How Should the Chevy Volt’s mpg be Calculated?
A challenge besides just mass producing the Chevy Volt, will be determining its EPA rating.
After all, the EPA has historically been amount miles per gallon. Since the Volt will go for 40 miles without gas, defining the car’s efficiency purely in terms of mpg just wont do.
From conversations I’ve had with officials, GM has been thinking about this issue since day one. Protocols have been developed, for example at Argonne National Lab (ANL), on how to calculate efficiencies in E-REVs. The ANL method involves driving the car over several EPA cycles until the ICE kicks in, and then drives it one more (each 6 miles). Then the mpg is calculated by dividing the miles driven by the number of gallons used and is adjusted for electric usage (see source).
MotorTrend is now reporting “word around Detroit is GM and the EPA are apparently duking it out over the Chevy Volt.”
The report indicates that the Volt can cover the EPA cycle using the gas engine 15% of the time, resulting in a fuel efficiency of just greater than 100 mpg. Reportedly the EPA wants to calculate the mpg based on what it would take in total if the ICE had to refill the battery at the end. This supposedly would lead to 48 mpg. That number of course wouldn’t set the Volt too far away from standard hybrids, and if it held would certainly confuse and mislead the buying public
Of course, the Volt isn’t designed to have the ICE recharge the battery, it just wont happen. The car is designed to arrive to destination at roughly 30%-35% of the battery’s state of charge (aka customer depletion point). Therefore calculating in a theoretical filling of the battery is plain nonsense.
Obviously this is just the beginning of what will likely be a lengthy debate and I applaud MotorTrend for bringing it up. However, the facts of the article considering its lack of sources and references, brings its validity into question.
How do you think the Volt’s mpg should be determined?
You can tell us in the comments and/or in this dedicated forum thread.
Source (MotorTrend)
Popularity: 3%
Related posts:
- GM Has Decided on the 1.4 L 4-Cylinder Engine as the Range Extender for the Chevy Volt
- Has GM Increased the Size of the Chevy Volt’s ICE from 1.0 L to 1.4 L, and Cylinders From 3 to 4?
- How Will Air Conditioning Affect the Chevy Volt’s Electric Range?
- E-Flex/Chevy Volt Battery Lab Tour and Update
- Chevy Volt Generation Two
(4 votes, average: 5 out of 5) 
Loading ...
September 6th, 2008 at 6:41 am
I would think that a scale could be adopted for EV cars 0-40 unlimited MPG miles 41-75 75-100 mpg as so on, something along these lines that would allow the consumer to gauge based on their driving habits what milage they would receive from an EV. Just my thoughts.
September 6th, 2008 at 6:51 am
Since the electricity is not for free either, then for the 1st 40 miles, the calculation should be solely on the basis of KWh/mile.
But, since the gallons and KWh and all that will quickly get very “scientific” for the end-consumer, I think it’s time to calculate the real running cost of the machine.
It would be real simple - all you need to take is: cost of driving 20 miles a day , cost of driving 50 miles a day, cost of driving 100 miles a day.
Show the kWh price, show the gasoline price as inputs and you’re done.
In other words, the EPA will need to reform itself to show the $/mile statistic. Also bringing into consideration the maintenance costs. Possibly also potential insurance costs. If the environment will get polluted thanks to some factors being too cheap and over-used in that equation, the EPA will simply need to seek appropriate taxation for these components.
MPG is too confusing these days as people will still need to calculate it to $$$. After all you and me don’t get paid in gallons! Also, it is not a globally usable metric. Money is much more universal.
September 6th, 2008 at 7:00 am
Sometime around November 5th I think that GM needs to have a chat with their buddy John McCain, or his opponent Barack Obama. This week the press reported that the Bush administration put out an economic analysis on improving mpg for automobiles. The analysis included the assumptions that gas is $2.50 per gallon, and that hybrids are not available. Obviously, the Prius is out there and very successful. Most major manufacturers have more than one hybrid available for sale. Gas was at $3.61 in my neighborhood last night, and it looked relatively cheap to me. The consequence of these assumptions is that the report’s conclusions about the macroeconomic costs and benefits of pushing for more fuel efficient cars were substantially altered. I’m not saying this is political, but at some level this become political. At some point someone decided on unrealistic assumptions, and odds are it was a political appointee. If the candidates support getting us off oil, they should be able to use their influence to get the EPA to a more realistic system than assuming that the ICE will be running all the time, so that the buying public is not mislead about the Volt and other electric vehicles.
September 6th, 2008 at 7:07 am
Outrageous, the EPA is trying to force the Volt to fit its testing standards. they need to reflect reality. We need the AER range and then the MPG for this class of car.
To rate the Volt, and expected copycats, on a full battery recharge which will not happen is really, really, stupid.
GM really needs to win this one.
September 6th, 2008 at 7:13 am
Outrageous, here we have a government department trying to make the Volt fit their existing standards.
We want to know two things:
1. the AER, and
2. the MPG for continuous running.
If this wasn’t so serious it would be sad. GM really needs to win this battle. For their sake, and all the copycats to follow.
September 6th, 2008 at 7:15 am
Hard to believe the EPA would use a process that would peg the Volt at 48 or so when they gave Tesla a number above 200…
This discussion over from the Tesla roadster forums has some interesting details, which, if true (I have some doubts- one of their “engineers” for example calculates a combined mpg rating by using a simple weighted average of 55% city and 45% highway, when the actual calculation requires a harmonically weighted averaged….) may give a good look at what will happen with Volt.
http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/tesla-roadster/1280-mpg-equivalent.html
September 6th, 2008 at 7:19 am
One option would be to just accept the complexity of the vehicle and give the facts. Something like (edit: You’ll have to use your imagination for the formatting as the spacing gets removed on my browser: I tried to make it look pretty!),
City Hwy
Electric Mode
Range 40 32
MPkWh 5 4
$/mile ($0.10/kWh) $0.02 $0.025
Hybrid Mode
MPG 50 50
$/mile ($5.00/g) $0.10 $0.10
You could also have an “energy star” rating similar to what goes on appliances. Something like,
This vehicle will cost $500/year in electricity/fuel costs, then have the slider symbol showing lowest and highest for vehicles in this class, which will have a minimum of $500 and maximum of ~$2000).
It’s more complicated, but it’s reality.
September 6th, 2008 at 7:21 am
Instead of City/Hwy, simply add one for combined driving on all electric:
AER/Cty/Hwy
For examply, the GM Volt, if it gets 40 miles AER + 45 city + 49 highway, it would be 40/45/49. If someone came out with a pure electric vehicle with a 300 mile range, it would be 300/na/na. Standard ICE would be na/20/25.
Possibly also a note as to how many KwH is used for the AER, so people can compare vehicles.
Brian
September 6th, 2008 at 7:24 am
Why does the electric range/fuel efficiency of an E-REV even need to be reduced to a single number (or pair of numbers… highway/city)? Why not just give the the electric range in miles and the MPG for the range extender for both highway and city driving. That would be the most meaningful to me.
EDIT: Sorry for the redundancy… pdt @ 2 posted the same thing while I was typing my post. I like pdt’s MPkWh idea, too.
September 6th, 2008 at 7:28 am
What the EPA, (and the auto industry) both don’t get is that transportation is going to change so fundimentally that the old, single-fuel definitions will be useless and meaningless.
Accurate descriptions of the efficiency of EACH mode (ala pdt’s post) and with each type of FUEL available. Nobody talks about mileage on e85 yet they sell these things as flex fuel. How about mileage on biodiesel (at B20, B50, or B100), which is touted on diesel vehicles (and much more avaiable than e85).
The Volt will hopefully be the watershed moment when the industry and the world break their habitual predisposition on single-fuel thinking, and open up to innovation of EVERY kind. Sometimes it only take one well placed hit to break through conventional thinking and start a commercial (or social) change.
September 6th, 2008 at 7:36 am
I think that pdt’s suggestion of cost per year is probably what they should move to. Show some assumptions like fuel price, electric price, miles driven per year, etc.
September 6th, 2008 at 7:55 am
Not to throw the thread off track, but it raises another (what I’d consider a more serious question), regarding taxes… When we buy gas at the pump we pay taxes. But if we charge at home, we do not. How is Uncle Sam going to slam us if we theoretically do could avoid those damn petro stations from here on out? That will be the big debate IMO.
September 6th, 2008 at 7:57 am
To me… it really doesn’t matter. I just want the car. 40 mile range all electric…that works for me.
September 6th, 2008 at 7:58 am
I like pft’s idea from #2, but it got too complex.
How about something like this:
All Electric Mode Range - 40/City 32/Highway
Gas Hybrid Mode Mileage - 60/City 50/Highway
I only bumped up the city mileage, because it will take advantage of the regen braking.
Thiughts?
September 6th, 2008 at 8:00 am
#6 Dave B
“… How is Uncle Sam going to slam us if we theoretically do could avoid those damn petro stations from here on out?”
I foresee a resurgence of toll roads.
Either that, or they’ll simply say “In order to make things easier for you, we’ve asked your employer to simply send your paycheck to us. We’re from the Government. We’ll take care of you. You can trust us.”
September 6th, 2008 at 8:09 am
Charge battery and fill the tank.
Run though the EPA cycles till it runs out of battery and gas determine a MPG. Seems easy enough to me.
September 6th, 2008 at 8:09 am
Easy: ALL we need to do to allow comparison of ALL drive-trains and energy carriers (past, present AND future) is to continue with the same EPA cycles used to today and JUST change the UNITS of measurement.
Energy is energy so it is time to talk in the language of energy and use the UNITS of energy. The only logical (and very easy) alternative is to convert ALL EPA figures for ALL vehicles to miles per kWh (or Joules). Depending on octane it is around 37kWh or 133 mega joules of energy per gallon of petrol. The precise quantity would be known and used for the octane of the fuel being used in any EPA tests of the future. Ideally we’d replace miles with Km but I don’t see the USA or my homeland (UK) doing that in a hurry even though it makes sense.
The whole point of the EPA system is to enable comparison of energy efficiency between vehicles. This is impossible if we are comparing apples with pears (mpg and mpc or some mix of the two). It becomes ridiculous if we try to compare peaches too by creating an arbitrarily massaged figure for fuel burn in the range extender (petrol/E85/diesel/H2) engine to re-charge Volts traction battery (which - as Lyle says- E-Flex is not designed to do).
No, this is the dawn of a new era and the new yardstick MUST be one of the Joules or Watt hours. It might be hard for the average consumer to get used to not thinking in Gallons, but he/she is going to have to think that way sooner or later so it might as well be now since any other measuring system will fail in it’s intended purpose.
Here in the UK we switched from Imperial to metric measures. It really isn’t hard, and anyone not smart enough to be able to cope probably doesn’t understand the existing figure either.
Cheers
September 6th, 2008 at 8:14 am
#9 Pskienar
They could also “tax” you on the amount of miles you drive a year.
September 6th, 2008 at 8:22 am
#10 JB
“They could also “tax” you on the amount of miles you drive a year.”
True. But … how would they do that? Considering the success of the various state’s “Use Taxes”, the Fed’s certainly wouldn’t trust us (the citizens) to report honest miles driven.
+ Some weeks ago, there was a discussion on here about Onstar being standard on GM vehicles and how they could retrieve all sorts of data from your car without you even knowing it. Would the Gov’t have GM extract miles driven via Onstar and send us a bill?
+ Would we have to take our vehicles into an authorized service center every winter to received an “Authenticated Miles Driven” document to be submitted annually along with our payroll W2’s?
Or what? I’m sure there are all sorts of other options, but … those are the first ones that jump out at me.
September 6th, 2008 at 8:27 am
Couple of comments:
-ICE running for 15% of the test should equate to just north of 300mpg, unless it is not close to 40 AER
-If this is true, then whoever at the EPA is responsible needs to be slapped with the same hand that slapped person that recently had decided (since recinded) to put a moratorium on installing solar on federal lands pending further impact studies. For those few straglers in the dark that don’t yet get it, WAKE UP, we are trying to get OFF of oil. Even if it weren’t essential for us replace oil consumption, the potential buyer would be missled by the rumored methodology of simulating refilling of the battery via the generator. This is the first time this rumor has surfaced, BTW. It was brought up many months ago but is no less a$$inine today. The EPA has a test cycle to compare gas consumption. Apply it the same to all vehicles even if it turns out to be NO GAS. They can then add metrics for vehicles with AER, i.e. AER for KWh used. For EREVs they could also add city, highway, and combined mpg for range extending mode. I realize this is a lot more information and more complicated but “it is what it is.” EREVs are a lot more complicated when it comes to gasoline/energy consumption and there is no easy way around it.
*I started this post when there were no coments and several comments have subsequently been posted saying some of the same things. Consensus is good!
September 6th, 2008 at 8:28 am
#11 Psklenar
My guess would be when you take your vechicle in for emissions testing / inspection. Not sure if it’s the same in every state, but here in WA we have to go every two years. They could just calulate the miles then.
September 6th, 2008 at 8:30 am
JB @ 10 said:
They could also “tax” you on the amount of miles you drive a year.
I think that would be too hard to implement and enforce. Maybe in the states that have yearly emissions tests, they could check your odometer at the same time they do the test, but I’m not sure what other states would do. I suspect that any system the government would implement would be costly and rife with fraud.
My guess is that the government will eventually slap a “transportation tax” on electricity usage. That’s simple and there is already a mechanism in place for collecting the tax.
September 6th, 2008 at 8:31 am
unfortunately, I think the public is not capable of decifering a muriad of numbers. They need one number. I think the best and only way to accuaratly give a number for the volt (and I believe this would make the volt look very very good), would take the average miles driven per day per capita and then plot a course similar to the EPA test or even just the same as the EPA circuit and see how much gas the volt requires. Everyone knows they will have to charge up at night. That cost is given or fixed. The milage number would be off the chart I believe. I expect that the average miles driven per person per day are less than forty. This would give the volt a nearly infinite MPG. Just a thought. I’m all about making the volt look better and when you think about it, there really isn’t going to be much gas purchasing by the people driving volts.
September 6th, 2008 at 8:33 am
Having thought about this a long time, my opinion is that the best plan for the Volt (and for all cars) is to base the “official” mpg figure on the first 200 miles of driving, starting with a full gas tank, full charge, full H2 tank, or full whatever the vehicle has.
This metric has the advantage that it can be applied consistently, and that people can understand it immediately. Other plans quickly become too complicated to be expressed simply.
September 6th, 2008 at 8:37 am
Off topic: AtBatt.com is the web site of a company that sells batteries. Today they have sent an online email advertising their website, which today is urging people to buy electric cars.
gm-volt.com is the source of many of atbatt.com’s facts, I’m pretty sure. AtBatt also shows pictures of the concept Volt, as if it is the production car. (The writer may think gm-volt.com is some sort of gm site and that the concept is the production.) FYI, link is
“http://www.atbatt.com/blog/59.asp”
Even if not getting deserved credit, Lyle has been amazingly successful in moving the electric car into the forefront of peoples’ minds.
September 6th, 2008 at 8:44 am
Technology moving forward will allow not only a charge by mile, but by location and speed. Key to this will be something like OnStar, but optimized for BigBrother.
Here’s an example of how it could work: a GPS and communications unit in the car would combine location with a unique identifier, and send it to The Big Computer moment by moment. It would work out where you are, when you are, how fast you are going, and whether or not you are using electricity or gas. There will be urban zones which restrict certain kinds of traffic at certain times of the day, or restrict them by electric usage only for pollution reasons. Speed limits might also adopt a sliding scale, as the Interstates did years ago, for time of day (but with lower off-peak rates). Without some kind of complex on-board system to second-guess the WOPPER based on where you appear to be going, you’ll have no idea what kind of charges you might be in for. You’ll get your base bill at the end of the month, with de-criminalized charges added for how much of the time you were over the speed limit, in the wrong zone at the wrong time in the wrong mode, etc.
In short, if we continue our march towards the Nanny State, this whole matter of taxation, combined with improving communications technology, will lead to the usual government-nightmare of unbridled beauracracy.
OnStar’s aims are high-minded, but it shows the way to dystopia.
September 6th, 2008 at 8:47 am
… and of course, once the DARPA challenges end up with a reliable system of self-navigation, the steering wheel will be removed (the Insurance companies will insist upon it), and we’ll become helpless passengers in our Nanny-State Perambulators.
September 6th, 2008 at 8:52 am
September 6th, 2008 at 8:52 am
Wired is reporting Chrysler Plug-in-Hybird
http://blog.wired.com/cars/2008/09/secret-chrysler.html
September 6th, 2008 at 8:53 am
WINTER is a topic that most here seem to avoid, the EPA won’t. The engine will run for warm-up. Gas will be used regardless of kW still available. You can’t just dismiss the reality that Volt will sit out in a lot all day while you’re at work, without being plugged in.
EMISSIONS is another, which is also rated by the EPA. That will most definitely involve the engine directly. And in that case, cold is any temperature below roughly 145°F due to the needs of the catalytic-converter. So the when and how often question becomes a really big deal.
September 6th, 2008 at 8:53 am
Hi all,
First, maybe Lyle could post a thread regarding how the govt can and will milk us in some way or other for tax money.
Back on the theme of the moment - I’m concerned about any mention of KWHs just because it’ll confuse too many people. It could be on the same car sticker, but not the first few things people see. I really like the EnergyStar sliding scale as a simple visual comparison that a lot of people are used too. It’d MAYbe lend itself to a statement of “At national price of gasoline (AAA) the “average” driver” or 15K/yr or whatever it will cost $X to run” (but the visual rating is most important from a shrink’s point of view).
Frankly, all of the suggested procedures sound great (except of course the govt”s). We have a smart group here.
Be well (and skip the KWh’s),
Tag ©
“LJGTVWOTR!!” ©
September 6th, 2008 at 8:59 am
It just sounds more bureacratic nonsense. Some in the EPA want oil based vehicles off the road, so their logic is make it look bad and it will not sell. That would throw GM into real trouble and lead to the company shutting down. Hence, fewere autos made and on the road. Even those gureacrats can’t be that stupid, or can they. This is just too unreal to think about. The ICE is not designed to charge the battery. GM needs to use its influence with congress and the president to have the EPA re-think this.
September 6th, 2008 at 9:00 am
Convert to Cost per mile and give the Gas cost equiv. Example
8 KW for 40 Miles At 10 cents a KWH IS Equiv. To Paying 80 Cents for a gallon of gasoline to go the same 40 Miles
Converted to MPG Cost of gasoline at$3.50 Div by .80cents cost of electricity = 4.375 x 40 miles or 175 MPG
SO the Sticker should read Either 175 MPG or Cost to Operate Veh is Equiv To 80 Cents per Gallon For Gasoline.
September 6th, 2008 at 9:00 am
I agree…
AER - City/Highway
40 - 55/50
or
40 miles - 50/55 mpg
E-REV is different…and it should be recognized with a 3rd value. The EPA is attempting to put a square peg into a round hole. When the ICE is no longer needed (maybe a fuel cell is used instead) or a pure EV in future models, “City/Highway” can be just dropped. I used a dash to set it apart since AER is a distance (miles).
I think most people would agree with present technology AER gives more info on the vehicle than KWH/mile. Of course, AER is dependent on the road profile. weather, etc. The EPA just needs a defined test for determining AER.
September 6th, 2008 at 9:01 am
“First, maybe Lyle could post a thread regarding how the govt can and will milk us in some way or other for tax money.”
Such a thread would inevitably become virulently political, Tagament. Just sayin.’
Perhaps my optimistic assessment ought to be ‘it,’ for now. Hey, I said the added charges would be de-criminalized, didn’t I?
September 6th, 2008 at 9:05 am
Well, I suppose I ought to be on-topic, at least once:
“Having thought about this a long time, my opinion is that the best plan for the Volt (and for all cars) is to base the “official” mpg figure on the first 200 miles of driving, starting with a full gas tank, full charge, full H2 tank, or full whatever the vehicle has.”
An additional benefit of RB’s plan is that it officially increases pressure on carmakers to extend all-electric range to improve that number in later models.
September 6th, 2008 at 9:07 am
Who does not get taxed on their electric bill? My electric bill is 20% Taxes.
September 6th, 2008 at 9:09 am
Randy has it right except that you need to factor in the mileage driven in range extender mode. per day or in the interval between recharges. Say that number is 200 miles driven at 50 MPG, then the weighted average of 200 at 50MPG and 40 at 175MPG equals 70.8MPG.
September 6th, 2008 at 9:11 am
Jackson rethreads turning political
You’re right. Most threads turn political. I was just hoping that sprinkled in between them there’d be a reasonably centered discussion of mileage ratings. Hey, I’m the resident optimist - I can dream (g).
Be well,
Tag©
“LJGTVWOTR!!”©
September 6th, 2008 at 9:17 am
The idea is to get the Volt produced and remove us from foreign oil dependence. The first step is the Volt, IMO. The others coming down the pike are more of the same. We can only wish we could have done this 10 years ago.
September 6th, 2008 at 9:19 am
THe range extender is only a back-up device to keep you from getting stranded between charges. GM is marketing the car with the notion that many drivers would never(or seldom) have to use any gas at all.
With that in mind i don,t think you would have to average MPG from the Range Extender as no 2 drivers drive the same Miles every day.
OR you could Say Electric/175 MPG gasoline/50
September 6th, 2008 at 9:19 am
Randy@24
Agreed, but that tax $ is not earmarked for transportation infrastructure. That’s not to say it couldn’t be though. Over at GreenCarCongress this topic has been discussed to death and that’s been one of the suggestions.
Be well
Tag
LJGTVWOTR!!” ©(g)
September 6th, 2008 at 9:22 am
I think they should forget about taxing electric cars until we no longer import any OIL,or tax the imported Oil
September 6th, 2008 at 9:26 am
#6 Dave B who brought up the tax rev. “lost” by people driving electrically.
What if the Govt. cut back on it’s spending, like a regular family has to do? I ‘ve heard they have some fat in their budget.
September 6th, 2008 at 9:26 am
How’s this in a future Volt ad:
“… your mileage may vary — it could be much higher!”
September 6th, 2008 at 9:34 am
“Reportedly the EPA wants to calculate the mpg based on what it would take in total if the ICE had to refill the battery at the end. This supposedly would lead to 48 mpg. ”
Leave it to the EPA to **** up an American industry trying to do good.
September 6th, 2008 at 9:37 am
It’s really impressive how many good ideas have come out of this site! I’m hard pressed to say which I like the most.
I would comment on the Argonne National Labs Vs. EPA. I like the Labs method much better (no kidding- refilling the battery with the gas engine isn’t even possible). However, Argonne’s the 6 miles of gas driving is too short. A Prius gets 25 mpg or so, the first 5 minutes, as it warms up the polution control stuff. So if you drive 10 minutes you average 35 mpg. (25mpg then 46mpg). But after it’s warmed up, it gets 46 mpg.
So you have to be careful about how LONG the gas mode is timed, as you can get very different results.
(my comment is awaiting moderation. Probably from that crack I made about the Government in #31)
September 6th, 2008 at 9:40 am
I think the EPA should do what they do with large pickup trucks. If you buy a 3/4 ton or larger pickup, there is no EPA mileage estimate.
As far as road use taxes, it will be years, if not decades before there are enough electric or partial electric vehicles on the road for the government to take notice so enjoy driving! It will be like the Boston Tea Party every time you drive! It took years for the government to collect taxes on internet sales, and you often don’t pay taxes if the company is small enough not to have an office in your state.
September 6th, 2008 at 9:42 am
Back to the original topic - there are 2 issues here:
1) Explaining to car buyers how much gasoline the Volt will use.
2) Rating the Volt MPG for CAFE fleet standards.
For #1, I think it’s a no-brainier. Just advertise the Volt as 40 miles all electric, and then 50 MPG after that. People will get it. This is much easier to understand than plug-in parallel hybrids. The EPA should allow this type of rating for all extended range EVs, and it should be shown in a standard way on the sticker and in advertisements.
For issue #2, I would say average Volt drivers will run 85% of their driving on electricity, so that would be 333 MPG. This number should also be on the sticker and in advertising, as it is valid for comparison with plug-in parallel hybrids.
For details on the 333 MPG number - consider 1000 miles of driving, 850 of which are electric, 150 on gas. At 50 MPG, the Volt would use 3 gallons. So you’ve gone 1000 miles on 3 gallons of gas.
As for calculating MPG by factoring in the cost of electricity, I disagree. Costs will vary significantly.
September 6th, 2008 at 9:47 am
I think all of this goes to show that the EPA rated mileage standard is dated and needs to be re-worked for all vehicles.
I personally would like to see a cost to recharge (kWhr) along with an estimated battery range. Then a mpg for the EV alone.
If the EV is going to have the ability to charge the battery say when on a long trip while you are taking a food break then that should be considered in the EV range alone. If this won’t be an option then it’s excluded.
Consumers are dumb, but if you provided them enough information they may just surprise us
September 6th, 2008 at 9:48 am
To keep it as simple as possible, have two stickers on the window. One showing cost of operation while usint electricity and one showing costs while running ICE. KISS- Keep It Simple Stupid!
my .02
September 6th, 2008 at 10:02 am
#48 solo Says: “… it will be years, if not decades before there are enough electric or partial electric vehicles on the road for the government to take notice so enjoy driving!”
————————————————————————————-
I hope not! As people start to connect the dots between terrorism and oil, plug-ins will get popular, real fast.
Also, both McCain and Obama are promoting plug-ins much more than the current administration. If you look at Obama’s plan:
• Put 1 Million Plugin Electric Vehicles on the Road by 2015.
• Within one year of becoming President, the entire White House fleet will be converted to plug-ins as security permits; and
• Half of all cars purchased by the federal government will be plug-in hybrids or all-electric by 2012
that’s a much faster take-up than you suggest above. See here for details:
http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/factsheet_energy_speech_080308.pdf
(bottom of page 4)
I think having someone in the White House that promotes plug-ins will make a huge difference, and many people will buy them.
September 6th, 2008 at 10:11 am
I want to know 2 things. The Electric Only Range (EOR or whatever you call it) and want to know what to expect on a trip after the ICE comes on, because more than likely there will be no plugs on the trip. So I want:
EOR - Electric Only Range
City MPG on ICE
Highway MPG on ICE
With the above figures I would be able to calculate easily what my daily usage would be and what I can expect on a trip. Anything else is just playing with the numbers. All the EPA has to do is add the EOR to stickers. I don’t want some arbitray number based on some mileage traveled dayly figure. Give me numbers I can use and understand and don’t use the EOR to inflate the numbers.
September 6th, 2008 at 10:14 am
I’m going to go for the obvious answer…why mess with it and make it all complicated?
Electric Range - 40 miles
Extended Range - 60/45 City/Highway
(So, I’m in your camp on this on Jim I) If you want to get all technical and into the nitty-gritty, put a asterisk beside it and fine print all the math’ for guys like us that need every shred of empiricall data.
September 6th, 2008 at 10:19 am
Statik@54 said”
I’m going to go for the obvious answer…why mess with it and make it all complicated
Electric Range - 40 miles
Extended Range - 60/45 City/Highway
(So, I’m in your camp on this on Jim I) If you want to get all technical and into the nitty-gritty, put a asterisk beside it and fine print all the math’ for guys like us that need every shred of empiricall data.
************************************************************************
How would you give a Prius a rating with this approach? I’m not faulting keeping it simple, I’m just curious as to how you’d apply the Electric range with a car that sometimes uses only electric and other times uses both.
Be well,
Tag
LJGTVWOTR!! ©
September 6th, 2008 at 10:20 am
#3 lh_newbie
Let’s keep in mind that this argument is all about CAFE standards, not the EPA sticker. GM needs to sell those Silverados.
On the sticker, Brian’s is the simplest most understandable suggestion I’ve seen. Therefore I doubt it will happen.
On the CAFE standards, GM’s proposal is OK. The EPA’s position is just silly and strange — the Volt is designed to NOT have the ICE replace electricity so why test how much gas you would need to use to do that. GM’s position works because it runs a course with standard mileage, which means cars with a longer EV range will be rewarded. The problem is that once you get over a certain range, say 60 miles, a BEV vehicle doesn’t get any more credit than a hybrid. That doesn’t seem right but who knows.
Getting back to Brian’s suggestion for consumers, with respect to comparing the efficiencies of the vehicles, you could do that with a notation of how many kWh it takes to go the EV distance, perhaps as a superscript. However, the fact is that the running costs are so low it doesn’t make a huge difference. Per mile, if a kWh is 8 cents, the Tesla would cost 2-3 cents, the Aptera less than 1 cent, and the Volt less than 2 cents. At these rates does it matter?
September 6th, 2008 at 10:30 am
THere will be other electric car soon so perhaps
MPK Miles per kilowatt
CPM Cost per mile
MPG is about cost to operate not Range
September 6th, 2008 at 10:32 am
#55 Tagamet
Do keep in mind the argument is the CAFE standards, not the sticker. Higher mpg numbers for the Volt can be used to offset lower numbers elsewhere.
The Prius doesn’t really have an EV range. It’s an ICE with an electrical transmission or battery assist, however you prefer to think of it. You can force the Prius to run in EV mode but that kills the mpg later. To get the most accurate results you’d just run the standard test.
I think your question about the Prius is actually what has the EPA going down its bunny trail. The Prius doesn’t plug in. If you have no battery power at the end of the run you need to use the ICE to recharge it. For the Prius this happens naturally. So the EPA, to make it “fair”, wants the Volt to do the same thing. Hopefully they’ll figure out that it’s equally a mistake to treat different things the same as it is to treat similar things differently.
September 6th, 2008 at 10:35 am
DonC@58
Are you saying that the Prius can’t run on all electric?
Oops, I just reread your post and you do allow for it, but suggest there’s a penalty for doing so. George K or john1701a - Comments?
Be well,
Tag
LJGTVWOTR!! ©
September 6th, 2008 at 10:40 am
How ironic it is given the current state of our economy that our government can’t see how important it is to come up with a fair way of reporting fuel consumption for a breakthrough automobile produced by an American auto manufacturer. With all the talk about supporting industry and the American workers, somebody ought to call them on this. The Volt needs to succeed to help GM bounce back to prominence in the auto world.
Time to get off their bureaucratic asses and earn their taxpayer-supported paychecks.
September 6th, 2008 at 10:46 am
As far as road taxes, I wouldn’t mind the entire collection method for all cars being changed to 2 cents per mile driven, collected each year by Dept. of Motor Vehicles when they read your odometer. Monthly electronic bill pay for the amount for those that can’t pay $600 for the 30,000 miles they drove over the year. Instant .62 cent average savings per gallon at the pump.
September 6th, 2008 at 10:47 am
#56 DonC Says: “On the CAFE standards, GM’s proposal is OK. The EPA’s position is just silly and strange — the Volt is designed to NOT have the ICE replace electricity so why test how much gas you would need to use to do that.”
————————————————————————————-
Its more than silly - its bizarre! The EPA will require GM to make changes to the Volt test vehicle order for them to test it? Doesn’t this invalidate the test by definition?
The Volt’s ICE does not charge the battery above 30%. The battery dips below 30% only during brief periods of heavy acceleration and steep uphill driving. So the ICE doesn’t really charge the battery much at all. Most of the electricity from the ICE/generator goes directly to the electric motor, bypassing the battery altogether. Modifying this system would make the test vehicle significantly different than the Volt that consumers would buy. Why would the EPA want to test a different car than consumers would buy?
The only thing I can think of is that the EPA doesn’t have a clue how the Volt works…
September 6th, 2008 at 10:53 am
DaveG said in part
“…Why would the EPA want to test a different car than consumers would buy?…
Simple. Because they can. (sigh).
Be well,
Tag
LJGTVWOTR!! ©
September 6th, 2008 at 10:55 am
#57 Randy Says: ”
MPK Miles per kilowatt
CPM Cost per mile
MPG is about cost to operate not Range”
————————————————————————————-
First, it would be “miles per kilo-watt/hour” or MPKH. The Volt that would be around 5 MPKH.
Second, electrical rates vary from around 6 cents/KWH to 17 cents/KWH:
http://gm-volt.com/chevy-volt-reasons-for-use-and-cost-of-operation/
so CPM would be fairly useless, since one person could pay 3 times more than another.
Third, MPG is more important than just the cost of operation. It represents our dependence on foreign oil, which has a direct link to terrorism. It also has a lot to do with global warming.
September 6th, 2008 at 11:03 am
I have read most of the comments above. I see now why I am the dumbest one here.
Here is my thought.
Let’s make two assumptions:
1) The Volt will have a 6 gallon gas tank.
2) I am on a 800 mile nonstop road trip.
The first 40 miles is electric. The next 760 miles
is with the ICE running.
If I am to get 100MPG (Like GM wants to state) , then after I drive the first 40 miles, I should be able to go an additional 600 miles before I run empty. Now I’m getting 100MPG. But this really isn’t the case. The Volt may only go about 300-400 miles before running out of gas. This is significantly less than 100MPG.
GM can play with the numbers anyway they want to make themselves look good. But there is no question that a fair standard must be implemented.
In the end, Kaido #2 makes the most sense to me. It’s simple.
September 6th, 2008 at 11:08 am
mpg! I don’t care if it goes 100 miles befor it turns on the gas I still won’t to know what the over all miles per gallon cost is.
September 6th, 2008 at 11:09 am
RB’s plan (#24) strikes me as the simplest, applies to the widest range of possible vehicles, and applies pressure to increase all electric range.
I agree with the comments of many concerning the unenlightened approach of the EPA and other government agencies. The history of beauracracy in matters like this are the baseline for my dystopian extrapolation in comments 26,27 & 28. Believe me, I could have painted a much dimmer picture.
Remember, this is our government we’re talking about.
If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the government.
September 6th, 2008 at 11:18 am
#65 Rashiid Amul,
If you drove 800 miles non-stop, you will get 52.6 MPG. But how many people do this everyday?
The real issue is average driving habits over a period of time. For example, let’s say you drive 12,000 miles a year, and 10,000 of those miles are all electric, then you will get 300 MPG. This is a much more realistic scenario.
September 6th, 2008 at 11:23 am
Jackson #26, #27, #28
Seems like necessary tools for fighting terrorism, though perhaps in this case it would be anti-utopia rather than dystopia.
September 6th, 2008 at 11:23 am
I didn’t read most of the comments since they were pretty similar.
It’s probably mentioned above, but I say this method is best.
Right now, EPA has 3 numbers: city, hwy, combined.
For E-REV’s, I think they should have 4 numbers:
AER city, AER hwy, MPG city*, MPG hwy**
*measured when battery is at “customer depletion point” and run through the standard car city test.
**measured when battery is at “customer depletion point” and run through the standard car hwy test.
This covers everything, since AER can range depending on conditions, just the same that gas usage can.
Also, if they wanted, they could do a 5th number for average power usage (Wh/mi)
It may seem like making things more complex by adding in more numbers, but really, this is like two cars in one. You can’t just summarize it with one method or another.
Edit: I guess AER is kind of subjective and could be 943869843 with a massive battery, but a less efficient electric.
They should use numbers like in the image in the topic - kWh/100miles.
September 6th, 2008 at 11:30 am
#5 NZ David, #14 Jim I, #54 Statik:
All right, IMHO. KISS please.
People are smart enough to figure out the implications of the AER vs. the mileage on the “range extender”. Otherwise the number risks being so complicated as to be essentially meaningless, as many have pointed out Not unlike manufacturers (not to mention any names) who consistently advertising the “highway” mileage ratings of their cars, while conveniently ignoring the much more important (again IMHO) “city” ratings. Every time I hear “The most cars with highway mileage over 30 mpg”, I grit my teeth.
Anyway, any number anyone can devise is subject to spin and manipulation. Just look at our political “process”, with both parties deeply guilty, I hasten to add.
September 6th, 2008 at 11:31 am
#64 Dave G
The actual costs of running an EV are impossibly difficult to calculate, even with elaborate spreadsheets. Best to forget trying. Just for your amusement, here is a special rate plan for PG&E customers who have EVs.
http://www.pge.com/myhome/environment/pge/electricvehicles/fuelrates/index.shtml
September 6th, 2008 at 11:40 am
62 Dave G:
Or, I will take a more conspiratorial note:
The EPA doesn’t like GM. In the more left leaning years GM fought the EPA over MPG and Emissions standards and as the largest Automaker was the “Big Bad Guy”. Now GM is on the ropes and the Volt is a game changer that should be the architecture on which most of the Green revolution will be based both in oil usage and emissions. Lifers at the EPA are disgruntled that it is GM leading the charge so are making it hard on them by putting a ridiculous MPG sticker on that could tank the commercial prospects of the vehicle.
on the other hand there is a much simpler explanation:
Never ascribe to malice that which can be explained by stupidity.
September 6th, 2008 at 12:01 pm
#68 Dave G,
I didn’t do a good job making my point.
My current car is rated as:
MPG (city) 21
MPG (highway) 30
MPG (combined) 25
This is fairly consistent whether I am doing my daily commute (100 miles) or driving on a long trip.
The EPA standard should be consistent for EVs or else the EPA really needs to explain the difference in a very clear way.
September 6th, 2008 at 12:02 pm
Hmmmm, how ’bout a simple sticker that says something like:
“On average, this car will save $X per year over the same size gasoline-only car”
Just a thought.
Be well,
Tag
LJGTVWOTR!! ©
September 6th, 2008 at 12:10 pm
#67 Jackson Says: “RB’s plan (#24) strikes me as the simplest, applies to the widest range of possible vehicles, and applies pressure to increase all electric range.”
————————————————————————————-
Driving 200 miles a day is very simple, but it doesn’t represent how most people will use the Volt, so I think it’s a meaningless number.
The more I think about this, the more I realize this problem wont go away. MPG ratings for plug-in parallel hybrids like the Saturn Vue and Toyota Prius will be equally contentious.
Here is the answer. It’s complicated for the EPA, but it will work for all plug-ins, and it’s easy and meaningful to consumers!
1) Assume that consumers will plug in once a day.
2) The EPA, perhaps along with GM and other car makers, will research average U.S. driving habits and develop a chart of how many miles people drive per day. In particular, this chart would show the variability of miles per day for the average U.S. driver. The frequency of shorter trips and longer trips would be shown in the chart. This chart will be used as a template to establish MPG values for ALL plug-in cars.
3) Plug-in vehicle manufacturers must provide a status indication of when the battery has reached the customer depletion point. On the Volt, this is obviously when the ICE turns on, but for plug-in parallel hybrids, it won’t be as obvious, so a status indicator is necessary.
4) EPA tests will measure:
a) the number of miles to the customer depletion point
b) the MPG before the customer depletion point (∞ for the Volt)
c) the MPG after the customer depletion point
5) Using data from 2) and 4) above, the EPA will calculate a number for MPG. As usual, there may be different numbers for MPG city, highway, and combined.
This method of calculation will:
• give car buyers a realistic expectation of how much gas they will use.
• level the playing field for plug-in vehicle manufacturers
• eliminate most or all contention between the EPA and plug-in manufacturers
• encourage the sale of plug-ins with non-contentious real world MPG estimates
September 6th, 2008 at 12:14 pm
As much as I hate to, I’ll have to agree with #24 RB on this one.
Seems to me a fair and simple test would be to top the cars off with gas and electricity, and run them for 200 miles oscillating inbetween city and highway. (i.e. 10 mi. city, 10 mi. highway, 10 mi. city, 10 mi. highway . . . . . etc. until you get to 200 mi.)
I would also like to see a verifcation of All Electric Range, perhaps similar to the test above but with shorter intervals (5 mi. city, 5 mi highway, etc…)
September 6th, 2008 at 12:20 pm
#75 Tagamet Says: “Hmmmm, how ’bout a simple sticker that says something like: “On average, this car will save $X per year over the same size gasoline-only car”
————————————————————————————-
1) Electrical rates vary from around 6 cents/KWH to 17 cents/KWH:
http://gm-volt.com/chevy-volt-reasons-for-use-and-cost-of-operation/
so average cost would be fairly useless, since one person could pay 3 times more than another.
2) Cost is not the only issue. More people are becoming conscious of the link between foreign oil and terrorism. Many people are concerned over global warming. So MPG is meaningful for reasons other than cost.
September 6th, 2008 at 12:23 pm
#77 Carcus Says: “Seems to me a fair and simple test would be to top the cars off with gas and electricity, and run them for 200 miles oscillating inbetween city and highway.”
————————————————————————————-
How many people drive 200 miles every day? This test would not be meaningful to the average driver.
September 6th, 2008 at 12:29 pm
Since when has the EPA ever been an accurate representation anyway….
Old School thinking. (EPA) Vs. New Technology
Simple.
NO GAS REQUIRED FOR 40 MILES DAILY USE. THIS RERESENTS 70% OF AMERICAN DRIVERS!
ZERO EMISSIONS. ZERO CO2. ZERO IMPORTED OIL USED! ZERO TERRORIST FUNDING.
41 to 100 miles (ICE) Running X MPG.
101 to 150 ditto
151 to 200 ditto
Ditto with ICE on Diesel and then on CNG (compressed natural gas)
Change label as new fuels are available
Pissing off Oil Execs…helping future generations…changing the Auto industry forever…priceless!
September 6th, 2008 at 12:30 pm
#74 Rashiid Amul Says: “This is fairly consistent whether I am doing my daily commute (100 miles) or driving on a long trip.
The EPA standard should be consistent for EVs or else the EPA really needs to explain the difference in a very clear way.”
————————————————————————————-
While conventional gasoline vehicles are simpler to think about, they have obvious problems that everyone here understands. So the reality is that MPG will vary with trip distance.
The best hope is to have the EPA profile average driving habits, accounting for longer and shorter trips, and the frequency of each, and then use this as a template to develop MPG estimates for plug-ins. See post #76 for details.
September 6th, 2008 at 12:39 pm
EPA needs to come up with an “average” driving habit and use that to give mileage ratings.
BTW, it is funny how one the one hand we discuss how much the govt should pay us for buying Volt and on the other hand how to tax non-oil cars. I guess we won’t have to worry about taxes until all the subsidies on electric cars go away (in 2 decades …).
September 6th, 2008 at 12:39 pm
#80 vincent Says: “Simple.
NO GAS REQUIRED FOR 40 MILES DAILY USE. ZERO EMISSIONS. ZERO CO2. ZERO IMPORTED OIL USED! ZERO TERRORIST FUNDING.
41 to 100 miles (ICE) Running X MPG.
101 to 150 ditto
151 to 200 ditto”
————————————————————————————–
I thought the same way at first, but I’ve changed my mind. The problem is that many people aren’t really that aware of how many miles they drive every day.
So having a simple combined MPG number is probably the best way to show the value of plug-ins to the average consumer.
The only issue is that, in order to have meaningful MPG estimates, the EPA would have to profile average driving habits, accounting for longer and shorter trips, and the frequency of each, and then use this as a template to develop MPG estimates for plug-ins. See post #76 for details.
For example, if average use patterns show that 80% of the Volt’s miles are all electric, then the Volt would be 250 MPG. If 85% of the Volt’s miles are all electric, then it would be 333 MPG.
Note that GM floated the idea of a cheaper 20 mile AER Volt a while back. Well, using the EPA template you could estimate MPG for that as well…
September 6th, 2008 at 12:39 pm
#79 Dave G.
I don’t think the question is how many people drive 200 miles per day.
The question is (in a new age of EREV’s) how do you develop a comparative standard that’s fair, meaningful, and simple enough to give the consumer useful information?
The 200 mi. test does this AND (as mentioned by Jackson, above) encourages longer AER’s.
The All Electric Range number should be posted right next to the 200 mi. average mpg number.
I think the consumer is smart enough to realize the importance of the AER number. And it avoids a 350 mpg number, which, in my opinion, is useless.
September 6th, 2008 at 12:48 pm
#82 nataraj Says: “EPA needs to come up with an “average” driving habit and use that to give mileage ratings.”
————————————————————————————–
Yes, my conclusion as well. I believe the EPA will end up having to do this for plug-ins sooner or later. Might as well be sooner…
September 6th, 2008 at 12:51 pm
I don’t think one standard will work for all EVs. There will have to be different measurements depending on the system. Since the term is “Mile per Gallon”, I believe the measurement should be a measure of the gas/liquid fuel consumed over some course (EPA cycle for instance). But they will have to include a statement that the first 40 miles are all electric and the cost can be calculated based on your local kW-hr cost.
Consumers are just going to have to learn to think a little broader.
As for the “charging” I thought the Volt ICE and generator would restore the charge to a minimum level but not necessarily bring it up to 100%.
September 6th, 2008 at 12:52 pm
canehdian @70 Says:
Right now, EPA has 3 numbers: city, hwy, combined.
For E-REV’s, I think they should have 4 numbers:
AER city, AER hwy, MPG city*, MPG hwy**
*measured when battery is at “customer depletion point” and run through the standard car city test.
**measured when battery is at “customer depletion point” and run through the standard car hwy test.
Also, if they wanted, they could do a 5th number for average . . .
———————————————————
I think this is a good balance between KISS and giving enough information for most people.
I would suggest a different “5th number,” though. Many on this site have said that they would drive all electric to commute and then take trips on the weekend. I think that’s a good way to define “combined.” One then needs to pick an appropriate trip distance (300 miles?) for the weekend mostly on ICE and do the math for a weekly combined MPG. Any takers?
September 6th, 2008 at 12:58 pm
#84 Carcus Says: “The question is (in a new age of EREV’s) how do you develop a comparative standard that’s fair, meaningful, and simple enough to give the consumer useful information?
The 200 mi. test does this AND (as mentioned by Jackson, above) encourages longer AER’s. ”
————————————————————————————–
First, I don’t think an MPG number based on 200 miles is meaningful, since most people don’t drive anywhere near that in a typical day.
Second, what if I’m comparing a Volt to a Saturn Vue plug-in, or a Prius plug-in? The Vue and Prius don’t have AER, so how do I compare?
Third, the method outlined in post #74 is complicated for the EPA, but very simple and meaningful to car buyers. Using this method I can make real world comparisons of regular gas cars, regular gas hybrids, plug-in parallel hybrids, and E-REVs using one very simple combined MPG number.
Fourth, once an average driver profile is established, a bigger AER may not be that useful. In other words, the profile could help plug-in manufacturers evauluate the optimum bang-for-buck AER.
By the way, if the EPA profile determines that the average driver profile corresponds to 80% of the Volt’s miles being all-electric, then the Volt would be 250 MPG, so this would really show how much gas the Volt would save.
September 6th, 2008 at 1:06 pm
>> NO GAS REQUIRED FOR 40 MILES DAILY USE. THIS RERESENTS 70% OF AMERICAN DRIVERS!
That’s misleading, at best. Electricity for the heater has to come from somewhere. So range will not be a guarantee in the winter. And of course, the engine may perform warm-up too.
The best approach to solving this problem of measurement isn’t Volt anyway, since its systems are easier to conceptualize. Prius on the other hand, can vary electricity use 10 to 20 times per minute. That’s why the current testing misrepresents real-world conditions so much. There’s nothing standard to model against.
To matter matters even more confusing, consider what the required plug-in time will have to be. Will there really be a standard established that full replenishment must be achieved in just 8 hours? And of course if you can’t provide that much every night, YMMV.
September 6th, 2008 at 1:07 pm
#87 Michael Says: “One then needs to pick an appropriate distance for the weekend mostly on ICE and do the math for a weekly combined MPG. Any takers?”
————————————————————————————–
See post #74.
September 6th, 2008 at 1:12 pm
#86 terryk Says: “As for the “charging” I thought the Volt ICE and generator would restore the charge to a minimum level but not necessarily bring it up to 100%.”
————————————————————————————-
The Volt’s ICE does not charge the battery above 30%. The battery dips below 30% only during brief periods of heavy acceleration and steep uphill driving. So the ICE doesn’t really charge the battery much at all. Most of the electricity from the ICE/generator goes directly to the electric motor, bypassing the battery altogether. Modifying this system would make the test vehicle significantly different than the Volt that consumers would buy. Why would the EPA want to test a different car than consumers would buy? Seems insane.
September 6th, 2008 at 1:16 pm
#86 terryk Says: “I don’t think one standard will work for all EVs. There will have to be different measurements depending on the system. …
Consumers are just going to have to learn to think a little broader.”
————————————————————————————–
I don’t think this will work. When people look for a car, they will probably compare different types of systems (e.g. E-REVs, plug-in parallel hybrids, regular hybrids), so this would be very confusing. In addition, many people don’t really know how many miles a day they drive.
So having a simple combined MPG number is probably the best way to show the value of plug-ins to the average consumer.
The only issue is that, in order to have meaningful MPG estimates, the EPA would have to profile average driving habits, accounting for longer and shorter trips, and the frequency of each, and then use this as a template to develop MPG estimates for plug-ins. See post #76 for details.
September 6th, 2008 at 1:17 pm
Exactly, the ICE does charge the battery but not to 100%.
As for the EPA rating, I just don’t think it’s honest to mix the pure EV and ICE modes. It skews the numbers too much. Split them. At 60MPH the Volt MPG will be infinite for the first 40 minutes but cost you in electricity. After that it’s pure gallon usage. Just be clear. This car gets 50 MPG but you get 40 miles or more for the cost of the electricity to charge the battery.
Regardless of the short stops, I really want to know what the Volt will cost if I drain the tank, not run around to charging stations every 40 miles. I know that is cheap, what does a long run take…… They need to measure it after the battery is depleted and give us that number.
If you think about it, the non-plug-ins won’t look as good.
September 6th, 2008 at 1:18 pm
#88 Dave G.
Take a look at the individual estimates for mpg on any car at
http://www.fueleconomy.gov
You’ll see that there is no useful average u.s. driving habit where city vs. highway is concerned. The numbers are all over the board. I suspect this is also true with how many miles people drive per day, but to to a lesser degree.
You also assume that EREV owners plug in every night. That’s a big assumption.
I say, give real numbers that can be easily compared and understood. Then, let the consumer decide how the car fits into his driving habits.
To emphasize, I am in no way suggesting we ignore AER. The AER number needs to be on the mileage estimates sticker as well.
Given enough data, you can always come up with an average. The problem is, if the data is scattered wildly, does the average number give you anything useful to work with?
September 6th, 2008 at 1:21 pm
kWH Consumption really should be added too, since displaying MPG alone is almost to the point of fraud. Basically, plug-ins kill our already misleading system of measure.
We really, really need to switch over to the system most of the the rest of the world already uses: Energy/Distance
As hybrids progress, flaws in the MPG system become more and more obvious.
September 6th, 2008 at 1:23 pm
First Point: We can help here. Is there a contact at EPA and the White House that we can address to let them know we believe their position is unfair?
Second Point: Isn’t the real point the dollars per mile. The MPG number is given to consumers primarily as info on their cost: the average evening cost of a kWh should be used for the city cycle to develop a $/mile figure and that can then be used to convert to a theoretical MPG based on the average cost of gas. Alternatively, for the green crowd and the energy independence crowd, how much actual oil was used in producing those kilowatts. I think its quite small and very appropriate since one of the prime benefits of the electric car is the diversity of other energy sources used to produce those kilowatts.
September 6th, 2008 at 1:25 pm
john1701a,
What is a fair way to judge the Prius’ mileage?
DaveG
I don’t know if you even realize it, but if you go back and read only your posts, only one says anything in the affirmative - the one where you posit your “solution”. Just a data based opinion. A little “pro” goes a long way as opposed to always posting Negative Nellie comments. That’s Statik’s job (and a fine job he does).
I wouldn’t bet the farm on ANY govt agency coming up with valid numbers. Isn’t it the EPA’s goofiness that this whole thread is about?
Be well,
Tag
LJGTVWOTR!! ©
September 6th, 2008 at 1:26 pm
Dave G responds to the proposal to test the mpg over 200 miles, starting when full. He notes: “How many people drive 200 miles every day? This test would not be meaningful to the average driver.”
There are a large number of people who drive about 200 miles a week (certainly not each day), consistent with many people driving less than 40mi a day to work plus some extra side trips. For such drivers, miles per gallon over 200 miles, or about a week’s driving, is immediately meaningful.
Certainly there are people who drive much more, and others who drive much less, and there will be people who plug in every night, and others who never plug in, and all sorts of special conditions. Government numbers serve at best as a kind of uniform starting point that can be understood by most everyone, quickly.
Giving the mpg over 200 miles, starting when full, provides a single number, with an understandable origin, that can serve as a starting point of comparison. It can be used for all kinds of cars, whether ICE, electric, hybrid, or other.
September 6th, 2008 at 1:36 pm
______________________________________________________
#9 MDave Says:
“Why does the electric range/fuel efficiency of an E-REV even need to be reduced to a single number (or pair of numbers… highway/city)? Why not just give the electric range in miles and the MPG for the range extender for both highway and city driving. That would be the most meaningful to me.”
_____
MDave has it correct. His suggestion is what would be meaningful to the average consumer. The alternative proposed (ANL & EPS) schemes are so abstruse that those metrics would mislead the average consumer.
With regards some type of metric for governmental purposes (targets/incentives), perhaps the answer is calculating the fuel MPG consumed in first 100 miles which would cover 95+% of all miles driven (100MPG 100city/120hwy). This method would fairly compare the advantages of the GM E-REV over standard hybrids.
Example:
No Gas Range Miles: 40
First 100 Miles MPG: 100city/120hwy
Extended MPG: 45city/52hwy
The reality is that a governmental committee will end up creating a nonsensical set of metrics. The government will make it illegal for the manufacturers to publish anything on the window sticker other than the nonsensical government required metrics. This is partly due to the fact that every other non-GM automotive manufacturer will be lobbing hard against any metric that will expose the considerable advantage of the GM E-REV architecture (such as the VOLT). In the end, consumers well end up going to some type of 3rd party resource (such as Edmunds) to get meaningful and understandable comparative metrics.
_____________________________________________________
September 6th, 2008 at 1:38 pm
RB, that’s what I was trying to say in Post #87. Make the combined number be for a week of mixed. CDAVIS’ latest definitely has merit as well. I would add city vs hwy AER.
September 6th, 2008 at 1:45 pm
#98 RB Says: “There are a large number of people who drive about 200 miles a week (certainly not each day),
…
Giving the mpg over 200 miles, starting when full, provides a single number, with an understandable origin, that can serve as a starting point of comparison. It can be used for all kinds of cars, whether ICE, electric, hybrid, or other.”
————————————————————————————–
Your comments seem contradictory. If a typical real world scenario is 200 miles per week, this would use little, if any, gasoline.
By contrast, your proposed EPA test would yield 62 MPG. This would be a bad starting point for car buyers, since it doesn’t represent a typical real-world scenario. Using this estimate, many people would probably go for the Prius over the Volt.
I think a real world scenario, including occasional longer trips, would have typical Volt drivers around 80% all-electric miles. This would be 250 MPG. Using this estimate, many people would probably go for the Volt over the Prius.
September 6th, 2008 at 1:54 pm
The Sticker should say:
50 City / 45 highway
Note: First 40 miles on full charge will use no fuel.
WOOOOOOW so hard.
September 6th, 2008 at 1:57 pm
Dave G. continually opines that the people will only go for the volt if the epa rates it at 250 mpg. Completely discounting their ability to grasp the importance of a 40mi All Electric Range in between plug ins.
Looks like I’m not the only one who understands how ignorant the masses are.
P.S. I’d rate Mike D’s solution as a very close second.
September 6th, 2008 at 1:57 pm
#97 Tagamet Says: DaveG
I don’t know if you even realize it, but if you go back and read only your posts, only one says anything in the affirmative - the one where you posit your “solution”. Just a data based opinion. A little “pro” goes a long way as opposed to always posting Negative Nellie comments. That’s Statik’s job (and a fine job he does).
I wouldn’t bet the farm on ANY govt agency coming up with valid numbers. Isn’t it the EPA’s goofiness that this whole thread is about?”
————————————————————————————-
Didn’t realize I was being negative - sorry. Just trying to clearly describe what I’m talking about, and how it differs from other proposals here.
In particular, my post #76 says:
“The EPA, perhaps along with GM and other car makers, will research average U.S. driving habits and develop a chart of how many miles people drive per day”
In other words, I already realized the EPA would probably need some “help” with this. In fact, they may just end up arbitrating the various research profiles offered by different car manufacturers.
My point is that I think this would really work, and give people a single meaningful number they can use as a starting point to compare the Volt with all other cars. Obviously, numbers like AER will be important once people have decided on an E-REV.
September 6th, 2008 at 1:57 pm
Seems to me we need a totally different way of showing a EREV’s numbers. I think it should look something like this.
45/35/60/46
This translates too 45 miles AER in city
This translates too 35 miles AER all at highway speed of 65.
This translates too 60 mpg city after AER exhausted.
This translates too 45 mpg highway after AER exhausted.
Possibly average the first two numbers so that it is simpler.
September 6th, 2008 at 1:58 pm
#97 Tag
“A little “pro” goes a long way as opposed to always posting Negative Nellie comments. That’s Statik’s job (and a fine job he does).”
———
Hey!
…thats probably true, I do like to poke at soft underbellies.
September 6th, 2008 at 2:02 pm
Omeggaman@66 said in part:
…45/35/60/46…
Why did this remind me of a really bad blind date back in college….?
Never mind. I know, “check your meds” time.
Be well,
Tag
September 6th, 2008 at 2:10 pm
#103 Carcus Says: “Dave G. continually opines that the people will only go for the volt if the epa rates it at 250 mpg. Completely discounting their ability to grasp the importance of a 40mi All Electric Range in between plug ins.
Looks like I’m not the only one who understands how ignorant the masses are.”
————————————————————————————–
Yes, exactly. I’ll even throw myself into the “ignorant” group.
In other words, I’ve never methodically measured how many miles I drive a day, and how much that varies from one day to another. So while I thoroughly understand the concept of AER, I don’t know exactly how it will affect my gas usage.
I can estimate 80% of my miles would be electric, but how would I know for sure? And more importantly, anyone could argue that number. If the kept EPA kept driving statistics, it would do a lot to eliminate conflict here.
September 6th, 2008 at 2:10 pm
#107 Tag,
. .. . . . . . .uh, better not. Never mind.
September 6th, 2008 at 2:14 pm
Carcus@109
I mean she really WAS blind…
Tug(SIC)(SIC)(SIC)
September 6th, 2008 at 2:15 pm
#108 Dave G.
I kept a log of my daily driving for a week. I’d recommend anyone considering a plug in hybrid purchase do the same.
BTW, most of it was below 40 miles/day.
September 6th, 2008 at 2:20 pm
#102 Mike D Says: “The Sticker should say:
50 City / 45 highway
Note: First 40 miles on full charge will use no fuel.
WOOOOOOW so hard.”
————————————————————————————-
Actually, it’s not so easy. How many miles do you drive a day? How much does it vary from one day to another? Exactly how much gas would you save buying a Volt over a Prius? How much would you save with the Volt over a plug-in Prius?
Also, the fuel for the first 40 miles is roughly:
• 50% Coal
• 20% Natural Gas
• 20% Nuclear
• 10% Renewable
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/figes1.html
September 6th, 2008 at 2:23 pm
I think this is a perfect example of the private sector (GM) and public sector (EPA) to fully cooperate and bring a new standard to the public. GM needs to educate the public on the benefits of it’s new technology through it’s marketing efforts. The EPA should encourage this change because of it’s bridge to a more efficient fuel source.
The example of #8 ih_newbie suggests, is a good idea. AER/Cty/HWy This is straight forward and simple. How many miles per charge and how many miles per gallon on the ICE.
September 6th, 2008 at 2:29 pm
#74 Rashiid
First, and this is the most important point, the issue is the MPG for the CAFE standards. Consumer information is not the issue as I think I can describe.
If the sticker tells you the EV range and the MPG for the gen-set then you have all the information you need. Let’s say the EV is 40 miles and the gen-set is 52 City/48 Hwy/50 Combined. Now anyone can calculate what their mpg will be, but you can’t calculate this accurately in advance.
Here’s why: You say you have a 100 mile commute. Will you plug in at work? If yes then you’ll use 1.5 gallons each way and your mpg will be 66 mpg. If not then you’ll use 1.5 gallons going, 2 gallons getting back, and your mpg will be 57. So which is it? Well, without knowing if you plan to plug in the answer isn’t “knowable”.
Moreover, these mpg numbers only reflect your very long commute. Someone who commutes only 10 miles a day won’t have an mpg because they won’t be using any gas. The point is that you can’t just rely on a single number. You have to apply the EV range to your actual driving habits. That’s a new concept.
In actuality we have some of the same issues with highway / city now. Some people may drive city only. Some mostly highway. However, this isn’t that big of a problem because the city and highway mileage is broken out so you can figure out what your mileage will be if your habits differ significantly from the norm. There is more complexity with the EV range but breaking this out accomplishes the same thing in that it provides the information you need to calculate your own mileage.
In your case what this is telling you is that you would probably be better off with a Prius. If you buy a Volt you’ll be paying a big premium for the EV range that you won’t effectively use. (Probably not a popular conclusion here but I think this is the reality).
September 6th, 2008 at 2:39 pm
>> GM needs to educate the public on the benefits of it’s new technology through it’s marketing efforts.
Consumers will handle the bulk of the education, not corporations. That is extremely well proven by Prius success. If Volt enthusiasts only learn one thing, it’s that. This is the very reason I keep pushing here for others to step up to the plate. Expecting GM to handle beyond just introductions is totally unrealistic. Eventually, someone will figure that out. It’s how you become a supporter… hint, hint.
A good start is to create content that can be referred back to for future reference, rather than the quickly-lost in the blogs. Think forum. In fact, you should push Lyle to lock blogs after a day to transfer discussions to a thread instead. That type of participation is much more constructive.
September 6th, 2008 at 2:39 pm
I just thought of something. You’re not going to look at the sticker on the car itself unless you’re at the dealership. If you’re at the dealership, you’re gonna ask the salesman what gives with the mpg rating, and he’ll be like THIS is how it really is, and explain it to you. Right??? Hopefully???
September 6th, 2008 at 2:41 pm
#111 #112 Carcus Dave G
Guys, at some point you have to apply the information to your situation. Carcus you did this but it’s not quite as simple as saying “I drive less than 40 miles a day.”
The Volt is not going to go 40 miles in EV mode if you’re driving at 80 mph. It will probably get 50 miles driving on surface roads. This is not all that different than what we get from the mileage numbers we have now. Depending on how you drive you can get wildly different mpg. The numbers aren’t supposed to tell you what mpg you’ll get, they just tell you how one c