AND 
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)
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.
(Quote)
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.
(Quote)
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.
(Quote)
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.
(Quote)
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.
(Quote)
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
(Quote)
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.
(Quote)
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
(Quote)
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.
(Quote)
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.
(Quote)
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.
(Quote)
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.
(Quote)
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.
(Quote)
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?
(Quote)
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.”
(Quote)
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.
(Quote)
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
(Quote)
September 6th, 2008 at 8:14 am
#9 Pskienar
They could also “tax” you on the amount of miles you drive a year.
(Quote)
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.
(Quote)
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!
(Quote)
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.
(Quote)
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.
(Quote)
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.
(Quote)
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.
(Quote)
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.
(Quote)
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.
(Quote)
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.
(Quote)
September 6th, 2008 at 8:52 am
(Quote)
September 6th, 2008 at 8:52 am
Wired is reporting Chrysler Plug-in-Hybird
http://blog.wired.com/cars/2008/09/secret-chrysler.html
(Quote)
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.
(Quote)
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!!” ©
(Quote)
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.
(Quote)
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.
(Quote)
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.
(Quote)
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?
(Quote)
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.
(Quote)
September 6th, 2008 at 9:07 am
Who does not get taxed on their electric bill? My electric bill is 20% Taxes.
(Quote)
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.
(Quote)
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!!”©
(Quote)
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.
(Quote)
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
(Quote)
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)
(Quote)
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
(Quote)
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.
(Quote)
September 6th, 2008 at 9:26 am
How’s this in a future Volt ad:
“… your mileage may vary — it could be much higher!”
(Quote)
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.
(Quote)
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)
(Quote)
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.
(Quote)
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.
(Quote)
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
(Quote)
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
(Quote)
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.
(Quote)
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.
(Quote)
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.
(Quote)
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!! ©
(Quote)
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?
(Quote)
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
(Quote)
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.
(Quote)
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!! ©
(Quote)
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.
(Quote)
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.
(Quote)
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…
(Quote)
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!! ©
(Quote)
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.
(Quote)
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.
(Quote)
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.
(Quote)
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.
(Quote)
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.
(Quote)
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.
(Quote)
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.
(Quote)
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.
(Quote)
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
(Quote)
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.
(Quote)
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.
(Quote)
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!! ©
(Quote)
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
(Quote)
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…)
(Quote)
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.
(Quote)
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.
(Quote)
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!
(Quote)
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.
(Quote)
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 …).
(Quote)
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…
(Quote)
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.
(Quote)
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…
(Quote)
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%.
(Quote)
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?
(Quote)
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.
(Quote)
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.
(Quote)
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.
(Quote)
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.
(Quote)
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.
(Quote)
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.
(Quote)
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?
(Quote)
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.
(Quote)
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.
(Quote)
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!! ©
(Quote)
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.
(Quote)
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.
_____________________________________________________
(Quote)
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.
(Quote)
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.
(Quote)
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.
(Quote)
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.
(Quote)
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.
(Quote)
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.
(Quote)
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.
(Quote)
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
(Quote)
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.
(Quote)
September 6th, 2008 at 2:10 pm
#107 Tag,
. .. . . . . . .uh, better not. Never mind.
(Quote)
September 6th, 2008 at 2:14 pm
Carcus@109
I mean she really WAS blind…
Tug(SIC)(SIC)(SIC)
(Quote)
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.
(Quote)
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
(Quote)
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.
(Quote)
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).
(Quote)
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.
(Quote)
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???
(Quote)
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 car does relative to another and give you enough information so you can estimate what you’ll get with your driving habits.
(Quote)
September 6th, 2008 at 2:43 pm
#114 DonC Says: “#74 Rashiid
…
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).
————————————————————————————-
Yes, for someone with a long commute, a Prius or VW TDI will be cheaper. But we know that Rashiid can afford a Porche, and 50 MPG for the Volt running on gas is not shabby …
(Quote)
September 6th, 2008 at 2:48 pm
DonC@117 said in part:
“…The numbers aren’t supposed to tell you what mpg you’ll get, they just tell you how one car does relative to another and give you enough information so you can estimate what you’ll get with your driving habits.”
So the sticker should say “Jacka$$‘ mileage will vary….”
Be well,
Tag (I’ll go take a nap now)(g)
LJGTVWOTR!!” ©
(Quote)
September 6th, 2008 at 2:54 pm
_____________________________________________________
Young minds speak:
“It is stupid that we have to spend our hard earned cash to buy dinosaur juice from the Arabs to fuel our cars. Sort of funny in a sick way when you get to think about it.”
—–
I came across the above interestingly stated comment by SurfDude1 at:
http://transformers.moviechronicles.com/2008-08/footage-of-purple-chevy-volt It is worth reading some of the other comments on this link to get a sense of what young minds are saying about the VOLT.
_____________________________________________________
(Quote)
September 6th, 2008 at 2:59 pm
#117 Don C,
I agree with all of that. I think most people would.
Of course, the situation gets a lot stickier when you realize the epa numbers aren’t just for consumer information, they’re also used in CAFE standards.
From wiki:
“If the average fuel economy of a manufacturer’s annual fleet of car and/or truck production falls below the defined standard, the manufacturer must pay a penalty, currently $5.50 USD per 0.1 mpg under the standard, multiplied by the manufacturer’s total production for the U.S. domestic market.”
I would imagine this is why GM is really “duking it out” with the EPA.
(Quote)
September 6th, 2008 at 3:14 pm
Even though the CAFE standards have to do with EPA and the manufacturer, the EPA Sticker is for the customer to read. So if we are answering the question, “how should the Volt’s MPG be calculated for EPA/CAFE?” we don’t need it KISS. But when it makes it to the sticker the presentation needs to be readily understandable to ignorant customers like me.
IMO it is also important that the sticker also boldly proclaim that this vehicle is an EV (EREV) and there is more to it than EPA mileage estimates. So I still like:
All Electric Range: XX miles city / XX miles hyw
Extended Range mileage: XX mpg city / XX mpg hyw
Combined Range mileage: XXX mpg (combines commutes and trips)
LJGTVWOTR! (Tag, do I have to include the © now?)
(Quote)
September 6th, 2008 at 3:18 pm
DonC is right. Any calculation using a combination of battery and ICE will only apply to a very few people. Like 1 or 2%. That is why it is important to know the AER as one important number and another number or numbers for the ICE portion.
Think about it. If Toyota came out with an EREV and the only thing they told you was it would get 70mpg that would tell you anything. How for is the AER?? How long of a distance was the combo number calculated on? For all you know it could be a 35 mpg car with an AER of 1 mile with the numbers calculated on a two mile drive.
Point is anyone with any brains needs to know the AER and then the mpg after that.
(Quote)
September 6th, 2008 at 3:21 pm
#105 omegaman66 & #112 Dave G:
Either one works for me. KISS. Thank you.
#121 carcus:
Good point. On the other hand, if they come up with some sort of 150 mpg type number, it will totally confuse and/or mislead the public, IMHO. Obviously, everyone’s mix of driving is different. To arbitrarily (no matter how “scientifically”) choose some number of “range extender” (RE) miles to average with the AER miles, some people are going to be sorely disappointed. People can do that math themselves.
Maybe the real answer is to decouple the mileage for CAFE from what is advertised to the public. I mean, if the average driving of 80% of the public is under the AER, the fleet wide mileage is going to approach infinity, or at least some huge number. If you average it out over the whle fleet and come up with 250 mpg, or whatever the number is, some people are going to drive 80-100 miles/day and be really upset when they average a whole lot less. I think that the difference may be way beyond what “your mileage may vary” will gloss over.
GM and the EPA can fight out the mix of AER and RE to determine CAFE number. I’m sure that they have computers full of duelling statistics. Just give the public the straight KISS facts. Anyone who would consider buying a Volt is smart enough to figure it out.
LJGTVWOTR!
(Quote)
September 6th, 2008 at 3:30 pm
In Canada (and most parts of the world outside the US), fuel efficiency is calculate as litres (fuel) per 100 kilometers. Simply put, the Volt could be driven 100 km (about 62 miles) then the fuel consumption could be calculated. By my calculations, this would be about 140 MPG!
Here’s my math …
- The Volt will get 40 miles in all-electric mode.
- The Volt will get about 50 MPG in ER mode for the next 22 miles.
Therefore: 22 miles @ 50 MPG = 22/50 = 0.44 gallons for the first 62 miles (which 40 are electric). This works out to ((1/0.44) * 62) = 140.91 MPG or 1.669 litres / 100 km.
(Quote)
September 6th, 2008 at 3:31 pm
DonC #58
“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.”
*** *** ***
You’re correct. Maybe this explains why the EPA doesn’t want the Volt to get high EPA marks to offset selling more guzzlers.
I don’t see any reason why they can’t use the simplest approach already mentioned. Give the AER and the MPG city/hwy running on ICE and asterisk more complicated situations using both.
The whole idea of CAFE standards is to bring fleet mileage up, so if the trend continues positive toward RE EVs, then who really cares?
(Quote)
September 6th, 2008 at 3:32 pm
#123 omegaman66 Says: “Point is anyone with any brains needs to know the AER and then the mpg after that.”
————————————————————————————–
Obviously. No one questions that. The AER and MPG in ICE mode should be advertised.
But this all assumes that I’ve chosen E-REV and I’m not considering anything else. What if I want to compare a plug-in Vue to a Volt? How much gas would the Volt save? From my understanding, the AER for th Vue will be 0 (zero) since it can’t run all-electric on the highway, but it still has mileage benefits from plugging in. How do I compare these 2 vehicles?
So it seems that the average mileage of the Volt for a typical driver profile (probably around 250 MPG) should be displayed more prominently than the AER or the raw MPG in ICE mode, as this is better for comparing different types of vehicles. Once people get interested in the Volt and other E-REVs, then they can drill down into the other (less prominently displayed) numbers.
(Quote)
September 6th, 2008 at 3:42 pm
This is easy. A car has several features that ultimately affect its overall mileage. The type of engine, transmission, tire size, even coefficient of drag. Volt’s battery that gives it an extra 40 miles should be considered like an overdrive gear in a transmission. What I mean is the Volts total distance with a full charge and a full tank of gas, during different driving conditions (city & highway) should be divided by the number of gallons of gas used. i.e. If I drive the Volt on the highway fully charged and gassed for a total distance of 480 miles and use 10gl of gas my mpg should be 48mpg highway. My reason behind this is what if I get in a NJ Parkway traffic jam for enough time to deplete my battery power down to 30%. When traffic begins to move, my total distance will be 40 miles less, just like driving with the windows down increases drag and lowers mpg. The formula should be total distance divided by total gas used. MPG is Miles (distance) per (/) Gallon (gas used).
(Quote)
September 6th, 2008 at 3:43 pm
#125 David L Says: “Simply put, the Volt could be driven 100 km (about 62 miles) then the fuel consumption could be calculated. By my calculations, this would be about 140 MPG!”
————————————————————————————-
140 MPG seems low. Let’s say that you typically drive less than 40 miles per day. 78% of U.S. drivers fall into this category. But you also take a few longer trips. So if you drive 12,000 miles a year, maybe 10,000 of those miles are running all-electric, and 2000 are running on gas. In this case, your mileage would be 300 MPG.
What’s more, this type of driver profile seems rather common. 2000 miles of longer trips feels about right, and Consumer Reports uses 12,000 miles a year as their typical driver profile.
(Quote)
September 6th, 2008 at 3:44 pm
For those interested,
How vehicles are tested for MPG (pictures and video!):
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/how_tested.shtml
(Quote)
September 6th, 2008 at 3:46 pm
“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.”
A Volt is supposed to be able to go 40 miles an a charge of electrical energy equivalent to about 0.3 gallons of gas. The next 160 miles would require 3.2 gallons, or 200 miles on 3.5 gallons or 57 mpg.
Your method does the Volt a severe injustice, and makes it look just a little better than a Prius, which costs a lot less.
Under your general method, the shorter you make the reference trip, the better the Volt looks. A reference trip of 50 miles would give the Volt an mpg of 100 miles per gallon. The typical trip by a US driver is much shorter than 50 miles, so 100 mpg is still conservative for the Volt.
(Quote)
September 6th, 2008 at 3:47 pm
#111 Carcus Says: “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.”
————————————————————————————-
Did you average in any longer trips? If so, what would be the average MPG for you with the Volt? This would give us the first real-world data point.
(Quote)
September 6th, 2008 at 3:49 pm
Cost per mile with and without gasoline.
(Quote)
September 6th, 2008 at 3:49 pm
#2 Kaido pointed out to use kwh/mile, or mile/kwh for the European method. One for highway, one for city. Simple.
We’ve got to think of the new world. What if Volt 3.0 has 200 mile electric range with 10 minute recharge. We need to take the focus off the GAS MILEAGE and focus on ELECTRIC MILEAGE. For those who want more information, list the ICE as gallons/kwh and you can convert back to mpg.
(Quote)
September 6th, 2008 at 3:50 pm
Whatever system the EPA comes up with, I hope it rewards GM mightily for investing in ths technology. If they end up punishing GM, there will be little reason for GM to expand the EREV technology across their lines of vehicles. On the contrary, it’ll give GM an excuse to cut their loses and shrug…”Hey, we tried!” Seems to me that it’s best to reward GM for sticking their neck out and investing in advanced technology. Punish them and Bob will take off his lucky tie and jump in one of his jets.
Although there will likely be several innovative vehicles around 2010, I’d sure love for the best one to be “American made and American fueled” (quote from Alaska-something-or-other)
Be well,
Tag
LJGTVWOTR! ©
(Quote)
September 6th, 2008 at 3:51 pm
#52 Dave
1: Do you really believe the White house fleet will be converted to plug in hybrids? Every vehicle is armor plated and weighs more than 10,000 pounds.
2: Do you want to buy a Volt? Because if you believe half of all cars purchased by the feds will be plug in hybrids, that pretty much means there will be no plug in’s for the public to buy because the Federal government will have consumed all capacity for the auto companies to build them. I can’t honestly see a bunch of G-men running around in Prius/Volt size vehicles, hell, you could out run them with a Ford Pinto in a persuit.
3: Don’t believe anything a politician says while trying to get elected. I don’t know how old you are, but when you get to be my age (46) you have heard just about every lie and b.s. line there is.
4: Despite your hopes and wishes, there is only a 50/50 chance Obama will win the election.
(Quote)
September 6th, 2008 at 3:54 pm
Now that the Volt and other cars like it will be coming, I think a new electric category must be added IN ADDITION the flat MPG rating.
The new rating should be the electric range only (40 miles), or the electric only Mile per Watt (or however it would be measured), so it can be compared to other plug-ins/electrics.
An electric only car would ONLY have the electric rating, and the MPG rating would be N/A. A standard Hybrid would ONLY have the MPG rating. The Volt would have both.
(Quote)
September 6th, 2008 at 3:59 pm
I’ve got to ask the question. Why do we need to EPA to do this. The industry should agree on its own standards and self-regulate, just like all the other industry standards. Screw the EPA. Let the auto companies get together and make their own standard and publish that on the side of the car. The EPA can do whatever they want. Car salesmen will just point out how bad the EPA method is and to ignore it. The high-tech industry has dozens of standards they do themselves, all without gov’t help. And it works great for consumers. Amazing huh. Private industry is better then bureacracy. Who’d of thought.
(Quote)
September 6th, 2008 at 4:09 pm
How about a simple formula:
(fill the 7 gallon tank and charge the battery)
Drive the car dry… then calculate how many miles were traveled divided by gallons on board.
my 2 cents
(Quote)
September 6th, 2008 at 4:11 pm
#136 solo
1: Yes, I believe all or most of the White house fleet could be converted to plug in hybrids. Not every vehicle is armor plated and weighs more than 10,000 pounds, but for those that are, custom conversion kits can be used.
2: I want to buy a Volt or a Flextreme, but I probably won’t be the first to line up for one. Note that higher demand will decrease supply in the first 6-18 months, but will tend to increase supply after that. This is typical supply and demand 101.
3: We’ll, I’m older than you – that’s all I’ll say. WRT politicians following through on their promises, I use the old line “Follow the Money”. Obama’s money is coming from small donations from millions of supporters over the internet. He has broken all records for the number of people that have donated to his campaign. He has not taken any money from Washington lobbyists.
4: Right now most polls show Obama ahead, particularly in swing states:
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/
(Quote)
September 6th, 2008 at 4:16 pm
#132 Dave G.,
Assuming 40 mi. AER and 50 mpg beyond that:
4 of 7 days were under 40 miles.
Total mileage 645 mi.
Average weekly mpg in volt: 82.7 mpg.
But, probably 36 miles would have to be in my old pickup (house projects, lumber from home depot).
Twice a month, I travel to another city, 187 miles each way, plus an additional 50 miles or more once I get there. Usually, I spend the night. I may or may not go to the trouble to plug in when I’m there. (I assumed a plug in, for these calculations).
(Quote)
September 6th, 2008 at 4:17 pm
#138 Oops. Forgot about the CAFE standards. That’s why EPA matters. Point is still the same though. Why is it the gov’t job to bring up fuel standards? I care about saving gas, it saves me money. Consumers should tell GM to make more efficient cars. Not the gov’t.
(Quote)
September 6th, 2008 at 4:20 pm
Nelson@128 said in part
“…what if I get in a NJ Parkway traffic jam for enough time to deplete my battery power down to 30%. …”
Nope. In stop and go traffic (and ANYTIME it stops) the Volt will shut off when the vehicle is stopped. No battery used.
HTH,
Be well,
Tag
LJGTVWOTR! ©
(Quote)
September 6th, 2008 at 4:20 pm
#138 Cautious Fan – the issue is mpg for CAFE standards. CAFE requires 35 mpg by 2020 or something. Consumer info is not really the issue. That’s easy to sort out. GM needs the mpg for compliance with CAFE.
#135 Tagamet – no good deed goes unpunished? Hopefully GM gets a fair deal+. Personally I think the GM position is fair. You could also do it by using the distribution of mileage driven. IOW if 80% drive less than 40 that would be infinite. If 15% drove less than 100 with an average of 70, then calculate the mpg for this group using the gen set mileage for the last 30 miles. I’m unsure how solid the numbers are so this may not be possible. (Though at some point who would want the EV range if they’re going 200 miles). Recharging the battery is crazy and removes the incentives for bringing out a EREV.
Static – you are ever so strangely QUIET. Fannie and Freddie? Subordinated debt? Credit swaps? Insurable events? I’d think you’d be having a field day with this one. Or is that we don’t yet know how this will be structured so you can’t tell us who will be jumping out of buildings? (Apart from common and preferred shareholders of course).
(Quote)
September 6th, 2008 at 4:20 pm
#89
Can not agree…do see your small point. It may use a few ounces…
But not even in the same conversation as todays vehicles that have to warm up also….Thats not calculated into current EPA estimates. Your splitting hairs.
(Quote)
September 6th, 2008 at 4:23 pm
#135 Tagamet Says: “Whatever system the EPA comes up with, I hope it rewards GM mightily for investing in this technology. If they end up punishing GM, there will be little reason for GM to expand the EREV technology across their lines of vehicles. On the contrary, it’ll give GM an excuse to cut their loses and shrug…”Hey, we tried!”
————————————————————————————–
Yes! I agree completely.
Keep in mind that the parallel hybrid plug-ins have no AER, so the only way to show their advantage is through a higher average MPG value. If the Volt comes along with an average MPG calculation that’s about the same, it will encourage people to buy the cheaper plug-in parallel hybrids.
For real world driving profiles, I believe most people will get somewhere between 200 MPG and 350 MPG with the Volt, so this is the number I would like to see. If Toyota, Honda, Ford, etc. come out with competitive E-REVs, they can advertise similar MPG numbers. This will encourage competition, which will make the cars better, which will make more people want them – which means everyone wins.
(Quote)
September 6th, 2008 at 4:27 pm
#140 Dave G
Fivethirtyeight.com? Yeah it’s by far and away the most accurate. BTW the guy who runs the cite makes his money by statistical sports predictions. Maybe he can help predict the Volt’s success?
(Quote)
September 6th, 2008 at 4:28 pm
I agree with #53, it tells me what I want to know:
EOR – Electric Only Range
City MPG on ICE
Highway MPG on ICE
(Quote)
September 6th, 2008 at 4:40 pm
#135 Tag,
“I hope it rewards GM mightily for investing in ths technology. If they end up punishing GM, there will be little reason for GM to expand the EREV technology across their lines of vehicles.”
————————————-
On the other hand. A super high epa rating for the volt means GM can sell more gas guzzlers and still keep their average fleet CAFE numbers high enough to avoid penalties. (resulting in higher overall fuel consumption by GM cars)
(Quote)
September 6th, 2008 at 4:41 pm
#141 Carcus Says: “Assuming 40 mi. AER and 50 mpg beyond that:
4 of 7 days were under 40 miles.
Total mileage 645 mi.
Average weekly mpg in volt: 82.7 mpg.”
————————————————————————————-
Wow, that’s a lot of miles! Is this typical for you? If so, thats over 30,000 miles per year! With that many miles, I would expect the average Volt mileage to be much less than 250 MPG, and your 83 MPG calculation verifies that. This shows the Volt might not be the cheapest solution for you. Also, note that your warranty will wear out in only 5 years (150,000).
In any case, I would not consider 30,000 miles a year to be a typical driver profile.
(Quote)
September 6th, 2008 at 4:44 pm
Carcus @ 130 – thanks for the link. I did find it interesting.
Carcus @141 – very interesting numbers. I was going to try winging it in my post # 122 and use 30 miles per day, all electric, and a 250 mile weekend trip, first 40 electric and 50 mpg after that. This was a guess on what others posted as a way to use the Volt with weekend trips. I got 95 mpg with my guess.
My guessing sticker would say:
All Electric Range: 45 miles city / 40 miles hwy
Extended Range mileage: 60 mpg city / 50 mpg hwy
Combined Range mileage: 95 mpg (combines commutes and trips)
Note the combine mileage is for weeks when you do take trips with the Volt. Dave G, I think the 12,000 miles per year number indicates families have more than one car. JMO
LJGTVWOTR!
(Quote)
September 6th, 2008 at 4:48 pm
#150 Dave G.
I’m away from home(airlining, not cars), every other week. I average 16,000 mi/year in personal automobiles.
(Quote)
September 6th, 2008 at 4:51 pm
#147 DonC Says: “Fivethirtyeight.com? Yeah it’s by far and away the most accurate. BTW the guy who runs the cite makes his money by statistical sports predictions. Maybe he can help predict the Volt’s success?”
————————————————————————————-
Probably! He’s been right about everything else. When he outperformed all other predications in the primaries, people started taking him very seriously. Here’s an article they did on him in Newsweek magazine:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/140469
But if you don’t like him, how about CNN:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/10/electoral.map/index.html
(Quote)
September 6th, 2008 at 4:53 pm
Carcus@149 said
”
#135 Tag,
“I hope it rewards GM mightily for investing in ths technology. If they end up punishing GM, there will be little reason for GM to expand the EREV technology across their lines of vehicles.”
————————————-
On the other hand. A super high epa rating for the volt means GM can sell more gas guzzlers and still keep their average fleet CAFE numbers high enough to avoid penalties. (resulting in higher overall fuel consumption by GM cars)”
There are always trade offs, but personally I’d vote for having choice. I’d like to have the choice of FUEL and a choice of vehicle. I don’t want the govt (read CAFE) to legislate my “morality” or my choices. This is America, for Heaven’s sake!
Be well,
Tag
Viva La Choices!
(Quote)
September 6th, 2008 at 5:00 pm
#149 Carcus Says: “A super high epa rating for the volt means GM can sell more gas guzzlers and still keep their average fleet CAFE numbers high enough to avoid penalties. (resulting in higher overall fuel consumption by GM cars)”
————————————————————————————–
I don’t think CAFE will be that relevant in the future. If you think about it, CAFE was just a way to get people to drive more fuel efficient cars when the cost of gasoline gave them no real reason to do so.
Gas prices will probably drop until mid November, and then rise again sharply when home heating oil kicks in. With global oil production leveling off, and oil demand from China and India increasing, gas prices will continue to rise. Of coarse, if hurricane Ike hits the gulf as a category 3/4, maybe gas prices will rise a lot faster.
http://www.wunderground.com/tropical/tracking/at200809_5day.html
The point is that with high gas prices, the market will increase fuel efficiency faster than CAFE.
(Quote)
September 6th, 2008 at 5:14 pm
Tag #135
“Whatever system the EPA comes up with, I hope it rewards GM mightily for investing in ths technology”
*** *** ***
Let’s hope so, but it always worries me when I hear Detroit complain that the foreign auto makers have a better lobby in congress than they do. Did I say there was no such thing as fair trade?
(Quote)
September 6th, 2008 at 5:27 pm
#151 Michael Says: “I was going to try winging it in my post # 122 and use 30 miles per day, all electric, and a 250 mile weekend trip, first 40 electric and 50 mpg after that. This was a guess on what others posted as a way to use the Volt with weekend trips. I got 95 mpg with my guess.
…
Note the combine mileage is for weeks when you do take trips with the Volt. ”
————————————————————————————-
Don’t take an unusual week and use that to calculate your average milage over a year. At 400 miles per week, that would be over 20,000 miles per year. How many weekends would you actually travel 250 miles?
(Quote)
September 6th, 2008 at 5:30 pm
***********EASY EASY EASY ********************************
Why not use a similar standard we use in Canada. All vehicles fuel economy are published in Litres per 100 KM. Simple conversion for the good old USA is, Gallons per 100 miles.
They will just have to modify it a bit and say Gallons per first 100
miles or GAL/100Mi* *=first 100 Miles.
So I Imagine the volt will be
(100-40)/50=1.2 or 1.2Gal/100Mi*. Simple. Then all the customer has to do is multiply 1.2 times the current price per gas. The lower the number, the better. Thats what we’ve used since the 1970’s.
Am I on to something here?
(Quote)
September 6th, 2008 at 5:35 pm
Carcus #121 said:
“Of course, the situation gets a lot stickier when you realize the epa numbers aren’t just for consumer information, they’re also used in CAFE standards.
.
.
I would imagine this is why GM is really “duking it out” with the EPA.”
Gosh, I reeealy hope your wrong about. No doubt this is “a” reason for GM arguing with the EPA, if the rumors about this situation are actually true. If it is “THE” reason, then I’m out. I’ve would have wasted a LOT of time following the Volt’s development since GM would only produce as many EREV’s as it needs to meet CAFE. GM will then go out of business hugging an oil barrel but hopefully not with the taxpayers holding a bailout bag. No commitment to proliferate EREV/EFLEX, no bailout/loan…whatever you want to call it.
However, I do not believe this the case. I believe GM is committed to pushing EREV/EFLEX as far and as fast as they can. They just want has much help as they can possibly get. You can be sure they are and will continue lobbying and partnering to get as much help as they can. As lame and poorly executed as it is, there new rumor busting website is part of this effort.
(Quote)
September 6th, 2008 at 5:37 pm
Bitoo@178 said in part
“Why not use a similar standard we use in Canada. All vehicles fuel economy are published in Litres per 100 KM…”
Because nobody down here knows what a Litre or a Km is!
Be well,
Tag
LJGTVWOTR! ©
(Quote)
September 6th, 2008 at 5:38 pm
#158 Bintoo Says: “Am I on to something here?”
————————————————————————————-
See posts #125 and #129.
(Quote)
September 6th, 2008 at 5:53 pm
#160 Because nobody down here knows what a Litre or a Km is!
Be well,
If you actually read the post I did mention you would convert it to
Gallons per 100 miles.
(Quote)
September 6th, 2008 at 5:56 pm
#100 Michael says “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.”
All sounds good to me.
(Quote)
September 6th, 2008 at 5:56 pm
#162 Bintoo – I think Tag was teasing you.
How does the EPA determine MPG for the new Tesla and the few other EV’s out there? Since the Volt is part pure EV and part Hybrid, it would seem to me that they need to calculate it both ways.
(Quote)
September 6th, 2008 at 6:01 pm
Bintoo,
Yeah, psklenar is right. Just teasing. Tough room (g).
Be well,
Tag
LJGTVWOTR!! ©
(Quote)
September 6th, 2008 at 6:06 pm
Dave G #150
“4 of 7 days were under 40 miles.
Total mileage 645 mi.
Average weekly mpg in volt: 82.7 mpg.”
————————————————————————————-
Wow, that’s a lot of miles! Is this typical for you? If so, thats over 30,000 miles per year! With that many miles, I would expect the average Volt mileage to be much less than 250 MPG, and your 83 MPG calculation verifies that. This shows the Volt might not be the cheapest solution for you. Also, note that your warranty will wear out in only 5 years (150,000). ”
I have seen this opinion posted many times, but I don’t understand it. Seems to me that everyone driving >40miles gets nearly full benefit of AER, especially if they can plug-in during the day. I understand that there may be a warranty drawback depending on how GM configures it and there is some battery use during range extended mode. On the other hand, micro-cycles use little battery life and GM’s range extended scheme is to put as little energy as possible through the battery while maximizing the ICE’s efficiency. Also, calendar life is a big issue. High milage users will get more total energy from there battery packs than low mileage drivers.
(Quote)
September 6th, 2008 at 6:06 pm
Another Chrysler EV & Hybrid site:
http://www.hybridcars.com/carmakers/chrysler-electric-cars-get-closer-to-production-24932.html
(Quote)
September 6th, 2008 at 6:09 pm
# 59 Tagamet
“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?”
Wow! That’s like asking what speed will provide the best mileage if you have a continuous variable transmission?
The Prius has a small battery, by Volt standards – 1.5 kWh. It stays in a soc of about 45 to 80%, and prefers to stay around 60%. I could be corrected on these as there have been many discussions.
You can drive about 2 miles in pure electric mode. Hence, you’ve used no gas at all. However, if you want to go further, the gas engine will endeavor to bring up that soc to about 60%, and you will average away your infinite mileage.
After enough practice, you can run the Prius from a stop to 41 mph. in electric mode. The only way to do this, however, is to have a very light foot. Otherwise, the computer wants to offload that power to the gas engine, which is very willing to kick in at the snap of a finger.
The theory of hypermiling, would say not to use the battery at all, as, you are losing enegy as the battery stores and releases electricity.
…So, what’s the question?… just kidding. But you can have a battery and use it too (like that cake example… I always thought, what’s the sense of having it if you can’t eat it?).
How do you do that? Take advantage of the torque of the electric motor. Use electric mode only to accelerate, or go up hill. Then, use regen braking, or coasting to charge the bat to a reasonable level, where the computer tells the gas engine that it can live with that current soc.
Sorry to be long winded. Hope this answers your question.
You know, talking about this stuff makes me more anxious for the Volt! I hope we can use these kinds of tricks to get even more electric miles (or beat 50 mpg). That’s half the fun!
LJGTVWOTR!!
(Quote)
September 6th, 2008 at 6:11 pm
30/25 or 50/45. It doesn’t matter to me what the EPA sticker says.
I am gonna buy one!
Go GM!
(Quote)
September 6th, 2008 at 6:21 pm
George K
I knew you’d have the explanation! I only drove my daughter’s Prius a few times and thoroughly enjoyed the experience (once she pointed out that the car WAS “on”). The video was really engaging and really did motivate one to “drive well” (for high mpg).
I too, hope that GM takes a page out of the Prius playbook with a similar (or even better) display and the ability to “milk the electrons for mileage”. Where’d I put that “registered trademark stamp…”
Thanks again,
Tag
LJGTVWOTR!! ©
(Quote)
September 6th, 2008 at 6:22 pm
Tag #160,
It doesn’t necessarily have to be L/100km, you guys can use gal/100mi
But its the reversal of the ratio which makes the difference.
I can tell you you’re getting 300 mpg compared to someone who gets 15mpg. What does that tell you, exactly? You can go 20x farther? Yeah, I guess that’s kinda helpful.
But wouldnt it be more helpful to see that you’ve gone from using 10 gal in 100mi driven to using only 1 gal in that same 100mi?
You instantly know you’re using 9 gal less gas for every 100km which you can use directly to calculate savings.
(The numbers above are just random examples, that is not the conversion, lol.)
I think the EPA (and equivalents of other countries) should take this opportunity to rework their system to eliminate overly optimistic numbers. Sure, your car can be rated at 25mpg, but you may only get that 80% of the time (within the given cycle).
They should publish “worst case” numbers, not something you will obtain only 5% of the time.
I.e. in the summer I can get 28-30mpg in daily driving.
In the winter, I get 22-25. They published 27, I believe. When in reality, saying 22 would give a better idea to the public – this is the minimum you should see (unless you’re a really agressive driver and floor it all the time :p) – often times you will far exceed this value.
“Statistics” ideas:
Find out what 95% of the population drives in one day. Measure their test to that distance, and use that number as a “composite” of electric and gas miles.
Why 95%? This essentially accounts for everyone, but eliminates extreme outliers (those that go much,much farther than the majority population – like 1000miles a day or something outrageous like that.)
(Quote)
September 6th, 2008 at 6:33 pm
If GM combines the AER and gas MPG into one number and then claims something stupid like 150 MPG it will be so dishonest I will buy an Expedition with worn rings and valve guides.
My guess is the EPA will see through this and go with a split system which will still show the advantage of a plug-in system if it will run AE for some distance.
If the number is “MPG” I want to know how far it will go when it’s burning gas even of the battery does get consumed and recharged (a bit) during that period.
(Quote)
September 6th, 2008 at 6:39 pm
canehdian said in small part:
“Why 95%? This essentially accounts for everyone, but eliminates extreme outliers (those that go much,much farther than the majority population – like 1000miles a day or something outrageous like that.)”
“Down here” we’re more likely to use 66% (one standard deviation from the mean) or 75% (a clear majority) to make comparisons.
I do understand the value of the way of comparison that you describe and appreciate it’s value. I just think that the lower end mileage should be less than 100.
JMO,
Be well,
Tag
LJGTVWOTR!! ©
(Quote)
September 6th, 2008 at 6:41 pm
terryk Says: “If GM combines the AER and gas MPG into one number and then claims something stupid like 150 MPG it will be so dishonest I will buy an Expedition with worn rings and valve guides.”
————————————————————————————-
Go ahead. Meanwhile, we’ll be getting an average of 250 MPG. In other words, we’ll be driving 12,000 miles a year, and only 2400 of those will be on gasoline.
(Quote)
September 6th, 2008 at 6:45 pm
#171 canehdian
Using gallons per miles rather than miles per gallon does help. I think this was #158 Bintoo’s point. It can make it easier to see how much gas you use. This happens as the cars become more fuel efficient. The difference between 30 mpg and 50 mpg looks impressive but it only saves 1.3 gallons per hundred miles. The “magic” 100 mpg also doesn’t look so significant, only saving one gallon as compared to a 50 mpg car. For example:
Car 1: 10 mpg OR 10 gal/100mi
Car 2: 20 mpg OR 5 gal/100mi
Car 3: 30 mpg OR 3.3 gal/100mi
Car 4: 50 mpg OR 2 gal/100mi
Car 5: 100 mpg OR 1 gal/100 mi
This shows how, if you start at 10 mpg, the 35 mpg CAFE standard gets us 2/3 of the way towards eliminating gasoline.
(Quote)
September 6th, 2008 at 6:51 pm
#166 koz Says: “I have seen this opinion posted many times, but I don’t understand it. Seems to me that everyone driving >40miles gets nearly full benefit of AER,…”
————————————————————————————–
If you’re driving long trips, then odds are that you are traveling and staying in a hotel, which means the chances of pluggin in every night are much less. This was mentioned in the original post #141.
(Quote)
September 6th, 2008 at 7:02 pm
Dave G #176
I’ve always wondered how many people who buy a Volt and travel will opt for a motel as opposed to a hotel for obvious reasons?
(Quote)
September 6th, 2008 at 7:02 pm
#175 DonC Says: “Using gallons per miles rather than miles per gallon does help.
…
For example:
Car 1: 10 mpg OR 10 gal/100mi
Car 2: 20 mpg OR 5 gal/100mi
Car 3: 30 mpg OR 3.3 gal/100mi
Car 4: 50 mpg OR 2 gal/100mi
Car 5: 100 mpg OR 1 gal/100 mi
This shows how, if you start at 10 mpg, the 35 mpg CAFE standard gets us 2/3 of the way towards eliminating gasoline.”
————————————————————————————–
Good point!
I believe that gas prices are making people want to give up their large SUVs and trucks, but right now the value of the large vehicle they own is so low, they can’t afford to trade for a smaller car. As the large vehicles age, people won’t care so much and they will buy smaller cars. So in a couple of years, I predict many of those 10 gal / 100 mile trucks will become 3.3 gal / 100 mile cars. So this is good news!
By the way, this also solves the Tesla issue, which is 0 gal / 100 miles, instead of ∞ MPG.
(Quote)
September 6th, 2008 at 7:15 pm
Many great ideas have been said here. But I believe one point is a must no matter what the EPA does.
1)GM must make absolutely certain to the public that this car has the potential to never use any gas! A simple commercial could go something like this.
Do you drive less than 15k per year? Would like to never purchase another drop of gas? As long as you drive less than 40 miles per charge, then we have the answer…buy a Chevy Volt.
Once the public understand this issue the rest is going to take care of itself. I can see many commercials making other points as well.
How would you like to travel 90 miles straight on only ONE gallon of gas? Then buy a Chevy Volt.
Advertising will make this car a complete hit for GM and will take away most of the questions while creating tremendous buzz about this new game changer.
Hawk
(Quote)
September 6th, 2008 at 7:33 pm
There are two issues here – 1) What should the
consumer be told via the window sticker
concerning fuel consumption and 2) How should
the Volt figure into the GM CAFE rating.
Item 1 is simple as pie – report driving range
using battery power and report estimated KPM
(kilowatthours per mile) while doing so, and also
report estimated miles per gallon (gas and
ethanol) while powered by liquid fuel, just as is
done currently. Those figures provide the consumer
with all the info they need in order to easily
estimate their own likely fuel consumption.
As for the CAFE question, this is all about
gasoline consumption and can’t be determined for
a Volt hybrid without knowing the trip distances
between recharge points. We not only don’t know
anything except commuter trip distances, but even
there, can’t be certain that we know where those
recharge points might be (certainly many will be able
to recharge at work or while shopping). Since we know
that, even without recharging at work, a fleet of Volts
can expect 250 MPG while commuting, then a reasonable
assumption is that non-commuters should do just as well,
since most will certainly be able to recharge during the day,
and provisionally estimate Volt to be a 250 MPG vehicle.
I assume that the Volt’s computer keeps track of how many
miles are driven on battery only and how many when powered
by the range extender. This info can provide the best CAFE
data ever used by the EPA and can be used to adjust that
provisional CAFE estimate. My hunch is that the EPA folks
are too lazy and too stupid to realize that this is the
proper method to provide the CAFE data. If we see them
trying to use their driving loops for anything except
calculating the Volt’s mileage on gasoline, we know they
don’t have a clue about how to handle plug-ins.
(Quote)
September 6th, 2008 at 7:35 pm
They should just cover the EPA cycle for a full tank of gas… what’s so hard about that? What ever it is ..it is?
And even if they come up with some illogical formula…. the truth will come out… the owners will report the true MPG.. and the ones who drive less than 40 miles a day like me… will be posting some huge numbers… and maybe not even using the ICE engine…. I can see people taking the ICE engine out and getting even better range with the reduction in a few hundred pounds or weight… then 50 or more range would be even more appealing…
I see a no ICE engine option… and the option of more batteries in place of the ICE engine.
… It’s been a long time since I drove the EV1… I can’t wait to see the reaction to the electric car again… and the return of the EV SMILE. ( that’s the smile everyone gets when they drive a real EV for the first time)
(Quote)
September 6th, 2008 at 7:43 pm
I’d still like to have the option of a scrolling lights message board on the trunk that constantly updates:
5,362 miles, Gasoline consumed: 0 Gallons 6 oz.
Of course, someone might come and shoot your porch light out, but it’d still be neat.
Be well,
Tag
LJGTVWOTR!! ©
(Quote)
September 6th, 2008 at 7:45 pm
Dave G @157 – we all have different patterns. I watch this site all the time (as do you). I just notice that many vocal entries keep making comments about how they have to go on weekend trips. As far as the distance is concerned, you need to know I live in New Mexico, large distance, low population state. Everything is far. The nearest airport is Albuquerque, which is over 100 miles away. So any time I go to the airport, or take someone else there, or go shopping in “the big city,” I log easily 250 miles. Many many people who live where I do go to Albuquerque weekly.
Another point about just assuming that trips are the only time you exceed the 40 miles per day/charge, is that it doesn’t factor in the days you go over 40 locally. They don’t save up from days when you don’t, like those old telephone minutes in the commercial. So as many have said, it’s not simple. That being said, it doesn’t mean one can’t come up with a “combined calculation” that doesn’t represent any one person but captures some kind of average. I just don’t happen to think it’s 10,000 on electric, 2000 on ER.
Be well.
(Quote)
September 6th, 2008 at 7:45 pm
It’s extremely important to realize the following:
1) The EPA will insist on relating the Volt’s mileage to all other cars & to CAFE, so it MUST be expressed in mpg (or equivalent mpg)
2) The average car buyer will devote only 1-2 min to reading the window sticker, so it MUST convey simple miles/gallon number(s)
3) Most people grasp and remember simple EXAMPLES, not explanations
Considering the above, my suggestion for the Volt’s window sticker content is…..
============================================================================
Approx 4 out of 5 (78%) of all US daily trips are <40 miles/day. For these trips, this vehicle’s equivalent EPA gasoline mileage is (note 1):
187.5 MPG
============================================================================
For those daily trips exceeding 40 miles (22%), see the following (note 2):
60 miles/day: 98.4 mpg
80 miles/day: 79.2
100 miles/day: 70.9
200 miles/day: 58.6
300 miles/day: 55.4
Notes:
1) Assumes the cost of gasoline is $3.00/gallon, that NO gasoline is needed for trips <40 miles and that over-night recharging is done at an off-peak electricity cost (typically from 12 Mid to 7AM) of 8 cents/kwh
2) Assumes the cost of gasoline is $3.00/gallon, that NO gasoline is needed for the first 40 miles and that ONLY gasoline (no electricity) is needed for the remaining distances shown (for trips of 60mi to 300 mi)
(Quote)
September 6th, 2008 at 7:47 pm
Without reading any of the former posts and I am sure several other people had great ideas, I think the best way to provide a logical relationship of mileage vs available propulsion would be two thoughts. This is assuming the public will become intelligent in different technologies such as series or parallel hybrid systems, ie Chevy Volt vs Toyota Prius.
(1) The expected distance of travel on a full tank/ battery without re-fueling. This number would be determined by taking the total distance traveled on a full tank and battery and then divided by the total miles travel without stopping or refueling. This is the same method used with Internal Combustion engines and the masses would understand with little education for those who are slow to technology.
(2) On series hybrid systems, a second rating of Mpkh, miles per kilowattHour (miles based on a constant and some standard HWY speed of say 65mph). The battery life meter located on the touch screen information panel would indicate, how many Kilowatts of power are remaining. I am sure in the future the basic watt would not be large enough unit of measure. Also, The Kilowatt will be a basic unit of measure used with the “grid”. If you see a second rating by the EPA on the sales sticker stating 40mi/8kwh, then the vehicle must be a series hybrid that rates 40 miles per full battery charge with a capacity of 8 kilowatt hours.
GO-VOLT!, Michael L.
(Quote)
September 6th, 2008 at 7:48 pm
Dave G #176
Assuming one of those long trips is included in Carcus’ weekly analysis, he’ll still get 215 miles/week from AER if he doesn’t plug-in on the long trips. He’ll also still get better mileage than any other ICE car currently available when in range extended mode. We are a long way from knowing what cars will be the cheapest in late 2010, but I still don’t see why drivers like Carcus won’t see the same or more benefit from the Volt than other drivers using the same amount of AER but not driving much in range extended mode much. I’m sure there are some people that drive very little on a daily basis but rack up big miles on long trips. I suppose these folks won’t get much benefit from an EREV, but I’m sure a much larger percentage of high mileage drivers will also have high daily use as well.
(Quote)
September 6th, 2008 at 8:19 pm
I think they need to just run through their tests on a continuous loop for 400 miles. In the case of the volt they should report AER Miles then in ICE/Hybrid mode they could revert back to the city highway miles. At some point over 400 miles the car will go into ICE/Hybrid mode So as batteries improve this system of measurement is still valid.
I don’t think they should ever go to a per tank rating because companies will just cut back on the size of the tank to get a higher
AER percentage.
40 Miles AER
50MPG City Post AER
60MPG HWY Post AER
(Numbers Based on 400 Miles of testing and a full battery charge)
There are almost 200 comments and I’ll read what I can so if someone already suggested this then I just second what they said
(Quote)
September 6th, 2008 at 8:36 pm
Another interesting question is figuring how many miles are on your volt when you want to sell it and buy a volt 2. In 2013, if your Volt has 35,000, but the engine has never been started, it should be worth more than one that has a lot of hours on the engine. Rather than miles, maybe we’ll want to consider engine hours similar to a boat. kbb is going to have to re-work some of the valuation processes.
(Quote)
September 6th, 2008 at 8:46 pm
#54
“Electric Range – 40 miles
Extended Range – 60/45 City/Highway”
———————————————–
This is as good as any Idea I have seen. Very simple, nothing new for the public to figure out or assume.
However, I would assume as the future brings more change, some understanding would need to be in place for how efficient the electrical system would be. The above only provides a distance. It does not provide a distance per energy consumption.
Extended range mileage would be factored using the entire gas and battery reserve and calculated mileage accordingly.
We will most likely be using oil for some time yet, but eventually electricity will rule. Either by plug-in, solar, fuel cell, ect.. Either way we would need some consistent form of measurement to compare the efficiencies of the vehicle. See my post #185 regarding milage per Kilowatt hour.
Just as the motor trend makes a reference to number of barrels of oil per year, the same can be done by a third party referencing Kilowatts per year.
Just a oil prices fluctuate, no need to keep up with costs just consumption.Then you can calculate the “going price”.
(Quote)
September 6th, 2008 at 8:47 pm
On the Volt, judging by previous ratings for EVs there will likely be a kW-hr/100miles city/highway rating on the EV side. Following standard convention there will probably also be an mpg rating of some sort for the hybrid side. It will be unlikely for the sticker to mention range, as previous stickers for EVs (including the Tesla’s, being the newest) don’t mention range at all, though knowing the electric range probably is important for PHEV buyers.
Warning: large pictures
Tesla sticker
http://gallery.me.com/mark.templeton/100092/Sticker-20Right/large.jpg
http://gallery.me.com/mark.templeton/100092/Sticker-20Left/large.jpg
Rav-4 EV sticker
http://evnut.com/images/rav4/rav_misc/rav_window_sticker.jpg
The CAFE calculation will be interesting because that basically has to be based on an mpg equivalent, which is not so straightforward with the Volt, given its two power sources. Tesla’s average is 200 something mpge; I wonder what the Volt will get.
(Quote)
September 6th, 2008 at 9:09 pm
- Watt-hours per mile (low number is good)
- Range extended MPG (high number is good)
- Electric range in miles (high number is good)
- Price (low number is good)
Done
(Quote)
September 6th, 2008 at 9:30 pm
OhmExcited….good stuff…I enjoyed your post.
(Quote)
September 6th, 2008 at 10:00 pm
The EPA should have to lump it.
As far as GM marketing is concerned, they should be advertising the maximum amount of miles per year one could travel gas free!
(Quote)
September 6th, 2008 at 10:42 pm
Dave G 174:
Sarcasm my friend. Turn up the sensitivity knob a bit.
I guess if you guys want GM to claim 250MPG, ok. I’ll give you that one but the crash tests have to be real, ok?
(Quote)
September 6th, 2008 at 11:29 pm
I’ve been reading this thread all day and I’m beginning to think Lyle is having fun baiting everyone with these topics.
It would be insane for the EPA to judge the volt’s range by forcing a full ICE recharging of the battery since that would require hacking of the recharging system to get the car to do this. The EPA might as well drill a hole in the gas tank of a Prius when testing them to simulate equally impossible conditions.
Thanks to stopcrazypp’s research, we can see what the established conventions are for ev’s. The question will be how an energy-source hybrid like the volt (or an e85, H2, etc.) will be posted on the window.
Most consumers won’t be able to deal with all the facts and interpret the complicated ev city/ ev hwy/ ice city/ ice hwy range numbers correctly.
Case and point: Ash in #29 linked to a wired article with comments arguing how plug-in vehicles will add to our carbon footprint… which is insane.
It makes sense to have a Miles/kWh city Miles/kWh hwy rating and then an efficiency rating for each fuel source. Electricity is 1 to 1, gasoline efficiency would be determined by the ICE, generator and programed operational RPMs.
If the EPA needs to dumb it down further, I’m sure they can come up with a generic driving pattern for the average American… say 30 miles per day, 50 miles every other weekend, and one 500 mile road trip per year. Assuming average energy costs, they can guess what the annual operational dollar value will be and put it on the sticker just like we have on a water heater… but that’s probably taking things too far.
I’m going to have another drink of ethanol. Wake me when my Volt is ready.
(Quote)
September 7th, 2008 at 6:41 am
I would say….. miles/kWh for the 1st ___* electric miles and then miles/gal. after the generator kicks on … Let’s keep it simple ………. * 40 miles in the case of the Volt….
(Quote)
September 7th, 2008 at 6:57 am
195 Eclectic Dan Says: “Most consumers won’t be able to deal with all the facts and interpret the complicated ev city/ ev hwy/ ice city/ ice hwy range numbers correctly.
Case and point: Ash in #29 linked to a wired article with comments arguing how plug-in vehicles will add to our carbon footprint… which is insane.”
————————————————————————————-
Yes – exactly.
In addition, when people start comparing other plug-in parallel hybrids to the Volt, things will be even more confusing.
If fact, let’s talk about that. How would people here think that plug-in parallel hybrids like the Saturn Vue and Prius should be rated? These cars require the ICE at higher speeds, so there’s no AER.
Specifically, how should normal consumers compare gas usage between the plug-in Prius and the Volt? Comments?
(Quote)
September 7th, 2008 at 7:11 am
Sorry, I haven’t had time to read all the posts, but Google is already testing plug-in hybrids, and their data and methodology is here:
http://www.google.org/recharge/dashboard#methodology
(Quote)
September 7th, 2008 at 7:11 am
#184 nasaman Says: “It’s extremely important to realize the following:
1) The EPA will insist on relating the Volt’s mileage to all other cars & to CAFE, so it MUST be expressed in mpg (or equivalent mpg)
2) The average car buyer will devote only 1-2 min to reading the window sticker, so it MUST convey simple miles/gallon number(s)
3) Most people grasp and remember simple EXAMPLES, not explanations
Considering the above, my suggestion for the Volt’s window sticker content is…..
Approx 4 out of 5 (78%) of all US daily trips are <40 miles/day. For these trips, this vehicle’s equivalent EPA gasoline mileage is (note 1):
187.5 MPG”
————————————————————————————-
Yes, this is my belief also.
In fact, more than looking at the sticker, people will see a 30 second TV ad, and that will be their starting point. If the plug-in Prius has the same or higher MPG number than the Volt in TV commercials, then they may never step foot in a Chevy dealership, so they would never see a sticker.
By the way, how did you come up with 187 MPG? If 78% of the miles are electric, then it would be 227 MPG.
If 78% of the days are less than 40 miles, how do you know? Less than 40 miles could be 1 mile or 39 miles.
(Quote)
September 7th, 2008 at 7:23 am
#198 BillR Says: “Sorry, I haven’t had time to read all the posts, but Google is already testing plug-in hybrids, and their data and methodology is here:
http://www.google.org/recharge/dashboard#methodology
————————————————————————————-
Excellent example of what I’ve been predicting. The Toyota Prius Plug-in will be mainly advertised as higher MPG rating, in this case 69.2 MPG.
So for the people on this thread that are advocating that the Volt show 40 AER + 50 MPG, put that next to the Plug-in at 69.2 MPG. With many peoples’ current attitudes towards GM, they probably would bother to find out what AER is.
The MPG rating of the Volt must be better than the MPG rating of the Toyota Prius Plug-in otherwise many people won’t even consider the Volt.
(Quote)
September 7th, 2008 at 7:26 am
Continuing from my previous post, the plug-in Prissy needs 129.7 Wh/mi, and gets 69.2 mpg.
For the Volt, since it is really an electric vehicle, should list these separate, or 200 Wh/mile Electric, and 50 mpg Gasoline.
If done with a composite, how would this compare to the Prissy? Let’s assume the Prissy went 100 miles. It would require 12.97 kWh, and 1.45 gallons of gas. For the same energy usage, the Volt would to 12.97/0.2 or 64.9 miles electric, and then 50*1.45 or 72.5 miles on gasoline, for a combined mileage of 137.5 miles, which equates to 95 mpg.
Clearly, however, since the energy input for the Volt will primarily be electricity, an mpg rating without an electrical component is meaningless.
(Quote)
September 7th, 2008 at 7:32 am
#114 DonC and Dave G # 118,
Yes, for someone with a long commute, a Prius or VW TDI will be cheaper. But we know that Rashiid can afford a Porsche, and 50 MPG for the Volt running on gas is not shabby …
—————
LOL. Being able to afford and actually buying are two different things. I would have to justify the expense to my wife. Believe me, that will never happen.
I don’t believe the Volt will be mine for the reasons that you stated.
The Volt will most likely go to my wife because she might use gas once every few months.
(Quote)
September 7th, 2008 at 7:47 am
#194 terryk Says: “Sarcasm my friend. Turn up the sensitivity knob a bit.
I guess if you guys want GM to claim 250MPG, ok. I’ll give you that one but the crash tests have to be real, ok?”
————————————————————————————–
My main point is that 250 MPG average is a very realistic number.
As a typical example, let’s say you drive:
• 10,000 miles per year
• 8000 miles per year on electricity
• 2000 miles per year on gasoline
• 40 gallons of gasoline per year
• 10,000 miles per year / 40 gallons of gasoline per year = 250 MPG average
So I think high mileage numbers like this are very real, and if the EPA had statistics on how many miles per day people drive, they could create these high average MPG numbers for ALL plug-ins, as this would be the most realistic way to estimate your annual gas savings.
(Quote)
September 7th, 2008 at 8:24 am
#201 BillR Says: “Clearly, however, since the energy input for the Volt will primarily be electricity, an mpg rating without an electrical component is meaningless.”
————————————————————————————-
Yes, definitely.
But the real question is: What single number will be the starting point for comparing all types of cars against each other?
In other words, yes, plug-ins will have to show wh/mile, electric range, etc.. This will allow people to estimate gas savings based on their driving habits. But these numbers should be smaller or less pronounced than the average MPG.
In fact, here’s my first crack at EPA specs required for plug-ins:
• Average mileage (MPG)
• Charge Influence (miles)
• Mileage Under Charge Influence (MPG)
• Mileage After Charge Influence (MPG)
• Electric Usage Under Charge Influence (WH/mile)
For the Prius Plug-In, I would guess:
• Average mileage: 100 MPG
• Charge Influence: 20 miles
• Mileage Under Charge Influence: 150 MPG
• Mileage After Charge Influence: 50 MPG
• Electric Usage Under Charge Influence: 130 WH/mile
For the Volt, I would guess:
• Average mileage: 250 MPG
• Charge Influence: 40 miles
• Mileage Under Charge Influence: 833 MPG
• Mileage After Charge Influence: 50 MPG
• Electric Usage Under Charge Influence: 200 WH/mile
Note that the Mileage Under Charge Influence for the Volt is not infinite since the gas in the tank must be used every 6 months, otherwise it will go stale.
(Quote)
September 7th, 2008 at 9:33 am
199 Dave G…… You asked, “….how did you come up with 187 MPG?”
——————————————————————————————————————————
Dave – Refering back to my original post 184, the calculation of 187.5 mpg was from…..
[(40mi / 8KWH x 8cents/kwh) x 300cents] = 187.5 mpg
where note 1 explains, “Assumes the cost of gasoline is $3.00/gallon, that NO gasoline is needed for trips <40 miles and that over-night recharging is done at an off-peak electricity cost (typically from 12 Mid to 7AM) of 8 cents/kwh
——————————————————————————————————————————
Regarding your 2nd question, “If 78% of the days are less than 40 miles, how do you know? Less than 40 miles could be 1 mile or 39 miles.” — I made the worst-case assumption, i.e., that <40 mi is always taken as 40 miles (or 39.99999999…..miles for “purists”)
——————————————————————————————————————————
Note that the equivalent mpg approach also works for ALL other vehicles (like the Vue & Prius plug-ins), as well as for both pure EVs & ordinary gasoline-only cars. While the car-buying public may adapt to the way EV-1, RAV-4 EV, Tesla, etc are rated in the future, or another more all-encompassing approach, I sincerely believe the “equivalent mpg” method offered in post 184 is the easiest to understand and to compare to all other cars for the next few years (while gasoline-fueled vehicles remain dominant in the marketplace).
(Quote)
September 7th, 2008 at 9:51 am
#144 DonC
Static – you are ever so strangely QUIET. Fannie and Freddie? Subordinated debt? Credit swaps? Insurable events? I’d think you’d be having a field day with this one. Or is that we don’t yet know how this will be structured so you can’t tell us who will be jumping out of buildings? (Apart from common and preferred shareholders of course).
————-
Hmmm? I was just busy measuring the size of my windows at….What where you talking about? Hehe.
I’d love to yak it up, but I don’t want the forums to get all messy, sometimes it goes off on a tangent and people get all upset. My own site has been fairly busy with it…to say the least, lol.
Side note: As you know, it’s those preferred guys who are really going to feel it hard first, so I’d get the firemen below their windows ASAP…but everyone in America is going to feel the pain of this one before it’s over I fear.
(Quote)
September 7th, 2008 at 10:08 am
>> how would this compare to the Prissy?
So… you are actually encouraging people to come up with an offensive name for Volt?
Also, keep in mind that no one will take posts with a demeaning reference as constructive. And it’s quite to counter-productive to undermine the success of other plug-in capable hybrids when Volt will be grossly outnumbered by non-hybrid vehicles. Don’t you want battery production to increase?
(Quote)
September 7th, 2008 at 10:11 am
>> Mileage Under Charge Influence
An approach like that is sensible and simplistic enough for the market to probably understand. However, the word EXTERNAL needs to be added to clarify what charge refers to.
And of course, a disclaimer for IDEAL conditions is absolutely vital. No vehicle performs the same in every season, especially due to fuel formula being different during the winter… then there’s the temperature itself.
(Quote)
September 7th, 2008 at 10:29 am
This should be a simple no brainer. You need two numbers.
AER = 40
MPG = 50
That’s it…
If you want to get fancy you could also show the efficiency of the electric motor with MPW miles per watt or something like that, but that might get confusing to the consumer and it’s not as important.
(Quote)
September 7th, 2008 at 10:58 am
#209 cosmo88 Says: “This should be a simple no brainer. You need two numbers.
AER = 40
MPG = 50
That’s it… ”
————————————————————————————-
OK. Prius Plug-in is rated 69.2 MPG and Volt is rated 50 MPG. Buy the Prius Plug-in. That’s it…
(Quote)
September 7th, 2008 at 11:22 am
#205 nasaman says: “[(40mi / 8KWH x 8cents/kwh) x 300cents] = 187.5 mpg”
————————————————————————————
I don’t think electrical rates should be used for average MPG calculations, for 2 reasons:
1) Unlike gasoline, electric rates vary wildly, from 6 cents to 17 cents per kWH. As a comparison, that would be like gasoline prices varying from $2 – $6 in various parts of the country at the same time.
2) The EPA doesn’t use fuel costs to calculate combined MPG. They use typical driving patterns.
I am proposing that the EPA establish a typical driver profile over a year. For example, maybe a typical profile for a year of driving would be:
• 30 days at 8 miles per day
• 50 days at 16 miles per day
• 240 days at 30 miles per day
• 30 days at 60 miles per day
• 3 days at 450 miles per day
Obviously, the exact numbers in this example may not be what they end up with, but the point is that once they come up with a good profile, it could be used to evaluate the average MPG of ALL plug-in vehicles on a level playing field. This would include the Chevy Volt, Saturn Vue plug-in, Toyota Prius plug-in, etc..
(Quote)
September 7th, 2008 at 11:51 am
Tagamet @ 143 said:
“In stop and go traffic (and ANYTIME it stops) the Volt will shut off when the vehicle is stopped. No battery used.”
Tag, If the Volt stops in night time traffic on a rainy hot night, think Florida weather, how will the air conditioner, head lights, wipers and radio be powered with “No battery used” ? Will the ICE turn on in that scenario? If it does, MPG will still be affected.
(Quote)