Comments on: Argonne Study Suggests Chevy Volt Would Get 157 MPG http://gm-volt.com/2009/06/14/argonne-study-suggests-chevy-volt-would-get-157-mpg/ Real-time news, information, and discussion about the Chevrolet Volt. Mon, 22 Mar 2010 01:32:01 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: nathan= eco nut http://gm-volt.com/2009/06/14/argonne-study-suggests-chevy-volt-would-get-157-mpg/#comment-120370 nathan= eco nut Mon, 22 Jun 2009 20:37:30 +0000 http://gm-volt.com/?p=1713#comment-120370 so talking about the volt.... is the artical good for the volt or bad for the volt? so talking about the volt…. is the artical good for the volt or bad for the volt?

]]> By: Ken http://gm-volt.com/2009/06/14/argonne-study-suggests-chevy-volt-would-get-157-mpg/#comment-119963 Ken Sat, 20 Jun 2009 10:19:36 +0000 http://gm-volt.com/?p=1713#comment-119963 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". 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”.

]]> By: kubel http://gm-volt.com/2009/06/14/argonne-study-suggests-chevy-volt-would-get-157-mpg/#comment-119810 kubel Thu, 18 Jun 2009 23:20:43 +0000 http://gm-volt.com/?p=1713#comment-119810 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. 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.

]]> By: EVO http://gm-volt.com/2009/06/14/argonne-study-suggests-chevy-volt-would-get-157-mpg/#comment-119455 EVO Tue, 16 Jun 2009 22:13:51 +0000 http://gm-volt.com/?p=1713#comment-119455 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? 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?

]]> By: MuddyRoverRob http://gm-volt.com/2009/06/14/argonne-study-suggests-chevy-volt-would-get-157-mpg/#comment-119336 MuddyRoverRob Tue, 16 Jun 2009 14:36:16 +0000 http://gm-volt.com/?p=1713#comment-119336 #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. #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.

]]>