 2008 at 12:09 pm
#12 mr_ollie "Could also be, we’re not "meddling" in Africa because Africans haven’t repeatedly demonstrated a complete disdain for the U.S. to the point of committing random acts of homicide against us fomenting to the point of coordinated efforts of crashing large passenger aircraft into 2 major buildings in NY, one into the Pentagon and had the FAA not grounded all planes from that point - there were plans to hit Chicago, SanFran, etc…"
I didn’t know Iraq crashed planes into US buildings; where did you hear that?
To many of you claiming the Volt should be rated at more than 100mpg. Let me remind you electricity isn’t free: 33705Wh/gal * 40mi/8kWh = 169 mpg. And that’s at the ideal; we don’t know any real world data on how much electricity you need to charge it with to get 40 miles b/c a mule haven’t even been made yet. That means with a 50mpg on the hybrid cycle, if you travel just 16 miles on gas & 40 miles on battery you will get to the 100mpg mark. Travel more than 16 miles on gas and you will get below 100mpg equivalent for sure. If just want to calculate mpg just on gallons of GAS used then you need to travel past 40 miles on gasoline after 40 miles on battery to get below 100mpg. A pretty big difference in the ratios. Just pointing it out that the electricity should be considered in efficiency calculations since many anti-EV advocates always points this out in BEVs. Probably doesn’t apply to this specific topic since you guys are discussing gasoline usuage, but does apply to efficiency ratings for PHEVs/E-REVs. This makes it asinine to claim the Volt is 300mpg when it will never be able to reach that efficiency since the ideal max is 169mpg equivalent. And yet you see many PHEVs claim figures like 300mpg or 150mpg when the equivalent efficiency can’t reach that.
March 11th, 2008 at 12:17 pm
The writer’s argument aside, it still makes GM look pretty smart to get their big SUV’s from 14mpg to 21mpg. No one else has done this yet, including Toyota. The big hybrid SUV’s may make a bigger difference in meeting the new CAFE standards than anything else they do.
Some people do need those things, don’t forget.
I don’t. I need the VOLT ASAP.
(Imagine a Suburban on the E-flex chassis someday!)
March 11th, 2008 at 12:26 pm
Say I walk into a GM dealship and say I am very concerned about oil and global warming, etc. so I need a Volt, but I am $10K short. Still I’d like to drive one to reduce US dependence on oil. What reply do you get?
It is fine to express such sentiments and have willingness to do the right thing, except they don’t help you actually get the right vehicle unless finances are sorted out. That is why most people always look at cars and gasoline from financial perspective 1st, such as this article.
You all missed the point.
For better or worse majority of drivers are concerned with financial aspects first and foremost. Only once you have some spare coin then you can look into other considerations, such as global warming, etc.
Say in the past few years gas price has gone up by about $1/gal ($2-$3) and total annaul distance travelled is 20K miles using an average 20 mpg car. This is just a middle of the road scenario. So increased cost is 20K/20=1000 gal * $1 = $1,000 fuel cost increase
We have a number of options to deal with higher gas prices. For instance, I replaced breaks myself which would have cost me $300 as opposed to $100 parts I paid, saved $200. So you could do a number of repairs yourself and save the expensive labor costs.
You could skip a trip that might cost about $1K
The of course you could replace your car with a more efficient one. Even then, you might go for a smaller compact that costs half the price of a Volt.
The point is that there are many easy ways to save $1K that have nothing to do with Volt and electric cars. Gasoline is still too cheap, making economics of electric cars still poor.
Or here is my example. Thanks to some Canadian funk, Prius would cost me about $35K Don’t know why or how. Even after $2K eco-rebate it is still about $33K
Meanwhile selling my old Honda Civic CX would only get me about $2K. So net cost to switch to Prius would be about $30K For that money I get the amazing improvement from 45 mpg to 55 mpg!?!?!
So his point is that I am *ALREADY* saving a lot of money driving an older cheap Civic, so additional incremental improvement of 10 mpg is not worth it. Well for $30K it *CERTAINLY* is not worth it. I came to this conclusion some time ago, which is why I am putting work and money into Civic to keep it going as long as possible.
The main issue is that gas is still cheap. We need more expensive gas to make the cost difference higher. So in 5 years if gas is more expensive *AND* Volt can offer me 100+ mpg (my commute is longer than 40 miles) then I’ll do the math again and some point decide that the time has come to retire Civic and upgrade to EREV.
Keep in mind that the primary consideration today for most driviers is do I get a cheap used compact (like Saturns, Hondas, etc.) or a more expensive Prius. Right now the former are winning.
March 11th, 2008 at 1:42 pm
This author also again falls back on the the old "payback on investment" notion. The payback is more than the absolute calculation of recovering the increased cost of alternative technology versus the costs of fueling a traditional vehicle. I’m preaching to the choir, but we know that there’s more of a "payback" across environment and geopolitical circumstances.
And, I need to fall back on these questions:
1. What’s the payback on the leather seat upgrade to your SUV?
2. What’s the payback on the stereo upgrade?
3. What’s the payback on the upgraded chrome wheels and tires?
I’d say that these features cost as much as, if not more, than the costs associated with the alternative power technologies.
March 11th, 2008 at 2:23 pm
Detroit paper, obviously no bias there
In any case, sorry if this has already been said again, but in case it hasn’t….. the saving is more than just the gasoline…. with a series hybrid like the Volt, which operates like a pure battery EV most of the time, the other savings is in maint, repairs, parts and servicing, not to mention your own valuable time to go in for those things. Depending on how often you end up having the
generator come on, you may be able to almost completely kiss oil changes
goodbye, as well as air filters, spart plugs, engine coolent, even brake pads and rotors as more of your braking will be done with the electric motor in reverse (regenerative braking). No need to even top off the cells of a lead acid battery. My last car I also ended up replacing the exhaust system (minus the cad. converter) 3 times in the 130,000 miles I owned it, I can kiss that goodbye (though my volvo has gone 75,000 and counting with the original).
March 11th, 2008 at 2:51 pm
Allright, it’s math time folks!
Your basic 4 door american sedan, is going to average 25MPG.
An oil change is SUPPOSED to be every 3000 miles, but most people with a regular ol’ car do it roughly every 4000.
A regular non-synthetic change costs like $25-$30. We’ll say $30 because of air filter too. That’s $112.5 a year.
Now the one thing we don’t know for sure yet is residual value of the Volt, but we can be sure it’ll hold it’s value much more like an import car than a domestic.
The one thing many many people don’t realize is that residual value is the single largest cost of any car. More than gas, more than repairs.
What if you spent $35,000 on a Volt, drive it 100,000 miles, and since the thing is going to last 500,000 miles+, it is still worth say…$25,000 after 5 years and 100k miles.
What if you spent say $20,000 on a typical 25MPG brand new 4 door american sedan instead of buying a Volt? It’s $15,000 cheaper, after all! Why not?
After 100,000 miles, your car would be worth about $5,000. Your net loss on the car AS AN ASSET would be $15,000. Where as your $35,000 volt only lost $10,000. AND once 100,000 miles hits, you’re looking at the beginning of regular repairs on an ICE.
So…lets do some totals.
Your volt cost you $35,000 initially, you drove it 100,000 miles over 5 years. Your total fuel cost for 5 years assuming that the cost of gas is going up, let’s say the average fuel cost over those 5 years is $3.75/gallon, slightly higher than now, but still we’re talking about the NEXT 5 years. Your first 40 miles being ALL electric, your first 14,600 miles per year would be FREE. The remaining 5400 miles @ 50 MPG would be 108 gallons of fuel per year. Thats $405 in gas per year. X 5 that is $2025 over FIVE YEARS. At 100k miles you would also have ZERO repair/maintenence cost for a Volt so far.
Total spent on volt after 5 years and 100k miles:
$10,000 in residual value
$2025 in fuel
6.75 oil changes over 5 years (5400 miles / year of the ICE running)
= $202.5 5 year cost of oil changes
Total spent on $20,000 ICE car after 5 years and 100k miles:
$15,000 in residual value
$15,000 in fuel (20k miles / year @ 25MPG @ 3.75 GAL after 5 years)
25 oil changes over 5 years = $750
$30,750 total realized cost of brand new $20k american sedan after 5 years.
VS.
$14,027.50 total realized cost of a brand new $35k Volt.
Tires would cost the same for both so i didn’t even figure them in.
So…which is cheaper?
There is also one unfortunate conclusion that i came to when doing all of this car math. The cheapest way to drive is by buying 10 year old high MPG economy cars. Spend $1000 on one, keep it for a year, and it’s still worth almost $1000. Insurance cost is dirt cheap, and it wouldn’t matter if gas was $4.00/gal. It would still be cheaper. oh well!
GO VOLT!
March 11th, 2008 at 6:36 pm
I wonder what the reliability of the ICE engine is going to be over the life of the car. Hopefully, it will be one of GM’s most efficient, reliable ones they’ve ever had. Since it’s just a gas powered generator, maybe they’ll make it as quiet and reliable as I hear these Honda generators are so it will last200,000 miles.
http://www.hondapowerequipment.com/gen.asp
The Volt’s internal combustion engine will probably be running in an optimal rpm so maybe it will have less wear and tear over time. That’ll help keep the resale value up. That’s all a part of the "cost of ownership" equation. If the batteries will go for 150,000+ miles, that will really make the cost of ownership look good.
In 8-10 years if you wanted to trade your Volt in, you could sell it pretty easily if the prices of the latest Volt compatible batteries are cheaper and the range goes up to 100+ miles of all electric driving.
March 11th, 2008 at 7:14 pm
Obviously, Justin Hyde is a paid shill as well as an ignoramus.
Just built the PHEV’s and then let us see what the real world consequences will be. Better yet, build me a 120 mile electric vehicle (think Toyota RAV4 EV) and then let’s see what up.
March 11th, 2008 at 7:45 pm
To me the most important thing a EV can do, is stop sending dollars to other countries that never come back and all we get in the end, is fumes for dollars. Second is the global warming that is still in such a debate that should make us all sick.
March 11th, 2008 at 9:42 pm
Mike D:
I wonder how many years you’d need to own a VOLT before it’s ICE had 100,000 miles?
March 11th, 2008 at 10:35 pm
It’s going to take a _long_ time until the ICE gets a fair number of miles. See below where I’ve posted from the FAQ:
Q: When the battery is depleted down to 30% SOC (state of charge)after 40 miles, why is it maintained there instead of the generator recharging it? A: Powering the electric motor directly from the generator is more efficient than repeatedly charging and discharging the battery. All batteries have some internal electrical resistance. Whenever the battery is charged or discharged, some energy is lost in the form of heat due to this resistance. By powering the motor directly from the generator, this resistance is bypassed. Energy is lost in this manner when charging the battery and when utilizing the electric range, but this is unavoidable and the energy loss is small compared to the energy wasted by an internal combustion engine. A: If the generator recharged the battery, this would prevent taking advantage of the main feature of the Volt, which is to recharge it with grid electricity. A: Cycling the battery more often would reduce its lifetime.
March 12th, 2008 at 6:57 am
Jack,
I believe the charger would take more from the generator than it could provide power, while also to run the car. That would be called perpetual motion. Which hasn’t been accomplished yet.
March 12th, 2008 at 8:02 am
Jimee:
After reading this article this morning …. http://www.thecuttingedgenews.com/index.php?article=360 … it kind of gave me a few chills thinking about what these high gas prices are doing to the balance of power in the world, politics, who owns who, jobs for America, etc. This is hurting everybody now. The middle class, small business … even big business. It’s even worse because of the damned mortgage mess on Wall Street.
It makes me think that America needs to start pouring big money into advanced battery technologies … FAST. Technology like the "silicon nanowire lithium ion batteries" by Dr. Cui at Stanford that could increase battery capacity up to TEN times. That’s revolutionary alright.
http://www.gm-volt.com/2007/12/21/gm-voltcom-interview-with-dr-cui-inventor-of-silicon-nanowire-lithium-ion-battery-breakthrough/
This is getting URGENT. These middle east oil sheiks really do have us "over a (oil) barrel". The U.S. government ought to go into "Manhattan Project mode" and get us some inexpensive 300+ mile range, high quality batteries as soon as possible. Bob Lutz’ "moon shot" with the Volt is taking on increasing importance every time a barrel of oil goes up another dollar.
That ex-CIA chief Woolsey is right about the economic/national security aspects of our oil addiction. Our oil (dope) dealer is taking full advantage of our addiction now and getting stinkin’ rich doing it. Why? Because they CAN, that’s why.
http://www.thecuttingedgenews.com/index.php?article=344
A123’s researchers and all the other battery R&D folks around the world ought to get paid very well so that the uber geniuses in science and technology around the world get very focused on overcoming these limitations with battery technology.
If there’s a will, there’s a way. America is the "can do country". We need to get to the moon in a hurry. When we have high quality, affordable, 300+ mile range batteries in our electric cars, we can say "the eagle has landed" … "one step for a man, one giant leap for mankind".
March 12th, 2008 at 8:17 am
Mike D,
After 100,000 miles, your car would be worth about $5,000. Your net loss on the car AS AN ASSET would be $15,000. Where as your $35,000 volt only lost $10,000. AND once 100,000 miles hits, you’re looking at the beginning of regular repairs on an ICE.
You didn’t explain why Volt would hold its value better. In fact, you are claiming 75% deprecation for ICE car and only 28% for Volt?!?!? This might occur in the western and southern states that have dry climate so cars don’t rust much and last a long time. I can assure you that in the north and east all cars rust at about the same rate. Most cars are disposed of not due to engine problems but other component failing or simply too rusted body.
The other big cost factor is maintenance. While ICE do have more components, electrical problems are often difficult to diagnose. Keep in mind that mechanic’s time is the single most expensive cost item. Although the actual parts and repairs may be simpler/cheaper, the labour time could be higher and maintance costs could end up higher for Volt. So you cannot assume that ICE maintenance will be more expensive.
That being said, in dry climates Volt should hold its value well and have few problems. Its gas generator should work for a very long time reliably due to optimal operating conditions and load. Where things become less celar are states having a lot of moisture (rain, snow, etc.) and road salt used for snow clearing = rust. If a car body is ruined after 10-20 years reagdless of distance travelled then Volt’s higher upfront cost can be hard to recoup over the short lifespan. If anything corrosion could attack wires and electrical components in Volt causing far more headaches. That way ICEs are more forgiving.
March 12th, 2008 at 9:05 am
GM Volt Fan’s article is saying just what I have been saying for a long time. The money we are paying for fuel is all leaving this country and not coming back. If we don’t find a way to keep this money here, we will be like a third world country in the future. In the past we bought our own products and the money moved within this country. We also did what is happening to us, which is make other countries dependant on us for disposible products. I think the answer to this problem is not so difficult, but will take ingenueity. Cars and other vehicals must not use any type of oil fuel. Weather it be electric, hydrogen, natural gas, air, solar,or a combination or them will work, gas is not an option. Only a fuel we can create here can save this pouring out of American dollars for fumes.
March 12th, 2008 at 11:53 am
stopcrazypp
Iraq, as a country, may not have been directly involved in 9/11 - but there’s more than circumstantial evidence indicating the then government of Iraq was more than just passively involved in the development of the terrorists that DID fly the planes into our buildings. I might go so far as to say without the supplies, training grounds, and other aid to these terrorists provided by Iraq - 9/11 would not have been possible.
March 12th, 2008 at 2:17 pm
The thing GM needs to do to make this vehicle successfull is to give it a nice-looking body style. Look what a difference it made in the Prius. Most people never even heard of it until the 2004 model, when they switched body styles, yet it had been available for years.
The other thing they need to do is offer it in different equipment levels. I suggest they offer one with battery only, even if it is only 40 miles. That will get most people to work and can shave a good amount off of the price. Then offer two more versions, one with an extra battery pack that gets double the range, and one with the gaslone generator. That way, they have something at different price levels that can meet everyone’s needs.
I drive an electric car to work everyday that I built myself and it only has 20 miles range, but works fine for me.
March 12th, 2008 at 6:11 pm
Initially the volt will not depreciate. Buy it at 35 and sell it the next day at 40!
March 12th, 2008 at 6:17 pm
AND! The cost of gasoline is going to go up… potentially the cost of electricity could go down if solar power takes a big dip in a couple of years like many think it will with the advent of thin film!
March 14th, 2008 at 8:33 am
#43 Even the Pentagon is finally admitting that Iraq and Al Queda were not linked. Here’s the final report just released.
WASHINGTON (CNN) – The U.S. military’s first and only study looking into ties between Saddam Hussein’s Iraq and al Qaeda showed no connection between the two, according to a military report released by the Pentagon.The report released by the Joint Forces Command five years after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq said it found no "smoking gun" after reviewing about 600,000 Iraqi documents captured in the invasion and looking at interviews of key Iraqi leadership held by the United States, Pentagon officials said.The assessment of the al Qaeda connection and the insistence that Hussein had weapons of mass destruction were two primary elements in the Bush administration’s arguments in favor of going to war with Iraq.The Pentagon’s report also contradicts then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, who said in September 2002 that the CIA provided "bulletproof" evidence demonstrating "that there are, in fact, al Qaeda in Iraq."Although other groups, like the September 11 commission, have concluded that there was no link between Hussein and al Qaeda, the Pentagon was able to analyze much more information.
March 14th, 2008 at 3:25 pm
Six comments on conversation, energy and economics
1) Conservation is a great idea
2) Economies are based on energy and the need increases exponentially.
3) You can’t conserve more than you use
4) Therefore we need to develop new and existing energy sources Manhatten Project style : oil, wind, nuclear, solar, coal, etc.
5) All energy sources have environmental impact whether in manufacture of PV arrays, vistas and dead birds in wind, CO2, or radioactive waste.
6) The enviros will hate me for pointing out the obvious.