Grab our RSS Feed

AND

Argonne Study Suggests Chevy Volt Would Get 157 MPG

June 14th, 2009 | Posted in: Efficiency, PHEV, Research

Researchers at the Argonne National Lab studied four plug-in hybrid car configurations and determined the fuel economy they would get using real-world driving cycles.

The four configurations studied were a 4 kwh and 8 kwh PHEV and a 12 kwh and 16 kwh EREV.

The researchers modelled the cars’ fuel economy if they were driven over cycles taken from 100 actual Kansas city drivers in 2005, collected by the EPA.

The following results were obtained:

1. Split 4 kWh: 71.9 mpg US

2. Split 8 kWh: 101.4 mpg US

3. Series 12 kWh: 156.8 mpg US

4. Series 16 kWh: 191.2 mpg US

The study assumed the EREV would operate electrically from 30 to 90% state of charge (SOC), amounting to 7.2 kwh in the 12 kwh model, slightly less but closest to the Volt’s 8 kwh.

The split hybrids were assumed to operate as a fixed ratio power split between the gas engine and electric motor.

Not only do the results show that the Volt would get 157 mpg in real-world driving, but also shows that as battery pack size increases, efficiency improvements diminish.

“The larger the battery, the more fuel saved, however, what we also noticed was that the delta for consumption is not linear,” said lead investigator Aymeric Rousseau. “The fuel we save by going from 4 to 8 kWh is much greater than the fuel saved going from 12 to 16.”

Looking specifically at financial payback, the researchers concluded that at 9 cents/kwh electricity and $4.00/gallon gas, standard hybrids pay back their cost in 7 years, whereas PHEVs take from 7.5 to 12 years to recoup their additional cost. Payback time was decreased for drivers who drive more than 30 miles per day to a 6 to 8 year timeframe. Each additional $1 per gallon of gas reduced payback time by one year.

“Based on the assumptions considered, for the mid-term, the cost of PHEVs remains high, requiring further research and development for batteries and electric vehicles,” said Rousseau.

Source (GreenCarCongress)

Posted by: Lyle

119 Responses to “Argonne Study Suggests Chevy Volt Would Get 157 MPG”

-1 250 volts Says:
June 14th, 2009 at 7:53 am

First!!

(Quote)
Tim Says:
June 14th, 2009 at 7:59 am

“… PHEVs take from 7.5 to 12 years to recoup their additional cost.”

So, it’s not about saving money. Let’s hope this technology follows the same path as cell phones and notebook computers with rapid cost decreases due to scale, competition and innovation.

(Quote)
jason M. Hendler Says:
June 14th, 2009 at 8:02 am

Fortunately, mass production will drive innovations and cost reductions to the point where these vehicles will achieve ICE parity. At that point, fuel cell electric vehicles will emerge and begin their growth in market share.

(Quote)
CDAVIS Says:
June 14th, 2009 at 8:17 am

______________________________________________________
Lyle, Thanks for that informative article. It’s another positive indicator that the Voltec EREV platform is a winning formula.

I have to date been skeptical about the Volt ICE-RE getting ~50mpg, despite my Tata Jaguar EREV contact stating that’s what they are getting, but the above stated ~48mpg suggests that it is possible.

The Volt getting as good of gas mileage as the Prius when running in RE mode is very significant and positive for the Volt; Magical.
_____________________________________________________

(Quote)
Dan Petit Says:
June 14th, 2009 at 8:19 am

This is just half of the tremendous news. The other half, not included in the Argonne study, is the near elimination of scheduled maintenance, especially as the vehicle gets older, and yet remains under warranty as well.

These studies, while they take time, confirm absolutely that GM has gotten it right, and are on exactly the right pathway for at least a dozen highly world-changing breakthroughs for the consumer and the planet.

It is increasingly likely that the independent auto repair facility, will be compelled to either adapt toward the intellectual-competitive edge of a wise dedication to advanced technical training, or, be increasingly insolvent as less and less ICE work becomes available to them.

With these fuel efficiency numbers, it is less and less an argument regarding fuel efficiencies as much as it is an immediate social abandonment of fossil fuels altogether. For this social imperative, while under-rated and even slandered by fossil fuel investors and greedy speculators, nonetheless, this, our day, is coming, and, it is coming very soon.

Fossil fuel investors have made fortunes extracted from everyone for a hundred years. They are, of course, at it again without any restraint. There may be a social drive in the near future to publicly disclose who they are, so that they and their other interests may be avoided.

In addition, the public’s outcry for financial relief from the financially-corrupted methods by which fossil fuels are extracted and sold, will be properly answered by EREV, and, specifically,
General Motors.

Therefore, far more assistance to General Motors is called-for in the interest of society. Assistance to General Motors ought to be given in any way that the individual can, as a customer, as a governmental official, and yes, even you competitors, as GM has openly shared their incredible process to you as well.

It is Father’s Day.

Take GM “under your wing” everyone, they deserve it.

Happy Father’s Day.

Dan Petit.

(Quote)
hayley Says:
June 14th, 2009 at 8:48 am

isnt father’s day next week?

(Quote)
CDAVIS Says:
June 14th, 2009 at 8:48 am

_____________________________________________________
Imagine if GM (generation 3 Volt) was able to get ~80MPG in RE mode.

80MPG RE Breaking News June 14th, 2009:
http://www.allcarselectric.com/blog/1021448_langford-engineering-testing-c30-turbine-powered-erev-ford-s-max-crossover
———–

To save me some repeat typing, here is copy of my Feb 17th 2009 post:

Question: What is the best EV range extender technology currently available? (clue: it’s not a hydrogen fuel cell )

Answer: Micro Turbine Electric Generator:
* Single moving part.
* Low maintenance (change air filter 1/year).
* No oil lube required (can use an air/foil bearing).
* Proven Technology
* 1/3 of the weight of piston ICE
* 1/3 of the size of piston ICE
* 1/3 of the emissions of piston ICE
* 1/3 of the cost of a piston ICE when scaled to high volume production.
* 50%+ more fuel efficient than piston ICE for generating electricity at a constant peak level.
* Can run on gas, diesel, or natural gas.

This concept has been experimented with in the past for EV’s (including GM) but the technology to manufacture a reliable micro turbine electric generator at a low cost was not there yet (materials, air bearings, exacting tolerances). Also the battery (to take a quick charge w/o memory effect) technology including sophisticated battery charge control software was not sufficiently available. That technology is now available and proven.

Think about the symmetry of it: A micro turbine (containing a single moving part) charging the batteries to an EREV to power the electric drive motor (containing a single moving part).
_____________________________________________________

(Quote)
Tagamet Says:
June 14th, 2009 at 9:00 am

Nice to see a statistically based estimate of actual fuel ecconomy. I think it’s a TON more accurate using actual driver behavior than the current (no pun) setup.
I don’t think that the majority of people purchasing hybrid cars are concerned with the “pay back” period, anymore than all of us are here for a single reason – they vary, but are all of a higher order (IMO).
Flag Day is today – Father’s Day a week from now (or I been Dissed).
Be well,
Tagamet
LJGTVWOTR

(Quote)
BobS Says:
June 14th, 2009 at 9:15 am

#5 Dan, please ease up on the so-called “oil speculators” and their evil plans. Oil is a commodity in high demand and the price fluctuations reflect that. As electricity use goes up it too may become deregulated and its price will fluctuate and rise with demand. Your only recourse is to become you own supplier of electricity with a home solar system – but that is also pretty expensive. For several years, until electric vehicles become the norm, EV owners will benefit from regulated electric rates but don’t count on that lasting forever.

(Quote)
Gary Says:
June 14th, 2009 at 9:16 am

7 CDAVIS, from what I understand, turbines create exhaust which is extremely hot, and is a liability risk for stupid consumers who always try to find an way to injure themselves and sue?

Although, it is an intriguing proposition… unusual tech sells nowadays, it seems.

(Quote)
CDAVIS Says:
June 14th, 2009 at 9:28 am

______________________________________________________
Follow up to my #7 CDAVIS Post:

The #7 sited link states:

“Early testing shows that the combined system in the S-Max can travel up to 80 miles per gallon and travel 40 miles on electricity alone..”

I may be wrong but I belvie the 80MPG figure is actually MPG in RE mode as apposed to combined (blended: plug-in + RE); Perhaps Lyle can arrange for a clairifcation on that.

Here is the direct news relase from Capstone MicroTurbine:
http://www.capstoneturbine.com/news/story.asp?id=512
______________________________________________________

(Quote)
jan Says:
June 14th, 2009 at 9:48 am

Hasn’t the cost to build the Volt dropped several thousand after bankruptcy of GM and all the reorganization that will involve. By any standard I think the Volt(EREV) is a compelling product. I still think a Volt is worth about $10,000 or so more than a Prius.

(Quote)
Andy Says:
June 14th, 2009 at 10:05 am

In the center column they REALLY need to have separate the yearly cost into two numbers: $/yr for electricity and $/yr for gas. If I think I will use gas less or more than 20% how would I know what the yearly cost would be?

Do they really think that someone would be able to figure out what the estimate per year would be if gas was $2 or $5 instead of $3.54? or if electricity was .10 or .30 instead of 14?

If I’m doing this right year gas cost is (15,000*.2*3.54)/48 = $221.25 and electric is (15,000*.8*0.14)/3.1 = $541 which doesn’t even add to 607.. Clearly I don’t get where $607 came from…

(Quote)
nasaman Says:
June 14th, 2009 at 10:25 am

RE: Dan Petit #5…… “This is just half of the tremendous news. The other half, not included in the Argonne study, is the near elimination of scheduled maintenance, especially as the vehicle gets older, and yet remains under warranty as well.”
——————————————————————————————————————————–
You’re absolutely right, Dan! And another important reliability feature of the Voltec architecture (one I discussed at length with Andrew Farrah at VoltNation last year) is that it is essentially fully redundant! This means that, with few exceptions, you’ll still be able to get to the next service station if you run out of gas. OR ….you’ll still be able to get home (or to a charge station) if your battery is fully discharged. So the incidence of often very dangerous roadside assistance events should drop dramatically for owners of Voltec vehicles!

(Quote)
Van Says:
June 14th, 2009 at 10:29 am

As I have said before, all composite mileage numbers are meaningless.

When a vehicle has an AER, and you do not figure “equivant gallons” of electrical power, you are simply fudging the number. Say the Volt’s actual AER in everyday driving is 32 miles. I drive a 40 mile test cycle. The engine/generator which gets 50 MPG for the 8 miles, uses .16 gallons, so you calculate the 40 mile trip at 250 mpg. Nonsense.
By using the 100 mile cycle and assuming “x” miles of AER they came up with 157 miles per gallon. More nonsense.

(Quote)
Brian Wainscott Says:
June 14th, 2009 at 10:33 am

Lyle — I’m a long time lurker here (4129 on the wait list!) and really appreciate all you are doing to promote this great technology, but…. the “miles per kwh” numbers on your “EPA sticker” scare me.

3.1/2.5 miles per kwh puts the volt EV range at 24.8/20 miles, since it only uses half its 16 kwh capacity in EV only mode. Hopefully, one of us has made a mistake here somewhere, because 40 miles really is ideal for me. My daily commute is 35 miles and I’m really looking forward to stopping at the gas station once every two months instead of once a week….

(Quote)
kent beuchert Says:
June 14th, 2009 at 10:39 am

Obviously the people at Argonne Labs never attended
any Inferential Statistics 101 classes. The first BIG,
BIG problem here is the crazy assumption that
100 drivers in Kansas City represent an accurate picture
of the trip distributions for all drivers in the US. The
trip distributions are going to be very markedly
influenced by the nature of the road network, suburb
locations, etc. It is simply impossible for one area to
be deemed representative. Certainly a place like Kansas
City, which is located virtually on the plains, is the
last place I would choose. I also am unsure of the period
covered. All days of the year must be represented, since
Summer accounts for the vast majority of long trips, the
inclusion/exclusion of which will strongly influence calculations
of Volt gasoline usage. I have no idea which periods of the
year are covered by the data. If not 365 days, the data is
totally worthless. Actually, it’s worse than that – it’s completely
misleading, one way or the other.
So why did the statistically-inept folks at Argonne Labs
choose Kansas City? Well, I’ll bet that it actually
chose them – it was probably the only trip distribution data
they managed to locate. Well, they must not have
looked very hard. The DOT has a complete estimate of
commuter trip data (used by GM) that would have been
perfectly representative nationwide of commuting trip
distributions. And time of year is irrelevant here. Since we all
know that commuting accounts for over 50% of personal
vehicle gas consumption, let’s start there.
The calculations are quite simple – simply pick
the midpoint of each roundtrip mileage group. Do so and
you’ll obtain around 255 MPG for the Volt, assuming 40 miles
electric and 50 miles MPG range extended driving. Changing
the 50 MPG to 45 MPG won’t change much. Allow a given
percentage to recharge at work and the numbers jump way up :
450 MPG, 600 MPG, etc.
Now, what about that non-commute trip data? Well, if everyone
taking a non-commuting trip in their Volt used gas only, expect
around 50MPG. Since this accounts for half, then the total estimate
would be the simple average of 250 and 50, or 152.5 MPG. Now look
how close that is to Argonne’s phoney estimate. And that’s using
zero battery power for all non-commute driving,. So what would be a
fair estimate of non-commute driving? First we assume that the Volt
has a full battery charge. That takes care of the first 40 miles of every
noncommute trip. In order to average the 59 MPG required to equal
Argonne’s 157 estimate, each non-commute trip must average 300
miles (assuming 50MPG using range extender). That’s totally absurd.
My guess is that non-commute Volt driving will obtain AT LEAST 200
MPG, for a total of AT LEAST 227.5 MPG. I’d be willing to bet a lot of
money on that figure as alower bound. And note that that figure does
not take into account away from home recharging, which can have
absolutely enormous effects on MPG. Unfortunately, I am now
prepared to see 3427 news articls on the infinitely brainless Web, all of
which declare the Volt as a 157MPG car. In no time in history has it
been possible to mislead more people more quickly than now, thanks to
the internet. The internet has created a younger generation of
truly ignorant folk.

(Quote)
GeorgeB Says:
June 14th, 2009 at 10:49 am

#15 Van;

I agree that the numbers are REALLY fuzzy, but the fact is that the car manufacturers are required by law to put these silly stickers on the windows, so they HAVE to try to put a number on gas mileage.

Now, I realize that there is always fuel used (gas, oil, nuclear, woodchips, whatever) to generate the electricity to run in all-electric mode, but remember, the objective is to reduce our dependence on FOSSIL FUEL, so the numbers on the sticker should, in my opinion, reflect the ACTUAL GALLONS of gas consumed to cover a certain distance. So it seems to me that the 250 mpg conclusion you reached in the above post represents the true spirit of what the window sticker is trying to accomplish: to show how much gas is used to run the car, “Long Tail Pipe” considerations not withstanding.

I can’t wait to get my Volt! NPNS!

(Quote)
CorvetteGuy Says:
June 14th, 2009 at 11:01 am

You guys are much better at math than me-

Based on the above stated figures, how many years of production will it take before we see Middle East Oil Sheiks having to drink their stinking oil because the US has cut imports by 90% ?

(insert Jeapardy theme music here)

(Quote)
Bruce J Says:
June 14th, 2009 at 11:13 am

You can make numbers do whatever you want them to do. Most people will drive more that 30 miles per day and spend a large percentage of time on generator.

Given that, and the fact that gas might not be in the $4 range, I estimate the payback for the purchase premium to be in the 20+ year range. In other words you will are not buying a Volt to save money. Buy it for a multitude of other reasons, but for you personal finance, it will never make sense.

(Quote)
Lwesson Says:
June 14th, 2009 at 11:21 am

Dan Petit is spot on about the speculators making money from a product that we have NO choice but to use. Here in Houston, there is little said about the inflated OIL bubble of oversupply compared to a historic drop in use. Spec traders make money with the price going up and Spec traders that hit it right make $$$ on the price going down.

How nice it is for a useless class of individuals to play with a commodity that we all must use on a daily basis.

I see a day when there is a choice Volts, Teslas, Fiskers… shaking up the oil monopoly. The Sand Box and the crazies there can go back to the 5th century which come to think of it, they are pretty much there anyway.

Now we in Houston will suffer but… the oil industry has earned a black eye for allowing the government to make oil like pork bellies and gold. Money now but a dry well later.

Higgins———Cheers!

(Quote)
Mike D Says:
June 14th, 2009 at 11:31 am

I don’t like “pay-back time” math for hybrids and PHEV’s anymore.

“it costs $5,000 more for Hybrid model X than for a comparable ICE model, so that means it isn’t worth it until you’ve saved $5,000 in fuel.”

This feels off. It feels inacurate because each car will be worth a different amount in 5 years. It’s not realising that the $5,000 extra in up front cost is still worth something 5 years later. The residual value will be higher. You can’t compare money spent on fuel, which 5 years later is worth $0, to money spent on a contraption of metal and wire that is still working 5 years later, and although may not be worth $5,000, is worth SOMETHING, maybe $2000? Bottom line; a hybrid is worth more than a comparable ICE car in 5 years, i’d say even more so in 10. They have longer lives than ICE cars. It isn’t a matter of “how long it takes to make up the difference in cost through fuel purchases”.

MANY hybrids already DO make fiscal sense and only few people out there seem to understand that. That’s why i like them! If you were my friend, you’d know i was “frugal”. I wish i saved the post i made comparing the 10 year costs and residual values of a 40k Volt versus a 20k ICE car. The volt’s overall total 10 year costs including depreciation are way lower than a 20k ICE car’s costs, assuming 15k miles a year, 3 bucks a gallon… so i really don’t their their “7.5 to 12 year” break even time for a PHEV is very accurate.

(Quote)
Dan Petit Says:
June 14th, 2009 at 11:38 am

Ooops, I need a better calendar with the holidays listed.

Dan.

(Quote)
Herm Says:
June 14th, 2009 at 11:41 am

#22 Mike D.. very good points, also factor in the convenience and safety of refueling in the privacy of your home and less “gas-shortage-anxiety” in case something happens.

Also the Volt should have an exceptionally quiet ride, a plus for music lovers.

(Quote)
kdawg Says:
June 14th, 2009 at 11:57 am

20 Bruce J Says:
Most people will drive more that 30 miles per day and spend a large percentage of time on generator.
——————————-

Do you any data to back that up?

(Quote)
Deep Cycle Says:
June 14th, 2009 at 11:59 am

Key Point: Driving the Volt is NOT about saving money.

Repeat (for those dense brains out there): Driving the Volt is NOT about saving money.

If you want the most bang-for-your-buck look elsewhere !!

Even GM acknowledges that it won’t be until the third generation Volt before it becomes cost effective for the masses. (Let’s Hope they are correct).

(Quote)
Deep Cycle Says:
June 14th, 2009 at 12:01 pm

Please stop running Volt numbers through your agenda-driven calculators people. Tell your numbers to STFU.

(Quote)
terryk Says:
June 14th, 2009 at 12:04 pm

I am a huge Volt promoter but these MPG claims are getting absurd. There is NO situation where you can put 1 gallon of gas in a Volt and go 150+ miles unless you limit the range substantially. In electric mode, it’s not using gas (you might as well say how much propane it uses…) and in extender mode it won’t go 150 miles. Maybe 50 or so.

If you combine them to go 40 miles electric and then maybe 50 on gas – That’s 90 mile. If you recharge, you have to start all over again so you are limited to 90 mile range for the calculation. Filling the tank and then recharging multiple times is dishonest at best.

Sorry, that is just how I see it. Today, the range is based on the EPA rating times the gas tank size. You don’t get to fill up 20 times and clam the car has a range of 6000 miles.

(Quote)
charlie h Says:
June 14th, 2009 at 12:08 pm

I like this. An authoritative lie, the very best kind. 150mpg tells the consumer that he can put a charge on his 40-mile battery, fill his 6 gallon tank and go 940 miles.

We know, of course, that this is not true. But GM pays lobbyists the big bucks for a reason and we know what it is… to get a favorable EPA mpg rating, even it if it a lie.

(Quote)
Mike D Says:
June 14th, 2009 at 12:36 pm

#26 and #27

I’m sorry that you become frustrated when someone’s numbers say 1 + 1 = 2. Heck, what are “numbers” anyway? big deal.

Driving the Volt is not about saving money TO YOU. It is to others like me, and that isn’t going to change. Accept the fact that it saves money. The only way you can look at true numbers and say that they’re agenda driven, is if you don’t understand them. Why so intolerant of those who like this tech and ICE efficiency in general as a means of saving money?

(Quote)
stas peterson Says:
June 14th, 2009 at 12:40 pm

This Argonne study confirms the Voltage engineering design basis, as well as Dr. Frank and his grad student’s studies at UC Davis, that established the 80-20 estimate of 40 miles per day as the “sweet spot” to aim for in Series EREVs or series-parallel PHEVs.

Now if only the right hands of the Green Loons in the Clueless Ones Administration, don’t screw up the left hands attempts to reduce fossil fuel use, and CO2 reductions.

Passing Cap & Tax and raising everyone’s electric bills by $100- $200 per month would certainly change the economics and retard the adoption and conversion to Electrification and away from Petroleum for the automobile fleet.

Fortunately everyone from the skeptical GW scientists, to the most rabid AGW proponents, condemn Cap & Tax, including Mr Gore’s pet pit bull, Astronomer Dr. Paul Hansen of Nasa. Moderate Democrats are running from the loony Pioli/Markey/Waxman idiocy, and Republicans are almost unanimous in opposition.

We all know by now, the Cluless One’s clowns don’t really know what they are doing; and frequently work at cross-purposes. He is simply too dumb and inexperienced, to unify their efforts.

(Quote)
Jim Shelton Says:
June 14th, 2009 at 12:49 pm

#28 & #29 You guys are technically correct, Given the way mpg is calculated TODAY. But doing so does correctly portray the true revolutionary capability of the Volt.

I easily drive less than 40 miles per day. I estimate my YEARLY miles driven/gallons of gas used = 500 mpg. So the studies 157 mpg seems low to me.

No fixed MPG number will ever work for the VOLT. It will always be an Apple to Oranges comparison.

Eventually the sticker will have to read 40 miles AER and 48 mpg Extender Range to compare different EREVs. And God forbid the general consumer will have to be educated on what those numbers mean

(Quote)
Dan Petit Says:
June 14th, 2009 at 1:02 pm

#9 Bob

My post here is not at all to sound angry, but it is meant to be firm, as most of us are just worn-out with speculation volatility.

Consumption of oil is *down*, and the market has been greedily manipulated up to make speculators more. It is an insufficiently moderated and rigged system for speculators, and, it is wrong.

Oil and fossil fuels ought to have a nationalization threat against speculators somehow. There just isn’t sufficient reason to have speculation exist anymore. Let oil companies buy directly or have at least some of it pass-through the national petroleum reserve as a “price buffer”.

Speculation is a corrupted system of mass-psychology in part, that has insufficient moderation where quick fluctuations literally cost people their jobs, homes, and futures. This is because there is insufficient time for everyone to adjust their budgets. Everyone, that is, except for the speculator.

So yes, you actually could in fact absolutely say that speculators do indeed have an “evil plan”. It is an abhorrently evil plan it seems to most people.

And, they ought to be presented with the suggestion that their identities might somehow become published.
So why should they worry if they are not apparently doing anything wrong?

I get slandered daily by people whom are protected by the privacy laws[sic] because of my strongly environmental views, most likely by the same self-identified central Texas natural gas interests (who threatened me the last time with the same vocabulary that they currently slander me with now).

So much for privacy laws, as they protect the criminal and phone scammer.

The cost of electricity is partly a fuel charge. Here in Austin, you can *choose* to pay more for 100% Wind energy (instead of carbon-based energy). That is precisely the whole idea, to cut out fossil fuels even if it costs us more, which we *choose* to pay. If we are to pay more *where we vote to pay more*, it is preferable to pay more for the construction of more Wind generators and transmission lines, not to make a crafty few rich, many more times over.

I am becoming quite tired of the mantra “it’ll cost more”. Yes it will, and, I fully intend for that extra cost to go into Wind generation when I get my Voltec vehicle.

Regulation, deregulation, however you want it, smart meters will allow the customer to *choose* who they are going to buy electricity from, and, what type of electricity they want to buy. “More cost” is not the issue. Saving the blankety-blank planet is the issue, and buying time for adaptation to the environment is bare minimum

There is no “cost-confusion” as to the primary issues here.

Speculation is a paper leverage to extract more fossil energy out of the ground, and extract more money out of the rest of us.

Of course it is evil, and I demand some increased moderation of it so that at least we can better plan for our budgets to be strained further, and further, and further. (Not that any speculator ever cared).

As the pressures of society become organized toward addressing what the environment is forcing upon us, it is everyone’s responsibility to express their demands for increased moderation of speculation to all governmental representatives whom they know.

If we are going to pay more, let it be selectable to send that increased number of billions of dollars to Wind generation and transmission lines. I have had it with speculation, and I’d bet the rest of the human race is as well.

Wind energy infrastructure is where all that money needs to go, and, it is our generation whose responsibility it is to accept the burden of the cost of it all.

We just have to demand from our legislators that they make it so we are allowed to vote for Wind energy by voting with our dollars with smart electric meters on our homes. And we ought to install smart thermostats so that Wind energy proportions in the generation mix can be brought up higher.

Dan.

(Quote)
statik Says:
June 14th, 2009 at 1:05 pm

I hate these studies…I really do. All they do is blur the lines. Numbers lie, misrepresent all the time…can’t we just be happy with getting a car that can drive electrically?

Nonetheless, here are some of the problems off the top of my head:

A) Sample size…hundred people in KC

B) How can you assume the price of gas at $4/gallon, when gas has only ever been over $4.00 on the national average for about 45 days total?
http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/jalopnik/2009/05/18_Month_Chart.jpg

C) How can you calculate the cost of electricity at 9 cents, last time I checked the national average was at 11.23 (+ taxes, fees) according to the EIA (and up 9% year over year I might add)
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/table5_6_a.html

D) How to you peg extended range at 50 MPG generically across the PHEV setups, when there is no practical real world example of it? Also the 50MPG is widely considered the zenith of GM’s estimate from 2.5 years ago?

E) Payback time? Again..how is this possible generically? The factor here is what is a similar ICE cars MSRP, less ‘EREV’ing it

F) How can you calulate a MPG using the electric range inside it, but not reverse adjust out for the cost of power/electric usage?

G) Assumes payback times of 8 to 12 years on PHEV, but at no time allows for the fact that ‘end of life’ on the pack occurs likely before the payback period, (especially under the >40 miles per day scenario)…and if you drive it right to the point death, or near death, what is a car with a dead battery worth on resale?

H) Assumes there is zero degradation over the lifespan of the payback period on the battery AER…reasonable?

I) Assumes that the most optimal of ranges for the AER of the battery is achieved under any circumstance and at all times…reasonable?

J) Sample location…as far as I can tell all AER calculations have been in a temperate location, under ideal conditions (no a/c. heat, optimal driving). How does the AER calulate for say, the 20 million people in New York in January with the heat blasting? or in the rest of the US?

/everything looks/works great in a vacuum…but life isn’t like that, you have to be realistic…or at the very least use the current data that is available…don’t just plug in random numbers or forecasts you think might happen (for example everyone always pegs gas much higer in the future, but never energy…yet the national average climbed over 9% last year. If no data is available like extended range MPG or AER on a EREV, you have to extrapolate ‘reasonable’ benchmarks if no real world data is available…not the highest of end of expectations.

(Quote)
kdawg Says:
June 14th, 2009 at 1:17 pm

Those electricity rates are high compared to mine.

Summer Billing Months of June through October
$.0799 Per kWh for the first 500 kWh
$.0847 Per kWh for all over 500 kWh
Winter Billing Months of November through May
$.0799 Per kWh for the first 500 kWh
$.0829 Per kWh for all over 500 kWh

(Quote)
kdawg Says:
June 14th, 2009 at 1:19 pm

33 Dan Petit
Here in Austin, you can *choose* to pay more for 100% Wind energy (instead of carbon-based energy).

———————

I always wonder about that. What if everyone said they wanted wind and paid for it? Would they shut down the coal plant and have to build a bunch of windmills?

(Quote)
Vincent Says:
June 14th, 2009 at 1:21 pm

I am still wondering why a small gear box isn’t put in place to increase revolutions of the generator while keeping engine operation low, slow & quiet.
157 MPG news will spread the word of the Volt like Lightning.

(Quote)
statik Says:
June 14th, 2009 at 1:32 pm

#35 kdawg said:

Those electricity rates are high compared to mine.

Summer Billing Months of June through October
$.0799 Per kWh for the first 500 kWh
$.0847 Per kWh for all over 500 kWh
Winter Billing Months of November through May
$.0799 Per kWh for the first 500 kWh
$.0829 Per kWh for all over 500 kWh

=================

It does fluctuate quite a bit depending on your location/state…and where you live in the state, as the EIA chart I linked in #34 shows: (Idaho is lowest average price at $7.22)
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/table5_6_a.html

Let me ask you, those prices you quote, is that bottom line? Taxes and fees?

As in if you use 100 kWh of power, do you get a bill for 7.99? Because the pump price is a “all-in” to the end user. I know where I am in Ontario, I ‘only’ pay .056, but 1223 kWh last month still cost me $154.39 bottom line…or 12.6 cents.

Here is what my bill from Feb 23rd to March 22nd looks like (Canada is bad for ‘add-ons’…we start at a low kWh price, but really jam on the fees):
—————————
Electricity (1st block kWh @ 0.056) Usage 1223 $68.50
Delivery $62.38
Regulatory Charges $8.08
Debt Retirement Charges (of previous Ontario Hydro) $8.09
GST $7.35

Total: $154.39
—————————

(Quote)
statik Says:
June 14th, 2009 at 1:55 pm

#38 statik (me)

That should have read, “…I ‘only’ pay .056, but 1223 kWh for the last two months still cost me $154.39 bottom line…or 12.6 cents.”

Thats a two month bill, lol. I don’t use 40kWh a day…there is no helicopter landing pad or lighthouse in the backyard I have to keep lit 24/7 or anything, lol.

(Quote)
LazP Says:
June 14th, 2009 at 2:01 pm

Interesting that the mileage given by Argon Lab. Is veryclose to the number what I calculated in a previous thread couple of days ago for an ideal Volt user driving about 40 miles a day with overnight recharge. Currently this is the sweet spot for Volt usage. Below is the previous comment.
——————————————————————-
“The following driving/usage model should be the guide for determining the Volt’s MPG. For the near future the most obvious usage model is overnight charging in one’s own garage at least until a more widespread infrastructure is developed. Therefore the mileage is best determined by DAILY usage, i.e between overnight recharges. If one drives 100 miles/day, the mileage will be a lot lower then one drives 50 miles/day. Assuming 1.5 gallons of gasoline used in the first case and a third of a gallon in the second case, the mileage would be 66.6 mpg (or better yet gmpg) and 151 mpg respectively. (Obviously the 40 electric mile is included.,) The more generic method to determine this would be. MPG measured between recharges. In the present case this is represented by a one day cycle (overnight recharge). It seems to me that a reasonable average EPA mileage could be devised from above usage. I hope the government will see it this way. The above numbers would only be a starting base line standard until improved recharging infrastructure develops when the daily use concept would be replaced by use between recharge (multiple daily recharge.)”
———————————————————————-

(Quote)
CorvetteGuy Says:
June 14th, 2009 at 2:21 pm

If the sale of 10,000 EREV VOLTs in the first year of production causes a middle eastern oil sheik to have 1 less solid gold toilet, then the “Payback Time” is only 12 months.

The goal of the VOLT project is to cut this nation’s need for oil imports. If you don’t get that by now, go buy a fraggin’ scooter if you want to drive to work cheaper.

(Quote)
kdawg Says:
June 14th, 2009 at 2:22 pm

@38 statik

there is a $5 basic service charge (but i’d have to pay that with or w/out a Volt). there are also taxes & fees, but I dont have a bill handy to list them. My monthly bill is usually around $60.

(Quote)
kdawg Says:
June 14th, 2009 at 2:26 pm

41 corvetteguy
If you don’t get that by now, go buy a fraggin’ scooter if you want to drive to work cheaper.
————–

Hey! dont laugh. I bought a scooter last summer when gas spiked. It goes 45mph, I don’t have to wear a helmet, and it gets 90mpg. I just hit 1000miles on the odometer. By the end of this summer i’ll hit 2000 miles and it will have paid for itself.

Yeah, i get smiles, when i scoot by, but i don’t mind. I also get thumbs up from anti-mideast oil people. They usually have a Marines sticker on their vehicle.

(Quote)
coffeetime Says:
June 14th, 2009 at 2:37 pm

All the talk about amortizing the added expense of a PHEV or EREV over a conventional gas-engine car leaves me scratching my noggin. Cars are and have been mostly emotional purchases. I ordered a PT Cruiser when they first came out (and picked it up 6 months later), and could’ve sold it when it was still new on Ebay for $5K. I didn’t, because I wanted one so badly, and I certainly didn’t amortize that $5K to come up with an “early adopter” premium. I suspect that early Volt owners will pay a premium to have a whisper-quiet car that will attract attention, and they won’t rationally think about the added premium of being an early adopter.

On another note, I was listening to Bob Brinker (”MoneyTalk”) yesterday, and he had some auto analyst on as a guest. Bob asked him what all the “Chevy Volt hype” was about, and the guest (I missed his name) accurately described how the Volt worked, but gave some confusing answer about the 30-40 miles of driving (electric only, I presume), and basically said that we’d have to see how it all worked out. To which Brinker replied sarcastically that the “greenies” were delusional if they thought that getting electric power for the Volt from coal-fired power plants was really all that environmentally friendly. Yes, coal-fired plants are the largest group of total U S generation (48.5%), but those plants are base load plants (like nuclear) that must run 24/7/365 regardless of demand. Having electric hybrids recharge at night when much of that power is going to waste sounds like a good thing for the environment, not a bad thing.

(Quote)
kdawg Says:
June 14th, 2009 at 2:37 pm

34 Statik

D) How to you peg extended range at 50 MPG generically across the PHEV setups, when there is no practical real world example of it? Also the 50MPG is widely considered the zenith of GM’s estimate from 2.5 years ago?

and

I) Assumes that the most optimal of ranges for the AER of the battery is achieved under any circumstance and at all times…reasonable?

———————–

Did they do this? I can’t find anywhere the #’s they used for mpg in RE mode, or miles per KWH in EV mode.

(Quote)
Luke Says:
June 14th, 2009 at 2:42 pm

CDAVIS @ 7,

Answer: Micro Turbine Electric Generator:

Don’t forget the “batmobile effect”. Turbines just sound cool.

(Quote)
statik Says:
June 14th, 2009 at 3:18 pm

#34 Statik said:

D) How to you peg extended range at 50 MPG generically across the PHEV setups, when there is no practical real world example of it? Also the 50MPG is widely considered the zenith of GM’s estimate from 2.5 years ago?

and

I) Assumes that the most optimal of ranges for the AER of the battery is achieved under any circumstance and at all times…reasonable?
———————–
# 45 kdawg said: Did they do this? I can’t find anywhere the #’s they used for mpg in RE mode, or miles per KWH in EV mode.
=====================
=====================

Yupe.

Under the ‘Volt scenario,” 60% of a 12kWh pack and the 157 Lyle quotes in the thread title . The study in Lyle’s link quotes as follows:

“…and a series hybrid (extended-range electric vehicle, e.g., Volt)
* 1.5L/100km (156.8 mpg US)
—–

100 KM is roughly 60 miles. Strip out 40 miles AER, which leaves you with about 20 miles ICE (it is actually fractionally higher)
20 miles @ 50 MPG = .4 gallons used
.4 gallons in liters is 1.5L/100km…as quoted in the source article.

…I suppose that could just be a huge coincidence. But seeing how they actually quoted the Volt as a example at this level, and the Volt ’stock’ numbers fit almost exactly to a ‘T’…I kind of doubt it.

I don’t really see them using any other scenarios that could also get them to this same rating level…the Volt’s raw spec numbers are spot on. I do conceed they don’t have a direct quote stating that is indeed what went on…so anything is possible, although they did use the Volt as the example at the Advanced Automotive Battery Conference where they dropped the study.

I don’t know why they used a 7.2kWh usage, on a 12 kWh pack when they did the study…it hurts their payback numbers a little if reality is 8kWh used (as we assume on the Volt) on a 16 kWh pack.

However, if you are right…or rather, if your question leds to a answer that says Volt specific benchmarks, and/or the Volt itself is not the platform being evaluated (as the article, and this thread subsequently implies), then the whole article really makes no sense at all, and is jejune to the Volt and this site completely…and invalidates the whole point of the thread….that the “Argonne study suggests chevy volt would get 157 mpg”

/either way, big flaw(s)…and why I am not a fan of these type of studies, you can make the numbers do whatever you like. I’d rather just stick to not trying to project costing/MPGs at all. We will know, when we know…lets just get some EVs on the road already.

(Quote)
statik Says:
June 14th, 2009 at 3:35 pm

#45 kdawg said:

Did they do this? I can’t find anywhere the #’s they used for mpg in RE mode, or miles per KWH in EV mode.
—————

Guess I didn’t answer your second half of the question much there, I only briefly mentioned the 7.2 kWh assumption. The don’t at anytime state a mile per kWh, but the math of the AER and the MPG at 100 KM assumes that 40 miles range is what they are using.

(We don’t actually have a hard final number from GM on pack bandwidth…sometimes they say half, sometimes they say it is still not set, sometimes they give a example.)

I wager this study is putting up a WAG (like they do for about a half dozen other assumptions) on the usage and pack size at this level, but using the Volt as the benchmark anyway for some strange reason on the specifications and performance.

The more I think about this study…the more it bothers me, I think I’m just going to head out for a nice outdoor BBQ with the family at some friend’s place and not think about it anymore, lol.

/have a good one kdawg, maybe go outside and have some fun too (it is a lovely day…at least it is here)

(=

(Quote)
kdawg Says:
June 14th, 2009 at 4:16 pm

I’ll try & get outside. I’m busy packing for Russia, fly out to Moscow on Tuesday. Maybe I’ll encounter one of these 2 extreme cars or something in between.

http://englishrussia.com/?p=926
or
http://inventorspot.com/articles/russian_electricpowered_sportscar_meet_marussia_21855

(Quote)
jbfalaska Says:
June 14th, 2009 at 5:05 pm

I’m assuming the cost factors cited are absent the hybrid tax incentives. $7500 for buying the 16KWH battery is my goal. No Middle-East terrorist oil in my household being the real goal.

(Quote)
Dave K. Says:
June 14th, 2009 at 5:16 pm

The Volt will cost $300-$400 per year to charge. Any fuel cost (gasoline) after this is optional. 100 mpg should be very easy to attain under normal driving conditions.

I did a hypothetical tally of my driving. Looks like about 150 mpg, very close to the results of the study. The features of owning a Volt are good acceleration, comfortable cab, quiet operation, near smog free operation, ‘cool’ factor, and pride in ownership.

Cost of the Volt? About $7000 more than everyone else car. Being able to avoid paying OPEC taxes, priceless.

=D~

(Quote)
RB Says:
June 14th, 2009 at 5:21 pm

#34 statik says
I hate these studies…I really do. All they do is blur the lines. Numbers lie, misrepresent all the time…can’t we just be happy with getting a car that can drive electrically?
—————————————————————-

With greatest respect, I think you misunderstand why such studies prove extremely useful. It is for the same reasons that markers on the side of a boat channel are useful. You are unlikely to drive through the marker, and you are unlikely to have a car that agrees with the assumptions made. But both do give you a reference point. The performance of a “real” car under cost conditions of some future “real” scenario can be evaluated in relation to the study That might be in detail or, more often, just loosely, e.g. if we get close to that marker we’ll be in thus and such a situation.

The way you said you prefer is to reason from past “real” experience. That’s great if you have that experience, and the harbor pilot has it. For those who do not have that experience, good to pay attention to the markers and the charts For cars that do not yet exist, some reference calculations — known inputs, specific outputs — can prove extremely useful, even if they differ in many details from what is likely to happen in the future.

(Quote)
kdawg Says:
June 14th, 2009 at 5:21 pm

Based on the #’s above, that Argonne is using for their calculations, what would they come up with for a MPG on a pure BEV car?

(Quote)
Bruce J Says:
June 14th, 2009 at 5:38 pm

#30 Mike D

“Driving the Volt is not about saving money TO YOU. It is to others like me, and that isn’t going to change. Accept the fact that it saves money. The only way you can look at true numbers and say that they’re agenda driven, is if you don’t understand them. Why so intolerant of those who like this tech and ICE efficiency in general as a means of saving money?”

Don’t get me wrong, I love this technology and want it more than anyone. I’m also willing to pay for it. But there is absolutley no way a Volt will save anyone money. The huge premium we have to pay as early adopters of this new technology makes that a certain.

If you get a 20K Honda Insight, vs a 40K Volt, you will never recoup the 100% extra you paid for a Volt even if you drive every mile on free electricity. I’m just saying, the Volt is great for many reasons. Saving money is not one of them. The initial cost is simply too high to ever recoup in fuel savings.

(Quote)
Anthony BC Says:
June 14th, 2009 at 5:42 pm

“Argonne Study Suggests Chevy Volt Would Get 157 MPG”

I’ll definitely back this up when the VOLT’s available in 24 months up here!

GO EV!!!

(Quote)
Larry Says:
June 14th, 2009 at 5:59 pm

I very much prefer the separate Miles/kWHr and Miles/Gallon rating system Lyle shows at the top of the post. Any “average combined MPG” is meaningless if your driving pattern is different from the assumptions.

To make Lyle’s “Milage” sticker even better: opposite of “PHEV-40″ should be “PHEV+Gas=400 to directly show the vehicle has a total non-stop range of, say, 400 miles. This would allay any “range anxiety”.

I have to say that I don’t like the assumption that one must “justify” the purchase of an efficient car by its “yearly payback”. What would be good is if gas guzzlers had to post the “extra cost and pollution” they would incur!

(Quote)
BillR Says:
June 14th, 2009 at 6:10 pm

Several months ago I posted an analysis on this very topic in the forum.

http://gm-volt.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2541

If you read the NREL (National Renewable Energy Laboratory) document, they discuss a method for rating plug-in vehicles. They have also compiled data for the typical driving habits of American drivers.

As some have mentioned, 40 miles AER seems to be a “sweet spot”. It covers the daily drive for most people, but not the long 250 mile weekend trips. Based on the AER rating of the plug-in vehicle, the NREL used a “utility factor”, that essentially factors in what percentage of the time you will operate with electric energy only.

The result is that the Volt will get close to 150 mpg.

Another way to think of this is for most drivers, they will go 10,000 miles per year all electric. The remaining 5,000 miles will be with the ICE at 50 mpg, so that equates to 100 gallons. So 15,000 miles over 100 gallons is 150 mpg.

(Quote)
Mighty Toyota Says:
June 14th, 2009 at 6:29 pm

48 MPG – R U Kidding Me ?

The current Prius gets better than the future Volt.

Wow. GM needs to go back to starter school.

That mileage is definately a non-starter.

(Quote)
Dan Petit Says:
June 14th, 2009 at 6:35 pm

Here’s more interesting information about Wind energy.
When Texas joined the Union, the provisions for doing that kept the State of Texas territorial waters out into the Gulf of Mexico at 10.38 miles.

For all other States, I believe it is only 3 miles.

With all the complaining at Martha’s Vinyard (which oceanic winds could power all of New England), they complained that they would “loose the View”.

But here in Texas, Wind Generation is right now, going right out into the Gulf of Mexico beyond 10 miles. No one can complain about not having the horizon flat. (I think the Wind turbines would look cool myself).

Yes, as more of us Texans are voting with our selection of “green renewable Wind energy”, those monies are going DIRECTLY into those infrastructures IMMEDIATELY.

There is a very long waiting list of Wind Energy Investors (God bless them all including Mr. Pickens), waiting for all the transmission lines to be properly constructed and tied in to the grid.

The exciting other thing that makes far, far more Wind Energy practicable, is that if more residences had that

*************************
Smart Thermostat,
*************************

then the customer demand factors could be extremely-efficiently

************
rotated
***********
so that everyone’s residential air conditioning system (the biggest limiting factor for Wind energy), could actually be minimally-synchronized so that not all compressors would be refrigerating all at once. (I have had one for 4 years now, and you never ever feel that there is this cycling going on!!)

Completely Contrary to what

#32 Stas said,

Pure Wind energy will not raise your electric bill by $200.
The most it would raise your electric bill for a properly weatherized 1500 square foot home like mine (done for free by Austin Energy),
is about $8.00 more per month for how efficiently I use power.
This is because I spent about 80 bucks to replace every bulb in my house with compact florescent bulbs. (They last 7 years!).

As far as choosing pure Wind Energy to power your Voltec Vehicle instead of so-called “cheap coal”,

It will only cost you one more penny per mile to use 100 percent Wind energy than to use the standard power mix.

Austin Energy officials promise that this higher Wind Energy cost of a penny extra per mile for selecting Wind energy
************************
“Will come down”.
************************
[to a fraction of a penny per mile], “as more Wind energy comes online.”
As this relentless drive for Wind Energy continues to build, I am told by the same source that
“There may come a perverse situation where the coal fired power plants may have to pay money into the system for the privilege of staying connected to the grid overnight, when Wind Energy is at it’s peak”.

It is likely that your own electricity provider is beginning to do these very same things as is Austin Energy.

Austin Energy has once again, just won the Green Energy Utility award of the year, out of a field of 850 utility companies who are also beginning to ride the “green wave” with green energy for their customers. (I am very honored to be able to personally-know who the very best Sustainable Energy Electrical Engineers in the country are.),

This, in combination with the breathtaking advancements of Voltec, there is a very strong likelihood that we can pull back from making the planet into a toaster.

If only there were additional ways for you to know to the extent that I do, regarding what tremendously good things that are coming for us all with Voltec vehicles and Wind energy.

Dan Petit.

(Quote)
JEC Says:
June 14th, 2009 at 6:51 pm

I have no idea what the point of this post is, and not sure what the data that is presented, is actually supposed to convey?

Lots of guesstimates and assumptions, but you know what they say about assumptions (well, lets just say they are the mother of all F&$@ups).

If the Volt is so close to having real IV’s on the road, they definitely know what the numbers are going to be, so lets see the REAL stuff, not lots of interpolated gooble-dee-gook!

(Quote)
JEC Says:
June 14th, 2009 at 7:09 pm

53 kdwag
“Based on the #’s above, that Argonne is using for their calculations, what would they come up with for a MPG on a pure BEV car?”
======================================================
BEV mpg = 1/0. Be careful plugging this equation into your calculator, as it may malfunction and blink furiously at you!

(Quote)
BobS Says:
June 14th, 2009 at 7:09 pm

#33 Dan – What you may not be seeing is that a market is always made up of buyers and sellers. So there is typically a balance of “speculators” on both sides; some that expect the price to go up and some that expect the price to go down. As has been pointed out in a previous post traders make money in either direction and most traders are day traders buying and selling several times in the same day and don’t care which direction the price moves as long as it moves they can make money up or down. So the price tends to rise, or fall, when the balance shifts. If it weren’t for these traders the markets would not have liquidity and the price swings would be, in my opinion, much worse.

(Quote)
JEC Says:
June 14th, 2009 at 7:11 pm

58 Mighty Toyota

Please consult the web sites “Commonly asked questions” section for answers to your question.

(Quote)
JEC Says:
June 14th, 2009 at 7:19 pm

19 CorvetteGuy
”

You guys are much better at math than me-

Based on the above stated figures, how many years of production will it take before we see Middle East Oil Sheiks having to drink their stinking oil because the US has cut imports by 90% ?

(insert Jeapardy theme music here)”
===================================================
bum…bum..bum..dum..dum.

Similiar equation used to calculate BEV mpg 1/0. Unfortunately, oil is used for MUCH more than just automotive transportation. Along with the fact that it will take decades to really even get enough electrics on the road and replace current and future ICE machines. Oil is smeared all over your home, just try to find something that either has direct oil content or required oil to fuel its production, and I think you would be hard pressed to find more than a couple.

BUT, by reducing our oil dependency, we should eventually be at less risk of living by OPEC’s will.

JMHO of course.

(Quote)
JEC Says:
June 14th, 2009 at 7:22 pm

62 BobS

I agree. So, if someone thinks that future traders are screwing us, then just open up an account with Ameritrade or et al, and start buying and selling oil futures, so you can be the screwer, instead of the screwed!

Make money the old fashion way, like Smith-Barney, and EARN IT (our, better yet, take from the suckers and give to yourself)

Oh, it sounds so easy, I think even a caveman could do it

(Quote)
DonC Says:
June 14th, 2009 at 7:24 pm

I’d wonder if Lyle’s sticker represents real numbers. If it does then the Volt would use 400 wh/mile and have a 20 mile range during a Hwy cycle. Ouch! (Seems unlikely).

While you can pick at the study the numbers and results are wholly consistent with all the other studies we’ve seen published. So it seems more than likely that it’s in the ballpark.

The point not many have mentioned, but which seems to be the main point of the study, is the diminishing value of adding more battery. For example, the 8 kWh used by the Volt gives less bang for the buck than a 4 kWh used in a Prius.

Leaving aside the fact that the real issue ultimately is the car itself — as some have mentioned very few people buy a car strictly on a dollar and cents basis — this is one of those issues where the averages obscure the better answer. While on average the daily commute may be 30 miles, the fact is that some people drive more and some drive less. To maximize payback you want to match the battery size to the commute, with longer commutes having a larger battery and shorter commutes a smaller battery. Put another way, depending on the length of your drive you may be better off with a Prius or a Volt. (This is of course the point made in the SeekingAlpha article that has been cited from time to time — to pay for the battery you need to fully utilize it).

A related point would be that, contrary to what some have suggested, you can’t make a Volt into a Prius by giving it a smaller battery, just as you can’t take a Prius and make it into a Volt by giving it a larger battery. The designs make one more appropriate for a larger battery and longer commutes and one for smaller and shorter. In particular, this is why john1710a’s suggestion that GM make a Volt with a battery pack half its current size isn’t a good one.

#34 statik says “Sample location…as far as I can tell all AER calculations have been in a temperate location, under ideal conditions (no a/c. heat, optimal driving). How does the AER calulate for say, the 20 million people in New York in January with the heat blasting? or in the rest of the US?”

Excellent point. Add gusting winds and high speed driving and the calculation of wh/mile will show why BEVs won’t take NA by storm anytime in the foreseeable future.

(Quote)
terryk Says:
June 14th, 2009 at 7:50 pm

32 – I understand the need for a change in calculations but you can’t charge the car a billion times, never put gas in and say it has infinite gas mileage. By that logic it also has infinite plutonium mileage. Of course it doesn’t use plutonium……

They need to says you get 40 miles on a charge and then X miles per gallon of gas. Every time that engines starts so does the MPG calculation. When the engine is off, the calculation for MPG stops too. No mixing.

PS, isn’t there a theoretical limit to the number of cookies a site can set? This place is unbelievable.

(Quote)
omegaman66 Says:
June 14th, 2009 at 7:52 pm

As always over half the people posting here are wrong.

You can’t compare that to that…
Those numbers are meaningless…
etc etc.

WRONG!!! you can compare X to Y and they just did.
WRONG!!! you can get useful information from 100 drivers in Kansas. And on and on.

NO it isn’t perfect. NO it doesn’t apply to everyone equally! But that was YOUR WRONG assumption that the data was suppose to be perfect.

(Quote)
statik Says:
June 14th, 2009 at 8:11 pm

#49 kdawg said:

I’ll try & get outside. I’m busy packing for Russia, fly out to Moscow on Tuesday. Maybe I’ll encounter one of these 2 extreme cars or something in between.

http://englishrussia.com/?p=926
or
http://inventorspot.com/articles/russian_electricpowered_sportscar_meet_marussia_21855
——————————-
/back from the BBQ…it ended up raining, lol

Have ‘fun’ in Moscow, while your there you should also keep your eye open for one of their many cold fusion machines as well…they are generally being made by good looking North American scientist ladies…so pretty easy to spot:

http://www.hbosouthasia.com/images/posters/378×195/the_saint.jpg
=====================
=====================

#53 kdawg said: “Based on the #’s above, that Argonne is using for their calculations, what would they come up with for a MPG on a pure BEV car?”
—
Funny, I actually thought about mentioning something like that myself…but I feared another pure BEV/EREV…iMiev debacle. (=

(Quote)
JEC Says:
June 14th, 2009 at 8:14 pm

68 omegaman66

“As always over half the people posting here are wrong.”
————————————————————————————-

So, with the glass being half full, then what your saying is that, 1/2 the people are RIGHT!

Have a spiffy day!

(Quote)
LauraM Says:
June 14th, 2009 at 8:19 pm

#62 BobS

Speculators typically do not balance each other out. It’s possible, but it’s rare. Usually some professional investors observe certain trends. Others follow. And eventually John Q public realizes what’s going on, and massive amounts of money flood into whatever the hot commodity is. (In this case, oil.) That’s how bubbles are formed. Then, at some point you run out of new people to buy whatever the commodity is, and the bubble bursts and the price collapses. (Usually overshooting in the other direction.)

The trends themselves generally have some grain of truth. Whether it’s that railroads/computers/the internet are the wave of the future, or that oil is a limited commodity, and demand from developing countries added to our own will create a shortage.

The problem is that so much money goes into that area that the truth–whatever it is–gets blown out of proportion in terms of immediate market value. Yes. Due to population growth and inflation, the land your house is on will almost certainly be worth more 30 years from now than it is today. But that doesn’t mean it will be worth substantially more 2 years from now.

So, yes, the increase in oil prices were originally based on real macroeconomic trends. But all those investors buying oil futures exacerbated the issue, and made oil that much more expensive. And it made the price rise much steeper than it otherwise would have been.

But IMHO, in this particular case, I think that the speculators did the world a favor. While a gradual increase would have been much less destructive economically, I don’t think we have that kind of time with oil. Oil was too low for too long. I’m just hoping that the inevitable overshooting in the other direction won’t destroy all the progress we made in terms of solar, wind, fuel efficiency, etc.

(Quote)
JEC Says:
June 14th, 2009 at 8:25 pm

Ok, so someone who seems to understand this article, please explain what is being said. For instance the quote:

““The larger the battery, the more fuel saved, however, what we also noticed was that the delta for consumption is not linear,” said lead investigator Aymeric Rousseau. “The fuel we save by going from 4 to 8 kWh is much greater than the fuel saved going from 12 to 16.””

So is that 4-8 kWh for a series or spilt? Or does it not matter?
Just look at the bloody math, and it makes no sense!

They say:
1. Split 4 kWh: 71.9 mpg US
2. Split 8 kWh: 101.4 mpg US
3. Series 12 kWh: 156.8 mpg US
4. Series 16 kWh: 191.2 mpg US

So, 101.4 – 71.9 = 29.5 mpg, and 191.2 – 156.8 = 34.4, which totally DISAGREES with what they just stated! Of course, unless they are comparing different types (or are they saying as percent increase? Or, something else?), but of course they do not tell you the details, so therefore the data, in engineering terms is WORTHLESS.

JMHO, and also I think Euclid would agree with me today.

(Quote)
PLJ Says:
June 14th, 2009 at 8:26 pm

Dan Petit says:
June 14th, 2009 at 8:19 am
This is just half of the tremendous news. The other half, not included in the Argonne study, is the near elimination of scheduled maintenance, especially as the vehicle gets older, and yet remains under warranty as well.
These studies, while they take time, confirm absolutely that GM has gotten it right, and are on exactly the right pathway for at least a dozen highly world-changing breakthroughs for the consumer and the planet.
It is increasingly likely that the independent auto repair facility, will be compelled to either adapt toward the intellectual-competitive edge of a wise dedication to advanced technical training, or, be increasingly insolvent as less and less ICE work becomes available to them.
With these fuel efficiency numbers, it is less and less an argument regarding fuel efficiencies as much as it is an immediate social abandonment of fossil fuels altogether. For this social imperative, while under-rated and even slandered by fossil fuel investors and greedy speculators, nonetheless, this, our day, is coming, and, it is coming very soon.
Fossil fuel investors have made fortunes extracted from everyone for a hundred years. They are, of course, at it again without any restraint. There may be a social drive in the near future to publicly disclose who they are, so that they and their other interests may be avoided.
In addition, the public’s outcry for financial relief from the financially-corrupted methods by which fossil fuels are extracted and sold, will be properly answered by EREV, and, specifically,
General Motors.
Therefore, far more assistance to General Motors is called-for in the interest of society. Assistance to General Motors ought to be given in any way that the individual can, as a customer, as a governmental official, and yes, even you competitors, as GM has openly shared their incredible process to you as well.
It is Father’s Day.
Take GM “under your wing” everyone, they deserve it.
Happy Father’s Day.
———————————————–

This is one of the best posts I have ever seen on this site. I felt compelled to repeat it here.

I feel the same way, Dan. For my part I (and my wife) drive GM cars, and we just helped our daughter by her first car, a new Chevy Cobalt.

The Chevy Volt is a watershed vehicle. A game changer on the order of commercial airlines going from propeller to jet engines.

(Quote)
JEC Says:
June 14th, 2009 at 8:39 pm

71 LauraM

You appear to be much more fluent in economics and markets then myself.

But, from a layman’s point of view, speculators will do what speculators do, and that is attempt to maximize profit, by buying and selling based on their crystal ball of the commodity. Everyone one of us is a speculator to some extent, and we are all attempting to get the most out of life that we can.

So, now I suppose people will demand that speculators in any “high profile” commodity, be limited in their speculation, and likely the US govt will penalize them if they speculate to well, and they shall be taxed back to reality.

It’s the American way.

(Quote)
Newman Says:
June 14th, 2009 at 9:25 pm

#16 Brian,
I have the very same concerns.

The main graphic clearly infers that the Volt, with 8kwh available from its battery pack will get only
24miles City or
20 miles Hwy.

What’s with this; what am I missing?
Shouldn’t it be 40 miles capacity with 8kwh or
6.2m/kwh City or 5miles/kwh Hwy ?

(Quote)
terryk Says:
June 14th, 2009 at 9:35 pm

68 – But we said you can’t.

(Quote)
LauraM Says:
June 14th, 2009 at 9:51 pm

#74 JEC

I agree.

(Quote)
Mark Bartosik Says:
June 14th, 2009 at 10:24 pm

Something else that moves the notional mpg numbers higher for the Volt, is that people who buy it are more likely to fit within the 40 mile commute profile than the general population.

I hope that GM will obtain statistics of real customer numbers either via On Star or downloads done at service intervals. This will help back up claims with real world figures, as there will likely be vocal detractors, it’s not like there hasn’t been so far.

(Quote)
koz Says:
June 14th, 2009 at 10:44 pm

JEC #102

You are correct, the data is pretty useless on an individual basis unless you happen to drive the average of what those 100 Kasas drivers did for that one day. On a fleetwide basis, it has more value. Yes, they mean on a percentage basis for the diminishing returns. The numbers that inidividual’s should be concerned about if they are trying to do their own cost analysis, will be the EPA rated AER city/hwy and EPA rated city/hwy mpg for range extended mode. There is no meaningful single “real world” scenario. Driving patterns vary much too much for this. DonC is exactly right in that the most cost effective electric solution matches the battery size to the driver’s typical daily driving distance.

One thing the study implies, inaccurately IMO, is that the additional battery capacity adds less and less benefit. While they are accuate that the percentage delta diminishes, they should have also noted the overall vehicle cost delta for the additional battery capacity also diminishes. In other words the first 4KWh of battery capacity costs a lot more on an overall vehicle cost percentage basis than the 4KWh going from 12KWh to 16KWh. For example, if the Volt’s battery pack contributes $10K to an MSRP of $40K (ouch, it pains me to use this figure instead of $37,499), the 4KWh going from 12 to 16 cost delta is %6.25. Let’s say they made a 4KWh version, which costs $32,500 total and $2500 for the battery. In this case the 4KWh delta is %7.69 (in reality it would be more because of the fixed costs to the battery pack regardless of capacity).

For those wanting to do “real” cost analysis you can’t avoid making some assumptions. It will be great to finally get the actual rated data, but that won’t include life gas, electricity, and repair cost. It also won’t include residual values and replacement battery costs. You can’t bury your head in the sand and avoid making assumptions by using the current gas or electric prices or battery pack prices. Doing so WILL be making the assumption that those prices won’t change. That will guarantee that your analysis is wrong. Making assumptions is unavoidable, so you may as well make the best ones that historical data and you intuition can arrive at.

(Quote)
Luke Says:
June 14th, 2009 at 10:49 pm

Mighty Toyota @ 58,

The current Prius gets better than the future Volt.

The Prius gets its fuel exclusively from gasoline. Pick your poison. *cough* *cough*

I just wish the Volt actually existed, so that I could actually win an argument using this line of reasoning… LJGTVWOTR!

(Quote)
kdawg Says:
June 14th, 2009 at 11:18 pm

Just got back from Terminator Salvation.
I have seen the future and it is not EREV.
Its motorcycles powered by nuclear cells!
And just think, they are coming out in 2018!

(Quote)
kdawg Says:
June 14th, 2009 at 11:20 pm

@72 JEC

I believe they are saying percentage increase diminishes with a bigger battery.

(Quote)
john1701a Says:
June 14th, 2009 at 11:24 pm

Lack of real-world data is really going to harm Volt.

Lack of intent from GM is making a mess out of things on the big GM forum. Some see Volt as the next standard, others see it as a low-volume CAFE offset with Two-Mode being the main product for competing.

No clear message from those here isn’t good. Data could really help matters… especially since the 2010 Prius owners are starting to report their experiences. For me, it was my first highway trip today. 55 MPG from 100 miles mostly at 65 MPH with the A/C running on medium is quite unexpected by many. I’m delighted. It paves a way for abandoning tradition design in favor of hybrids.

(Quote)
kdawg Says:
June 14th, 2009 at 11:32 pm

OK, i’ll take a crack at the MPG for the AER of the Volt.

8KWh will provide 40 miles
8KWh = 28.8 million Joules
1gallon of gasoline = 106 million Joules

28.8/106 = 0.27gallons of fuel

40/0.27 = 148mpg

That’s a wierd coincidence

(Quote)
kdawg Says:
June 14th, 2009 at 11:55 pm

84 (me)
I had the wrong value for gasoline

1gallon of gasoline = 132 million Joules

28.8/132 = 0.22gallons of fuel

40/0.22 = 182mpg

(Quote)
Tom Harwick Says:
June 15th, 2009 at 12:24 am

I very much prefer the separate Miles/kWHr and Miles/Gallon rating system Lyle shows at the top of the post. Any “average combined MPG” is meaningless if your driving pattern is different from the assumptions.

To make Lyle’s “Milage” sticker even better: opposite of “PHEV-40″ should be “PHEV+Gas=400 to directly show the vehicle has a total non-stop range of, say, 400 miles. This would allay any “range anxiety”.
————————————————————————————-
The sticker shown at the beginning of this thread, would if adopted, be the death certificate for the Volt. While the details shown would enable the mathematically incline to experience the pleasure of doing calculations based on their own driving pattern (which they collected themselves across the course of a year), it would be used by the majority of the public, as is.

The consumer cannot be expected to duplicate the calculations done by Argonne, but applied to their own driving data, and arrive at a data-driven decision to buy a Volt. They will simply use the date on the sticker as given:

Volt 48 MPG PHEV-40 $38,000
Prius 50 MPG $25,000

The average consumer understands 48 vs 50 MPG, and also understands $38k vs $25k. Both come out in favor of the Prius. There is the enigmatic symbol PHEV-40, but since most people do not know what it means, they will simply ignore it and buy the Prius. If they ask the salesman what PHEV-40, they will get an explanation which most people (e.g. Letterman) cannot understand, and conclude the car only goes 40 miles.

In either case, Prius wins.

Unless the sticker says

157 MPG $38,000.

In this case some people will buy the Volt.

(Quote)
LauraM Says:
June 15th, 2009 at 12:24 am

#83 john1701a

The two positions are not mutually exclusive. I think that the Volt will start out as a low volume cafe offset, and then evolve into the next standard.

In other words, I believe that, at some point, Voltec will render regular hybrids obsolete. I don’t know when it will happen. But I think it’s practically inevitable. However, I also think that for GM to last that long, they will probably need better hybrids in the interim.

(Quote)
NZDavid Says:
June 15th, 2009 at 12:25 am

Jec @ 72:
So is that 4-8 kWh for a series or spilt? Or does it not matter?
Just look at the bloody math, and it makes no sense!

They say:
1. Split 4 kWh: 71.9 mpg US
2. Split 8 kWh: 101.4 mpg US
3. Series 12 kWh: 156.8 mpg US
4. Series 16 kWh: 191.2 mpg US

So, 101.4 – 71.9 = 29.5 mpg, and 191.2 – 156.8 = 34.4, which totally DISAGREES with what they just stated! Of course, unless they are comparing different types (or are they saying as percent increase? Or, something else?), but of course they do not tell you the details, so therefore the data, in engineering terms is WORTHLESS.

JMHO, and also I think Euclid would agree with me today.
________________________________________________

They meant as a percentage increase: The article could have been worded slightly better.

101.4 / 71.9 = 41.10% difference
191.2 / 156.8 = 21.94% difference

(Quote)
Van Says:
June 15th, 2009 at 12:52 am

Lets say an average vehicle gets 23 MPG overall. According to GM marketing claims, the Volt can go 40 miles on 8 kWh, or 5 miles per kWh. So to go 23 miles, the Volt in EV mode, would use 4.6 kWh. Now the rate people pay varies, and in the near future once time of day metering is installed, the nighttime rate should be less than we are paying now, so lets just use 15 cents per kWh, with the acknowledgment that your rate will vary. At 15 cents, then for 70 cents you can go as far as you can go on 1 gallon of gas. And if we assume a gas price of 2.80 per gallon you get 92 miles per equivant gallon on a cost basis. Next say we go 60 miles, 40 in EV mode and 20 in charge sustaining mode. So we burn .43 equivant gallons and .4 real gallons. So we go 60 miles on .83 gallons for a MPG of 73. Folks, you can do anything with numbers, the study is meaningless.

(Quote)
NZDavid Says:
June 15th, 2009 at 12:54 am

kdawg @ 84 & 85: Great stuff which shows why fuel is used, cause it’s so energy dense.

IE: It would take a battery of 36.7 kWh to equal the amount of energy in a gallon of fuel. Using Statiks average of 11.23 cents/kWh = $4.12 per gallon equivalent! Thank goodness EV’s win hands down on the efficiency stakes over ICE.

Incidentally assuming a Tesla used 80% of its battery it would get 198mpg equivalent. At 70% it would get 224mpg. Not bad for a car that’s designed to do 0 – 60 in 3.9 seconds!

/I would work out the iMiEV but I need to fill up and don’t want to start crying.

(Quote)
NZDavid Says:
June 15th, 2009 at 1:02 am

Following my train of thought the sticker could say: 157 mpg in EV mode
50 mpg thereafter.

Now we are comparing apples with apples and it’s nice and simple.

/Done next subject!
LJGTVWOTR
NO plug, NO sale.

(Quote)
Van Says:
June 15th, 2009 at 2:35 am

Or the sticker could say 4 Miles per kWh in EV mode, 40 MPG thereafter for a combined MPG of any number you want to calculate, depending of drive cycle distance, speed, grades, traffic, use of auxiliaries such as AC, lights, sound and so forth.

(Quote)
omegaman66 Says:
June 15th, 2009 at 3:20 am

LauraM: I disagree with the argument that higher oil prices will help with conversion over to solar and wind etc. What we need is moderate oil prices. The reasoning behind the is that if you look at the world right now you will see that economically poor countries are the ones that are destroying there lands and waters the worst.

It takes money to set aside land for wildlife, it takes money to research for alternatives. Right now it takes more money to run your house on solar than just buying electricity from the grid. How many poor people do you know have solar panels. Now how many rich people do you know that have solar panels???

High oil prices that stay high will wreck an already wrecked economy. The economy runs off of energy. Higher energy prices mean everyone pays more for everything. Higher cost mean s lower standard of living. Lower standard of living mean less attention by the public towards the enviroment.

ex: Jobs will then win out over the enviroment when it comes to projects like open loop liquified natural gas facilities offshore (gulf of mexico, Atlantic Ocean) instead of closed loop systems.

(Quote)
Dave K. Says:
June 15th, 2009 at 4:54 am

An efficient hybrid vehicle requires both low overall weight and also a light right foot on the gas pedal.

A heavy weight hybrid vehicle is stuck at 30 mpg. A light weight hybrid vehicle driven under normal acceleration conditions may get 45 mpg.

Both burn too much gasoline.

=D~

(Quote)
BillR Says:
June 15th, 2009 at 5:48 am

#87 LauraM,

Here is what the NREL has to say regarding plug-in hybrids, (PHEV):

“Finally, PHEVs are very marketable in that they combine the beneficial attributes of HEVs and pure battery electric vehicles (BEVs) while simultaneously alleviating the disadvantages of each. As a result, PHEVs have the potential to come to market, penetrate the fleet, and achieve meaningful petroleum displacement relatively quickly. Few competing technologies offer this potential combined rate and timing of reduction in fleet petroleum consumption.”

http://www.nrel.gov/vehiclesandfuels/vsa/pdfs/40377.pdf

So you are not alone when you state:

“In other words, I believe that, at some point, Voltec will render regular hybrids obsolete.”

(Quote)
Flaninacupboard Says:
June 15th, 2009 at 6:08 am

I am bored with seeing people saying the Volt won’t save money. America is not the only country in the world. In the UK petrol is currently 100p a litre, and a few months ago was 130p a litre in places. there’s 3.78 litres in one american gallon, and (currently) 61.15p in an american dollar. so at the moment my petrol costs $6.19 a gallon. At 130p a litre it was $8.05 a gallon. The Volt (Ampera) is going to save me a MASSIVE amount of money. With my 38mpg vectra and 100p/L petrol i spend £1,973.96 a year, with the ampera i will spend £349.14 on petrol. At 130p the vectra will be £2,566.16 a year and the Ampera £453.88. at that rate the car will have PAID FOR ITSELF (never mind recouped the price premium over the vectra) in less than ten years! (presuming i can charge at work, which is likely). For me it is a “no brainer”, as it will be for millions of europeans…

(Quote)
RB Says:
June 15th, 2009 at 6:18 am

#71 LauraM said
Due to population growth and inflation, the land your house is on will almost certainly be worth more 30 years from now than it is today
—————————————————-

Or maybe it will be about the same population, according to the UN population forecast for “more developed countries” during that time, medium variant. The low variant, often considered a better forecast, shows a population decline for the more developed countries. The UN forecast does show a small increase in US population (10-20%) over that period.

Of course, one’s particular neighborhood or city can vary a lot from the aggregate.

(Quote)
CS Guy Says:
June 15th, 2009 at 7:46 am

30 Mike D, http://gm-volt.com/2008/10/03/along-with-wall-street-bailout-plug-in-car-tax-credit-is-passed-chevy-volt-now-7500-less/ (post #10)
… PS, how do you reference a particular post in a link??…
/good info and sound reasoning. A 10 year old Volt will certainly have a higher residual or trade-in value compared to a 10 year old Malibu or Focus/Hyundai/whatever non-hybrid vehicle.

This would be my ad in the local paper (assuming there is one still being printed): 10 year old Chevy Volt, driven 120,000 miles on electricity, 952 miles on gasoline engine. $8,500

You sell your Volt and it’s still getting 20-25 miles AER and could have a next-to-new gas engine genset.
————————————–
Next topic:
I am scratching my head at the vitriol coming from some posters about the MPG rating and its inherent assumptions.

If you don’t like the numbers then calculate your own. Go to the link Lyle provided and use the equations to calculate your own personal MPG number. I have a feeling that most of you just want to grouse and it wouldn’t matter if Lyle had said 80 MPG or 254 MPG (just making those up myself).

The term YMMV – Your Mileage May Vary goes for the Volt, just like it does for the car you drive today. I’ve never owned a vehicle that actually gets the mileage it said on the sticker.

It is going to depend on how far you drive and HOW you drive (leadfoot versus slow starts and stops, etc).

(Quote)
Lwesson Says:
June 15th, 2009 at 8:11 am

LauraM #71 and Dan Petit Yes, the meteoric jump in the price of oil due to speculation and NOT competition has seeded in the minds of many that enough is enough on shoveling hard earned money into their gas tanks. It is like a health scare. Once you are jolted to pay attention to a personal health issue there is a greater chance that you will be more mindful about what you do. Thank you speculators for tormenting our energy prices.

The strange fuel economy numbers given on this thread are just that.

The boys, Zeus and Apollo, want to chase after wind mills.

Regards——-Higgins

(Quote)
statik Says:
June 15th, 2009 at 8:16 am

#96 Flaninacupboard said:

“I am bored with seeing people saying the Volt won’t save money. America is not the only country in the world. In the UK petrol is currently 100p a litre, and a few months ago was 130p a litre in places….For me it is a “no brainer”, as it will be for millions of europeans…”
==========================

Indeed, the ‘math’ on payback works a lot better in almost any place but the US…well in 107 other countries. Of course the ‘Volt’ is for North America only, so our comments are valid here when talking about the price/payback.

…now if you started a Opel Ampera website.

Price per US gallon of a few selected countries last July 2008:

United Kingdom $8.38
Germany $7.86
United States $3.45

Although cheap in some crude rich countries:

Venezuela 12 cents
Saudi Arabia 45 cents
Kuwait 90 cents
——————
At the end of the day to me, the best part of EV ownership is you have the option to ‘produce’ your own ‘fuel’ in the form of electricity and decouple yourself from the whole process.

You pay to set it up, then forget about going to the pumps, burning gas, polluting and what the price of the day is (for the most part).

(Quote)
Guy Incognito Says:
June 15th, 2009 at 8:34 am

I don’t care whether I save money on my Serial Plug-In Hybrid or not.
Don’t care how long it takes to recoup my cost either.

All I care about is driving a vehicle that helps reduce dependence on foreign oil.

(Quote)
john1701a Says:
June 15th, 2009 at 8:39 am

An efficient hybrid vehicle requires both low overall weight and also a light right foot on the gas pedal.

A light weight hybrid vehicle driven under normal acceleration conditions may get 45 mpg.
___________________________

It’s greenwashing like that which keeps me posting here. Whether intentional or not, that information is quite incorrect. A spreading it wrecks credibility.

Corolla = 2745 lbs.

Prius = 3042 lbs.

Camry = 3307 lbs.

Prius is not light weight. And even without a light foot, you’ll get well over 45 MPG. In fact, it’s common to see 55 MPG.

(Quote)
john1701a Says:
June 15th, 2009 at 8:43 am

Prius 50 MPG $25,000
_____________________

Again, it’s difficult to take Volt supporters seriously when they misrepreesent like that.

The current base price of Prius is $22,000. Coming this Fall, a entire year before Volt is availble, that base price will drop to $21,000. That $4,000 difference is a very large amount that simply cannot be overlooked.

(Quote)
Shawn Marshall Says:
June 15th, 2009 at 9:46 am

Where does Argonne get its money? Who profits?
Government Motors

(Quote)
MuddyRoverRob Says:
June 15th, 2009 at 10:22 am

It’s interesting how the Prius people are out in force on this one. The number is pretty compelling.

Of course a persons driving habits will make a difference in the overall economy of any car. If I’m taking it easy (90kph) I can cover 300km in my Subaru on 18 litres of fuel, that same trip in a hurry I’ll be faster but could use 25+ litres to do it. (I won’t say how fast that was…

Although I can see there is some confusion in calulating the operating efficiency of a car that we haven’t seen completed as yet. I think that my useage will fall very close to the example posted in the article. Of course when I make that long trip and make the fuel/potty stop at the 300km point THEN I’ll have real data. Until then we are (I am) just guessing.

The effective ‘gas’ milage will vary directly with how often your personal driving habits/responsibilites end up engaging the genset.

Once we have real (pre-production) Volts on the road then the ‘highway’ (on genset) mileage can be determined which should answer the root question once and for all.

For bragging rights however I think it will be absolutely legitimate to say “I saw 157MPG average that last tank”. The car covered x distance using “y” fuel. (That’ll tick off our Prius friends!)

(Quote)
Larry McFall Says:
June 15th, 2009 at 10:28 am

This report may not be viable in respect to VOLTEC. It is not reasonable to give a MPG reading when combining electrical motivation with the powering of an internal combustion engine.

It is feasible that a person could never use the internal combustion engine if infact, they never travelled over the capacity of electrical operations per day and that, they always kept the batteries charged. Then on the otherside of the coin, the person that used the vehicle on very long trips per day, which would require the usage of the internal combustion engine.

What I would like to hear is the statistics on the internal combustion engine installed in the Volt, to what the average fuel used over a fixed period of time of constant operation.

The VOLTEC is what I consider is the best of the idea of “Hybrid”. I like to think that Hybrid is out and Voltec is in and the idea of MPG is not so very important. I assume that GM will assure that the internal combustion engine is of the best quality and being of the technology of being an engine to simply drive the generator, would be rather steady.

Should the engine be measured in fuel consumption per hour versus per mile? You’ve got to think how VOLTEC works.

(Quote)
Storm Says:
June 15th, 2009 at 10:29 am

What kind of moron would calculate miles/gallon for an electric vehicle?

(Quote)
MuddyRoverRob Says:
June 15th, 2009 at 10:54 am

#107 Storm
It’s not necessary to get nasty.

People are just trying to find a frame of reference to calculate the relative efficency of dissimilar systems by using a known measure. In this case Miles Per Gallon.

Since the Volt has a gasoline engine in the genset it is a legitimate and as yet unanswered question. Hopefully we’ll have some data by August.

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
June 15th, 2009 at 12:35 pm

I am late to the party again. My only comment is that I am happy to see the Volt get good mileage reviews. I hope they continue and get better. It is a good first start for all of us. Now if the IV’s can actually support such mileage figures that will be really good news.

(Quote)
steel Says:
June 15th, 2009 at 2:01 pm

#96

Although the Volt can save some people money personally. When what your saving is “tax” that the government relies on, the government will just need to find a new way to shift tax costs onto you… reducing your actual savings.

From a pure economic standpoint, its better to see if the Volt “saves” money by looking at the actual price before taxes of gasoline. Since the US is a country with very low gas taxes in genernal, this is a better metric if your looking for productivity gains (economic benifit)

(Quote)
Guy Incognito Says:
June 15th, 2009 at 2:09 pm

# 107 Storm
Yes, exactly, what kind of moron would calculate miles/gallon for an electric vehicle?

But the Volt is’nt a pure battery electric vehicle, and thus because it in fact does consume a liquid fuel of some kind must therefore have a miles per gallon equivalent.

(Quote)
RVD Says:
June 15th, 2009 at 3:46 pm

#
Guy Incognito Says:
June 15th, 2009 at 8:34 am

I don’t care whether I save money on my Serial Plug-In Hybrid or not.
Don’t care how long it takes to recoup my cost either.

All I care about is driving a vehicle that helps reduce dependence on foreign oil.
———————–
That characterizes future Volt buyers rather well. Volt is a niche vehicle and it will require niche buyers. The minority of us who do not care about price and economic sense, but want to see OPEC choking with oil. Good luck with that

(Quote)
Michael C. Robinson Says:
June 15th, 2009 at 3:48 pm

The miles per gallon rating should be a range,
not a solid number. In my opinion, it shouldn’t
include the electric range of the vehicle in order
to inflate the number. Yes the life of the battery
will decrease with use and thus the AER will
decrease. If the battery lasts 7 years before
it’s overly worn out and the payback time for
the Volt is 20 years, that’s bad news.

By using hydrnol reformation, a hydrogen
fuel cell could become more practical than
a PHEV.

First off, a fuel cell car doesn’t have
to be plugged in for 8 hours at night
( not during the day for goodness sake ).

Second off, a fuel cell car has plenty of
trunk space at 13 cubic feet of space for
the Honda FCX Clarity.

Third off, a fuel cell car can go 200 to
518 miles on electricity alone from
it’s fuel cell.

Fourth, a fuel cell car’s hydrogen can
come from methane which is better
for the environment when it is reduced
to carbon dioxide.

Fifth, hydrogen can come from algae
under the right conditions which can
be grown off of the CO2 emitted by
coal plants.

The battery in the Volt either needs to
drop in price by a factor of 10 or store
7 times the electricity. I don’t see either
of those possibilities coming to fruition
any time soon, or at all. The only problem
remaining for fuel cell cars really is
handling and producing hydrogen.
The fuel cell can be built cheaply
using carbon nanotube electrodes
and mass production. Hydrnol or
something similar could be the answer
to the handling problem.

(Quote)
statik Says:
June 15th, 2009 at 6:01 pm

#113 Michael C
Robinson:

Your paragraph
justification on
some of these
threads seems to
be getting
progressively
worse over time.

You might want to
look into that.

(Quote)
MuddyRoverRob Says:
June 16th, 2009 at 9:36 am

#113 Michael C Robinson

The Teeny issue you are missing is the at minimum $100k cost of the fuel cell. But it’s easy to ignore the actual problem by pushing your preference.

Get the real built ready for the real world out the factory door cost of a fuel cell down to $2-3k and THEN you will have an argument. At that point you ”might” have an alternative to the existing range extender.

(Quote)
EVO Says:
June 16th, 2009 at 5:13 pm

The already existing convention is kWh per 100 miles from everything full/charged to everthing needing to be refilled/recharged (one vehicle range cycle). But why bother using a total at vehicle energy efficiency metric that’s been in place for decades?

Do the cycle using the current EPA drive regime and using the US-06 cycle and you’ll see some real world results that you can directly compare with any type of vehicle, regardless of drivetrain and carrier/fuel combinations using the same metric. Stick those metric results on car windows for sale. Nah, that’d be actually useful to consumers for direct at vehicle efficiency comparisons, apples to apples. Why do it that way?

(Quote)
kubel Says:
June 18th, 2009 at 6:20 pm

I have to laugh when this graphic is brought up and everyone tries to see if the numbers are legit. THEY ARE NOT! That was only my proposal for the *design* and *method* of the EREV EPA stickers, not the actual values that the Volt could get. I just threw together some numbers in my mind to show how I thought it would best be displayed to consumers- since that was the question initially- how do we convey all these numbers to a group of people that drive so differently. So any accuracy of the numbers is purely by chance. Sorry.

(Quote)
Ken Says:
June 20th, 2009 at 5:19 am

Based on the typical payback time provided above, it would be a logical for the Volt to be financed by GM for seven years. I understand that the warranty might be an issue, however isn’t GM allowing a second battery pack to be factored into the original Volt pricing?

Since most Buyers finance, the (overall) Volt price would not be as great an issue as the monthly payment, 84 month car financing period would be GM’s “Killer App”.

(Quote)
nathan= eco nut Says:
June 22nd, 2009 at 3:37 pm

so talking about the volt…. is the artical good for the volt or bad for the volt?

(Quote)

Recent GM-Volt Forum Posts

Hacked e-mails reveal global-warming fraud? November 20, 2009
This is how open minded liberals operate. "And, perhaps most reprehensibly," Delingpole writes, "a long series of communications discussing how best... […]
BigCityCat
Is the Volt Engine Direct Injected? November 20, 2009
I recently read that the Cruze's engine will be DI. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevy_Cruze#Chevrolet_Cruze Obviously the Cruze's engine will... […]
omnimoeish
First Reports of the Chevy Volt's Charge-Sustaining (Generator) Mode Operation November 20, 2009
The first two journalists' reports of what it's like to drive the Chevy Volt while in generator mode operation have been published. 1) New York... […]
admin
Florida giving $5000 rebate to convert Prius to plug-in November 20, 2009
- Probably Hymotion - $10,400 standard price - $5000 state rebate - $1000 additional federal incentives - $4,400 final cost. Hurry because their... […]
Texas
New York Times CSM story November 20, 2009
Link to the New York Times story of November 19, 2009 about a test ride of the Volt in charge sustaining... […]
srschrier
New video: Volt drive in Detroit November 19, 2009
November 19, 2009 Detroit Free Press story with video featuring a Volt drive with Andrew Farah in... […]
srschrier
New Video: Volt Corrosion Testing November 18, 2009
From GM VoltAge, the Volt's corrosion... […]
srschrier

Argonne Study Suggests Chevy Volt Would Get 157 MPG

119 Responses to “Argonne Study Suggests Chevy Volt Would Get 157 MPG”

Leave a Reply

Recent Posts

Recent GM-Volt Forum Posts