When GM announced the Chevy Volt should be rated at 230 MPG in city driving, they also divulged another efficiency rating.
Pure electric cars are generally rated in terms of kwh per 100 miles to show how efficient the vehilce is at using electrical energy. Since the Volt will drive the first 40 miles without gas it is appropriate to apply that metric to those miles.
Per GM’s press release, “applying EPA’s methodology, GM expects the Volt to consume as little as 25 kilowatt hours per 100 miles in city driving.” GM noted that this methodology is new and still under development in draft form.
Since we know the Volt will be able to use a maximum of 8 kwh of energy storage, then it could be concluded the Volt’s all electric range (AER) should come out only to 32 miles in city driving [100 mi/25 kwh x 8 kwh = 32 mi]. This is lower than the omnipresent 40 miles GM has stated since the beginning.
I sought clarification from Volt executive Frank Weber.
“The Volt is achieving 40 miles in the city and highway cycle, ” he said. “Nothing has changed.”
He noted however that in the new testing methodology “EPA is assuming a daily charge and is applying some real world factors that will degrade the EV range.”
“EPA has considered varying temperature and drive style conditions in their methodology,” explains Weber defining what he means by real world factors, and distinguishing how the new test differs from the old one.
“The cycle tests are run at a single temp and would not reflect range variation due to accessory loads,” said Weber referring to the older methodology from which the 40 mile designation was originally estimated.
I contacted Andrew Simpson, who is a Senior Research Fellow in plug-in vehicle technology at Curtin University, Australia, and previously worked at Tesla Motors and completed the EPA range certification testing of the Tesla Roadster. He said the older method is called “the SAE Recommended Practice J1634 “Electric Vehicle Energy Consumption and Range Test Procedure”. However, he notes “the standard is a bit outdated and SAE have formed a committee to revise it.” It is this committee that has written the draft.
“The revised 1634 procedure is an abbreviated version of the previous and consists of a battery capacity/characterization test followed by an finite number of drive cycles to measure energy consumption and estimate range,” said Vineet Mehta also of Tesla Motors.
The original J1634 procedure was written in 1993 and technically discontinued in 2003. The revised SAE J1634 draft is expected to be completed by December 2009.
So will the Volt still get 40 miles under real world standard conditions in the city? And what will the number be on the highway? These facts as well as the Volt’s MPG in generator node remain undisclosed.
It is important realize that EV ranges will vary considerably from what the manufacturer claims just as MPG does, and depend considerably on driving aggressiveness and use of accessory loads.
The sticker shown above was for the original EV-1 showing how the car got 30 kwh/100 miles in the city and a 20% more efficient 25 kwh/100 miles on the highway.
This entry was posted on Thursday, August 13th, 2009 at 6:13 am and is filed under Efficiency. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
-1
Aug 13th, 2009 (6:26 am)statik, where are you ?
Hope you’re OK.
(Quote)
Aug 13th, 2009 (6:36 am)“It is important realize that EV ranges will vary considerably from what the manufacturer claims just as MPG does, and depend considerably on driving aggressiveness and use of accessory loads.”
Nothing has changed, just as many people will not get that 40 mile range, many will exceed it. As GM gets more confortable with the batteries they will widen the SOC window to make available more of the capacity.. Nissan is using 70% of the Leaf’s 24kwh pack but they also only have a 5 year warranty on it.
(Quote)
Aug 13th, 2009 (6:38 am)If GM has to back off the 40 miles all -electric range because of the new methodology I expect it will be a PR debacle.
They’re already catching enough heat for their 230 mpg announcement from the illiterati (in this case, 99.5 percent of the population) who don’t know enough about the car, how it works, and how the EPA testing cycle works that GM used when they came up with that figure.
(Quote)
Aug 13th, 2009 (6:42 am)It’ll be interesting to see what the actual figures are for range at the end of next year.
(Quote)
Aug 13th, 2009 (6:43 am)He noted however that in the new testing methodology “EPA is assuming a daily charge and is applying some real world factors that will degrade the EV range.”
So he’s talking about running the A/C and heater etc. IIRC we discussed these loads bacxk early 2008 and concluded the loads would take between 4 – 6 miles off the range, or 34 – 36 miles of range.
So will the Volt still get 40 miles under real world standard conditions in the city? And what will the number be on the highway?
So it would seem that 32 is the ‘real world’ number. Works for me. There is no way in hell, I’m paying 40K for a car to drive around feeling hot, or cold.
And Lyle, this poster is sure having trouble connecting lately. No GM-Volt fix before I go to work. There should be a law against it, or something.
(Quote)
Aug 13th, 2009 (6:43 am)“So will the Volt still get 40 miles under real world standard conditions in the city? And what will the number be on the highway? These facts as well as the Volt’s MPG in generator node remain undisclosed.”
–
40 miles AER slip-sliding away.
(Quote)
+1
Aug 13th, 2009 (6:45 am)I miss you too. How about dropping in just once a month to say HI?
SAAR day would be a good time. lol.
Regards
David
(Quote)
+1
Aug 13th, 2009 (6:47 am)I would like to join the Volt 60 Mile club.. you drive gently enough to get 60 miles of range before the genset kicks on. I would also like to join the 10 Mile club, thats the one where you burn up the electric range in short order.
(Quote)
+2
Aug 13th, 2009 (6:48 am)Well I still want one. By the way this is a sidetrack but Monday I take delivery of my new Vectrix electric scooter/motorcycle. I know this is not related to this site but it is electric. Very excited. Company is bankrupt but got a great deal on eBay for the bike.
(Quote)
+1
Aug 13th, 2009 (6:53 am)Is it just me, or are these people starting to sound like lawyers that twist around the definition of words to the point of doublespeak?
And I am not just talking about GM here. Nissan, Mini-Cooper, Mitsubishi, etc. all make AER claims that will be interesting to see if they will hold up under real world conditions. Lyle has already said that the rated 100 mile AER on the Mini-E is really about 70 miles.
If electrical accessories are really a big load, just publish a list of how much they will reduce the AER from a full charge. Is that so hard?
On the other hand, we can not really expect any electric vehicle to get the stated range if we pull out of an unheated garage into -10 F temperature at night with the lights and heater on and pull onto the interstate to go 70 MPH………..
The real question is: Does the SAE J1634 revised draft have anything to do with real world driving patterns, or is it just made up to maximize the AER claims of the manufacturers????
(Quote)
Aug 13th, 2009 (6:55 am)Agree that those would both be fun clubs to join.
(Quote)
+2
Aug 13th, 2009 (6:56 am)I think it’s more important for the general public, to realize that they could reduce their gasoline consumption by about 90% or more, with this type of car. It’s that simple! Energy independence should be the main part of the marketing focus.
(Quote)
+2
Aug 13th, 2009 (7:01 am)I think Statik already got this one without even being here. He caught John Lauckner offguard on a live chat, and we got a less thought out answer. Mr. Lauckner basically said GM only got up to 40 in perfect conditions.
http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/volt-birth-watch-155-the-230-mpg-alleged-game-changer/
(Quote)
+1
Aug 13th, 2009 (7:03 am)You could reduce your gas use down to zero, just dont put any gas in the tank.. The Volt will run fine.
http://green.autoblog.com/2009/08/12/chevy-volt-i-will-i-move-without-gas-in-the-tank/#comments
“Here’s how it’ll work, according to Tony Posawatz, vehicle line director of the Chevrolet Volt. To make the Volt as easy to operate as possible – i.e., so there’s no need to rush to the owner’s manual all the time – the engine will want to turn on at least every few months, just to keep things lubricated and running smooth. If you dutifully plug the Volt in each night and never go more than ~40 miles between charges then, at some point after two or three months, the car will alert you to put fuel into the tank soon. Posawatz didn’t say what would happen if you ignored that warning, but if you’re interested in performing such a feat, perhaps you should be buying a pure electric vehicle. Still, if you’re interested in making the Volt act like an EV, now you know it’ll be possible.”
(Quote)
Aug 13th, 2009 (7:10 am)I live in S. Florida where typical battery life (with ICE) is less due to the heat. An A/C must be on most of the time. How will this effect the the Volt??
(Quote)
+2
Aug 13th, 2009 (7:12 am)As someone who is very excited about buying one of these amazing machines, I still only see two important figures:
1. All electric range
2. Average MPG once the generator kicks on.
Having this information will allow us to make informed cost vs. benefit decisions about how the Volt will fit our lives — and how it compares to other options.
All this talk about triple-digit MPG smacks of silly marketing hype.
(Quote)
Aug 13th, 2009 (7:13 am)Many people are critical of the Chevy Volt’s 40 mile range on batteries, but I’m actually waiting for the cheaper, 20 mile range Volt. Here is my logic:
I like the idea of having options for the battery pack range for the Volt, especially if you can add a battery pack module to the 20 mile battery pack, if your needs change. The 20 mile pack is the best option for me. Look at the math for a Volt driven 10,000 miles per year:
24 miles R/T to work
For work
Daily, 20 miles in electric, and last 4 miles in hybrid.
Annually, 5,000 miles electric and 1,000 hybrid @ 50 mpg
Annual gas to work, 1,000/50= 20 gal/yr. At $4/gal that’s only $80 per year to get to work.
Work will be 6,000 miles and I assume 4,000 miles on the week ends/vacation or about 52 x 2, or 104 days per year. The first 20 miles will be electric so, 102x 20 =2,040 miles electric and 1,960 on gas @ 50 mpg.
1,960/50= 40 gal/yr or about $160 per year for weekend gas.
Total annual gas cost for 60 gallons would be $240 for this case with the 20 mile Volt.
(Our existing car needs about 600 gallons per year.)
The 40 mile Volt could go the year in all electric mode in this example. (This would be cool!)
Lets, assume the battery packs cost $5,000 per 20 miles of range.
Is it worth it to add $5,000 more for the 40 mile range Volt, to save $240 per year?
I think I would pick the 20 mile electric range Volt, because I’ve reduced my gas needs by 90% and I may be able to add a better, cheaper battery in the future.
(Quote)
-1
Aug 13th, 2009 (7:39 am)While there are controllable and uncontrollable things that can reduce the 40 mile electric range, the uncontrollable ones are certainly software preventable to a highly significant extent.
The controllable ones are not abusing it like an amusement park ride with aggressive accelerator practices.
The uncontrollable ones can be greatly mitigated by software enhancements that can be downloaded during “new car prep”. This is especially true where the AC is concerned, but, I reluctantly ought not say what those can be.
Don’t be quite as concerned about these things so much, and, I recommend you have that same deep trust in all the GM engineering teams like I have.
(Quote)
Aug 13th, 2009 (7:39 am)Just a quick note about the EV1 brochure… this statement:
“The sticker shown above was for the original EV-1 showing how the car got 25 kwh/100 miles in the city and a 20% less efficient 30 kwh/100 miles on the highway.”
is backwards. The 30KWH/100mi rating is for the city. Just as with gasoline cars, the only reason highway mileage is higher is because there are fewer stops and accelerations. Maintaining momentum whenever possible (avoiding stops) in town will result in higher mileage than can be obtained on the highway in both fossil fueled (mpg) and electrically powered (AER) vehicles.
(Quote)
Aug 13th, 2009 (7:41 am)Let me know what you think. I looked at those last summer. didnt know the company was ‘rupt.
(Quote)
Aug 13th, 2009 (7:43 am)Mr. Weber says basically the same thing here. It’s just between the lines.
(Quote)
Aug 13th, 2009 (7:45 am)Can you plug in at work?
(Quote)
Aug 13th, 2009 (7:47 am)You get a lower AER w/the AC on compared to when its off. You will also get get lower MPG in RE-mode. Note you get lower MPG in your current car w/the AC on.
(Quote)
Aug 13th, 2009 (7:47 am)apparently the marketing worked (60,000 hits on Lyle’s site)
(Quote)
Aug 13th, 2009 (7:50 am)It was intimated somewhere, sorry no link at the ready, that the 25KWh was from the outlet. If this is so then range the EPA rated range will be more like 35 miles. This is due to the charging losses (charger, internal wiring, and battery).
Does anyone know the answer to this or perhaps Lyle can seek a clarification.
(Quote)
Aug 13th, 2009 (7:52 am)man however u drive it will achieve 40 miles because the energy stored will drive it 40 miles anyway. you go slow less power is consumed and faster u go more energy is consumed based on how much u acelerate. there will be no heat loss like in ICE. using the A/c will reduce the miles travelled but overall driving conditions do not affect fuel efficiency.
(Quote)
+2
Aug 13th, 2009 (7:54 am)My desire to have a Volt is lessening… and here is why. I can deal with timelines that slip, designs that have to be toned down for the mass market, and even performance goals that have to be scaled back due to cost and technical reasons, but it annoys me when I’m fed a load of BS. And I’m starting to feel that way with the 230 MPG and 40 miles per charge (MPC) claims.
I don’t doubt that some people will get 230 MPG; in fact, some may get more–it all depends on how you count the MPG. The BS lies in the fact that the number doesn’t seem to be measuring what’s important, instead it’s a number concocted for marketing purposes. As Herkimer said, give me:
1. All electric range
2. Average MPG once the generator kicks on
That’s what is important.
Regaring the 40 MPC claim… if that’s only possible when all the accessories are off and the driving conditions are optimal, then for all intents and purposes, the Volt doesn’t get 40 MPC. BTW, My Lincoln Town Car has acheived over 100 MPG before; of course, that was on a 5-mile down hill slope.
Beyond the BS, I’m also annoyed that in all likelihood I will be getting more like 32 MPC or less instead of 40 MPC. That means more gas used and no chance of recouping the extra cost of the Volt through the use of cheaper electricity (although, that equation was really never going to work).
(Quote)
Aug 13th, 2009 (7:54 am)This is off topic, but since we are talking about accesories lowering the AER, will I be able to change my radio head unit in my Volt? Is it some type if hi-efficiency proprietary design, so i can’t go to Best Buy and put in an Alpine/Pioneer/etc. system? What about ppl that do much more customization to their systems (even adding lead-acid batteries)?
(Quote)
Aug 13th, 2009 (7:55 am)http://www.detnews.com/article/20090813/OPINION03/908130355/1148/rss25
Interesting commentary about GM corp culture
(Quote)
+1
Aug 13th, 2009 (7:57 am)It looks like GM is on trial from all this publicity. GM should learn to shut it mouth and go on with it’s research using more secrecy, like Toyota does. I know GM has the expertise to come out with great products, but they sure want the world to know what’s cooking way in advance. At this point, I don’t care what the mileage will be. All I know is GM will do it’s best and whatever will be, will be.
(Quote)
+1
Aug 13th, 2009 (7:59 am)Driving condition definitely still do. Some not as much, such as acceleration as you mention but temperature affects AER more. Basically you don’t have to baby the accellerator to extend mileage but you do have to baby the brakes. Heavy braking will be a range killer. Weight will also have a bigger hit and so will all equivalent parasitic loads. There is less ineficiency to draw from.
(Quote)
Aug 13th, 2009 (8:04 am)Another aspect of the methodology to keep in mind is that the new standard includes a passenger and other normalized factors (lights, A/C). But if we are talking about commuting, most do it alone. This would push the lonely daytime commuters AER back up a little. Those commuting alone in the daytime in the 60-80 temps could back to the 40 AER with a moderate foot. This will certainly not cover the vast majority of drivers, but it is not limited to an idealized few either.
(Quote)
Aug 13th, 2009 (8:08 am)Your range will be affected more by your agressiveness and driving speed than by AC usage. The electric AC will be nice in S. Florida.. the car will be cool before you get in it.
(Quote)
Aug 13th, 2009 (8:10 am)NZDavid,
LOL that would be fitting. He HAS to be missing these latest opportunities to be the Yin to my Yang.
Be well,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The Volts’ Wheels On The Road!!**********NPNS
(Quote)
Aug 13th, 2009 (8:11 am)Mitch — thanks for the thought provoking link.
(Quote)
-1
Aug 13th, 2009 (8:12 am)actually the triple digit MPG is the important number.. that will be the average gas usage week after week while you do your daily commuting.. the long distance MPG will only come into play once in a while, if you are an average driver.
(Quote)
Aug 13th, 2009 (8:14 am)FMEIII
Does that make us the Illuminati? (G) I know what you mean though. With the increased traffic it’s shown how we’ve become a little “inbred” and comfortable with the other knowledgeable folks here.
Be well,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The Volts’ Wheels On The Road!!**********NPNS
(Quote)
Aug 13th, 2009 (8:14 am)I think GM is working with Bose for their sound system.
(Quote)
Aug 13th, 2009 (8:15 am)power required to pass through the wind is not linear with velocity. Force = CD * A * 1/2 * rho * V^2
Work (ie: energy) = Force * distance
Speaking only of the work required to overcome air resistance…
To go the same distance at 4 times the speed takes 16 times the energy.
Work to move the air becomes a big deal at speeds over 55 miles per hour.
Driving speed affects range.
shooting from the knees…, driving at 100 mph could result in ranges of 10-15 miles total for electric.
(Quote)
Aug 13th, 2009 (8:17 am)RB,
Naw, it’s just a YMMV and temp conditions rolled in. Around here spring and fall will be ideal seasons (temperate) and I have a feather foot anyway.
Be well,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The Volts’ Wheels On The Road!!**********NPNS
(Quote)
Aug 13th, 2009 (8:18 am)Greg Ciesel (of GM) says it will be possible to get more than 40miles AER, ofcourse in the right conditions. If 40 is perfect, what’s better than perfect? All downhill w/a tailwind?
(Quote)
+1
Aug 13th, 2009 (8:20 am)Dave, you are not ready for a BEV yet.. after a few years all these new things will become common knowledge and you wont be irritated by all these numbers flying around..all these numbers are correct and perfectly valid, and that is frustrating when we have an ICE mindset.
BTW, you will never recover the cost of a Volt thru cheaper electricity.. it is even doubtful you can recover the cost of a Prius.
(Quote)
Aug 13th, 2009 (8:21 am)Based on Frank Weber’s statements, I can see why that GM would not like a MPG/MPC rating since the Volt might be labeled by the EPA with something less than 40 MPC.
GM has been consistent on stating that the 1st generation is priced high and future generations MAY be priced lower. However if more battery capacity is needed to claim 40 MPC due to the EPA test, it just gets tougher to lower the price.
(Quote)
Aug 13th, 2009 (8:23 am)The average joe does not want to pull out an excell spreadsheet while car shopping to find out what his mpg will be. The average Joe would not make these calcs properly anyway.
As for nerds (like me) on this blog, they will know what the all electric range is and the average mpg once the generator kicks in is before they buy the car. We have over a year to find out.
If you care about these things, you will find them before you buy the car. The general public needs a quickie number to go on and the Argonne routine makes perfect sense.
The 40 mile total range makes sense too. Of course many will get less but we want to know what is possible. I would assume 40 is possible and that the average driver will get less.
Why assume the AC is running and you have the stereo at 100 percent and your are driving too fast to come up with the AER. I actually want to know what the car will do without all of these variables.
(Quote)
Aug 13th, 2009 (8:26 am)Herm,
Good point, but you’d be lugging around a load of engine.
Be well,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The Volts’ Wheels On The Road!!**********NPNS
(Quote)
Aug 13th, 2009 (8:28 am)kdawg,
AND two days of crashing (lol). I hope we kept SOME of the foot traffic.
Be well,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The Volts’ Wheels On The Road!!**********NPNS
(Quote)
Aug 13th, 2009 (8:28 am)One quick little fact before I have to go to work.
While yesterday it was again above 100 degrees, this morning it was 77 degrees.
Most of your electric range might be in the morning, where, I would estimate that if you did indeed turn on the AC, that the duty cycle all the way to work would be at very most, 25% of the demand load of what the AC would otherwise be.
So, from that, you can realize that AC draw against AER may not be as significant in the cool mornings when electric propulsion is in progress.
In the afternoon, coming home, when the temps are way up there, the Range Extender would just cut on a little sooner.
So, I am not at all concerned that the 40 mile electric range would be hampered all that much in the cool mornings here in “global warming purgatory”.
Have a cool day.
(Quote)
Aug 13th, 2009 (8:32 am)Right Lane,
I thought that the city was higher because of regen braking in stop and go traffic. No?
Be well,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The Volts’ Wheels On The Road!!**********NPNS
(Quote)
Aug 13th, 2009 (8:35 am)Koz,
There was talk of two modes of coasting, one of which had more of the feeling of engine drag (like in traditional low gear) which gave more regen. Won’t hard braking get back more regen??
Be well,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The Volts’ Wheels On The Road!!**********NPNS
(Quote)
Aug 13th, 2009 (8:38 am)kdawg,
The Volt has a low power Bose system that sounds like (pun intended) it’d be pretty upscale sound.
Be well,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The Volts’ Wheels On The Road!!**********NPNS
(Quote)
Aug 13th, 2009 (8:41 am)You know we worry a lot about extra weight.. but it really does not affect performance that much in a BEV, yes it is a killer in an ICE vehicle but BEVs are fundamentally different.
(Quote)
+1
Aug 13th, 2009 (8:47 am)Herm,
I’ll trust you on this but I thought that Dr. Weber had said things like # of passengers would effect AER….
Be well,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The Volts’ Wheels On The Road!!**********NPNS
(Quote)
+1
Aug 13th, 2009 (9:01 am)Joe,
I agree that GM will be fine (with the Volt), but the transparency is pretty much the reason this site exists! Without it, there’s be nothing for Lyle to post. So let’s hope for a balance somewhere in the middle. I agree that Toyota and everyone else has kept it’s cards close to the vest, but that’s their loss ((IMHO). There’s more involved than the bottom line.
Be well,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The Volts’ Wheels On The Road!!**********NPNS
(Quote)
Aug 13th, 2009 (9:03 am)We know that the battery has a theoretical range of 80 miles if it were to completely charge/discharge. This additional capacity is what will be tapped into over the 10 year lifespan of the battery as it degrades. If the software is going to gradually allow more of the battery to discharge over time, why wouldn’t the software allow a discharge that guarantees a 40 mile range at any given point in it’s life? Maintaining a real-world 40 mile range can’t be too far off away from the ideal 10-year degradation/capacity-appropriation curve.
(Quote)
Aug 13th, 2009 (9:06 am)You probably wont be able to change it, but why would you want to?.. all I need is AM to listen to Rush
(Quote)
Aug 13th, 2009 (9:06 am)Yes exactly!
Most of us on this side are techies – we want the pure numbers and make our own conclusions.
The marketing bullshit for the stupid masses can start in a year…
/still having the BS-230mpg in mind
(Quote)
Aug 13th, 2009 (9:08 am)GM could change their talk to 30 miles all-electric-range and no one would remember by the time the Volt goes on sale. I think it would be a mistake, it is appropriate that GM uses the standard EPA guidelines like every other manufacturer.
No one expects those EPA numbers to be accurate anyways.
(Quote)
+1
Aug 13th, 2009 (9:08 am)MDDave,
1) You mention being able to deal with “timelines that slip” – what are you talking about when you make this point ? Seems to me that GM has done a miraculous job keeping up with their mileposts on this program ! Obviously, the most-watched metric will be the actual commercial launch, but all indications are that GM will hit that one out of the park, too. Where’s the beef ??
2) You also complain about watered-down performance goals, yet it’s not clear here what you are talking about as it relates to this Volt program. Again, I ask you “where’s the beef ?” .
3) I wouldn’t get too wound up about the hype and marketing efforts by GM – let’s at least wait till we get some real-world data before we start calling GM disingenuous! Your concern over the miles-per-charge is all based on conjecture at this point.
(Quote)
Aug 13th, 2009 (9:09 am)Herm,
DUCK AND COVER! (lol) (but I like it (g).
Be well,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The Volts’ Wheels On The Road!!**********NPNS
(Quote)
+6
Aug 13th, 2009 (9:14 am)Talk about the posts here for the last 2 days!
Holy Crap! At first, I thought this idea of GM being ‘transparent’ in the development of the VOLT would be really cool. To some degree it is; knowing how the development is coming along…
But Holy Crap Crap!! Some here just go on and on and on about the tiniest deviations from the original specs to the point of nausea.
Only a few here talk about how much we will all be SAVING at the pump, the rest drag on about a .01 difference in a technical spec, and they start sounding like Sheldon from “Big Bang Theory” where the discussion becomes completely irrelivant.
I’m looking forward to seeing a whole lot less of my local gas station. How about you?
(Quote)
+1
Aug 13th, 2009 (9:15 am)I notice you’ve been “Yanging” a lot lately which is very nice to see.
(Quote)
+1
Aug 13th, 2009 (9:15 am)Correct me if I’m wrong here but I was under the impression that CARB required batteries to be warrantied for 10 years on electric vehicles. If that’s the case, Nissan will not be able to sell their electric in California.
(Quote)
+2
Aug 13th, 2009 (9:23 am)DonC
Thanks. Lots of news lately, and a sad vacuum with the major loss of the Yin-Master.
Be well,
OneHandClapping
Let’s Just Get The Volts’ Wheels On The Road!!**********NPNS
(Quote)
+3
Aug 13th, 2009 (9:23 am)I’ll take my Volt in Denver, so I can finally be part of the Mile-High Club.
(Quote)
Aug 13th, 2009 (9:23 am)i think this is a great post lyle and here is why. with more definition of the quality measures needed for these type of products, the manufacturing numbers will decrease. what wont change it that 78% of us go less than 40 miles. our usage numbers will remain as such. but the manufacturing numbers will decrease and thus cause the manufactures to make products that actually meet the stated goals of the product. what this means to joe buyer is a better product in version two.
1) the standards will cause the manufacturing numbers to be lower than initial claims.
2) the manufacturers will change the product (design or materials or something) to get back to the original numbers
3) consumer actually gets what is needed/wanted…78% under 40 miles per day.
i’m all for more definition of quality measure. it ensures that manufacturers don’t get away with too much not meeting claims. always better for the consumers…us.
GM, take what is given and make the volt still meet specs. take the hurdles and show us what you can do. make us proud of you again. don’t listen to the nah sayers. make it happen.
(Quote)
Aug 13th, 2009 (9:26 am)At higher speeds aerodynamic drag is much higher (goes as the square of velocity) In ICE cars it is offten the case that highway mileage is higher than city driving. That will not be the case with electric drive.
(Quote)
+1
Aug 13th, 2009 (9:28 am)The Volt has completed 6 of the Highway cycles, that is a total distance of about 60 miles.. average speed 48mph, top speed 60mph I think.. no ac, standard one passenger load and standard temperatures.
It will probably go down to 32 miles range if your average speed is 65mph.. and that is a very high average speed.
(Quote)
Aug 13th, 2009 (9:28 am)Who says the Volt will only use 8KWh (GM has never pinned this to be the exact number) to go 40 miles. It’s my understanding that the Volt will use closer to 10KWh. 120V * 10A for 8h = 9.6KWh. at 25KWh / 100 miles would get you 38.4 miles. And 10A at 120V might not be exact you can load a 15A circuit to 12A under the electrical code. GM has said 10A but it could be 10.2 or 10.4 which makes a fairly large difference.
Also in the sticker posted the EV1 gets 30KWh / 100 miles city and a more efficient 25KWh / 100 miles hwy (not the other way around as stated in the this article).
Hwy driving might not be the least efficent driving. Yes you have drag on the hwy. But you have accelerating and decelerating in the city and regen braking is not 100% efficent. Probably closer to 50% efficient. The Volt might have a drag coefficient low enough to offset the regen losses in the city so the efficiencies could be comparable.
(Quote)
Aug 13th, 2009 (9:29 am)The real question is: Does the SAE J1634 revised draft have anything to do with real world driving patterns
Yes. Capturing real world driving is one of the main reason for the revision.
What’s interesting is that the methodologies get criticized if they don’t capture real world conditions AND if they do. For example, the methodology GM used to come up with its 230 MPG number uses real world driving data. So everyone should like it, right? Nope. All kinds of wunderkinds criticize it because it doesn’t fit “their” scenario of how people drive. In their view people driving in the city at an average speed of 20 MPH should be expected to drive 300 miles in a day. From this we get all kinds of conspiracy theories about secret tests.
Go figure.
(Quote)
Aug 13th, 2009 (9:31 am)Whether you’ve moving rockets or cars or people at the end of the day it’s all about mass.
(Quote)
Aug 13th, 2009 (9:36 am)Also to get 40 miles AER on 25KWh you would need 10KWh of energy. To get 10KWh of energy you would have to charge the Volt at 120V at 10.4A for 8h. Sounds Plausable to me.
(Quote)
+4
Aug 13th, 2009 (9:39 am)Personally I have no problem with the 230 mpg claim – then again I am an engineer and know what it really means.
As a suggestion, perhaps if stated this way the average consummer would understand better.
” A typical driver driving 15,000 miles in a year will use about 65 gallons of gas for an overall average of 230 miles/gallon.”
(Quote)
+1
Aug 13th, 2009 (9:43 am)He (Frank Weber) noted however that in the new testing methodology “EPA is assuming a daily charge and is applying some real world factors that will degrade the EV range.”
That’s great news; we might actually get a better real world range instead of these overly optimistic numbers being pronounced by manufacturers.
Manufacturers often claim 100 mile range for their cars when in reality they’re more like 70 miles or less real world (attainable with normal conditions and driving behaviour).
For example; assuming the Volt and EV1 used 25 Kwh/100miles (250Wh/mile) city, and the Nissan Leaf has a similar consumption rate (reasonable as the EV1 was very aerodynamic) the Leaf’s usable battery capacity being 24kwh x 70% = 16.8kwh usable = range 67.20 miles city and –20% = 53.76 miles Hwy.
Ouch!
It will be very interesting to see the revised SAE J1634 numbers come out. This could lead to some rather red faces but at least we might get an honest indication of range, and would be better in the long run for the reputation of Electric Vehicles among the general population.
People won’t be disappointed by being promised one thing and being delivered another, for example, when the Chinese electrics come onto the market with their otherwise inflated figures i.e.BYD indicated 100 mile AER with their EREV when 40 miles “real world” would be more realistic.
(Quote)
Aug 13th, 2009 (9:44 am)This is a great point I was going to bring up. What jumps off the page is that the Volt is MORE efficient in the city than the EV-1. That’s a very interesting fact. This could be due to a difference in testing, but you have to think that the EV-1 sticker was based on the standard City and Highway tests at the time. If this is the case, then the Volt, which is expected to use 20 kWh per 100 miles per Frank Weber during the City drive cycle, is far more efficient than the EV-1 was. We’re talking about a 15% increase in efficiency, which is huge when you consider that the EV-1 was a two seater and the Volt will seat four. (I guess it helps not to lug around all those batteries!)
Likewise, if the methodologies haven’t changed, the Volt will use the same 25 kWh that the EV-1 did during the Highway cycle. Again, that’s very impressive given that the Volt is a conventional, albeit compact, car, whereas the EV-1 was a limited two seat coupe with the lowest Cd of any production car ever made.
Seems like there have been some advancements in the last decade. Congrats to the Volt team.
(Quote)
Aug 13th, 2009 (9:50 am)Yes, i’m familiar w/the articles on the Bose hi-efficiency design. But will it still run on 12Vdc? And if i change it out (if possible), will it screw up everything? Will my AER drop to 10 miles? (j/k)
Should i add an additional external 12Vdc power supply for my radio? Will ppl still be able to use cd changers (if anyone uses CD’s anymore)?
(Quote)
+1
Aug 13th, 2009 (9:51 am)I think something that should be pointed out is that SAE J1711 drafts (supposedly the basis for the methodology for the volt) measures electrical power into the car. IE What should appear on your bill.
Thus 25 kWh/100 miles when reduced by a 10% conversion/charging factor (AC to DC) yields closer to 36 AER miles from 8kWh in the battery.
(Quote)
+1
Aug 13th, 2009 (9:54 am)No.
CARB requires a car to maintain its CARB rating for 10 years/150,000 miles.
For Volt to have that CARB rating, it must have a certain AER miles before Charge Sustaining mode. Thus, GM is warrantying the battery for 10 years/150,000 miles to maintain it 40 AER miles.
A pure BEV will always have the same CARB rating. It doesn’t matter if the range if 100 or 10. Thus Nissan doesn’t need to have an extended warranty.
(Quote)
Aug 13th, 2009 (9:56 am)Does not apply to BEVs, neither the Volt, Tesla nor the Leaf.
(Quote)
Aug 13th, 2009 (10:00 am)When I referred to slipping timelines, I was speaking generally about the things that I can understand and forgive, not so much about the Volt missing any milestones per se.
The watered down performance goal that I referred to is the 40 miles per charge goal. If that is really reduced by 20% or more with an average load of accessories (AC, heat, radio) and an ambient condition as pervasive as temperature change, then to say that it gets 40 MPC is perhaps a bit disingenous. And it seems that by GMs own admission that is the case, yet they are still repeating the 40 MPC mantra. Maybe I’ll be pleasantly surprised, so I’ll reserve ultimate judgement until, as you say, more real-world testing is done.
(Quote)
Aug 13th, 2009 (10:01 am)its cheating if you do your mileage run downhill!
(Quote)
-2
Aug 13th, 2009 (10:03 am)The die-hard Volt enthusiasts absolutely hate that; it totally screws up all their “gas free” promotion efforts.
I think it’s great, since it focuses on actual consumption rather than the “save” hype we have had to endure the last few years.
(Quote)
Aug 13th, 2009 (10:04 am)Bruce,
If you are referring to battery LIFE, the Volt’s battery has it’s own thermal system to keep the battery within an optimal temperature range. So Florida heat shouldn’t effect the battery’s life.
Be well,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The Volts’ Wheels On The Road!!**********NPNS
(Quote)
+2
Aug 13th, 2009 (10:07 am)The Volt WILL get 40 miles AER. Period. I say this because it’s such a huge metric that GM will allow that 8 kWh band to be increased as necessary, even at the cost of battery life. Why? Because they can fix that down the road. If the Volt does not get 40 miles AER the concept could be killed prematurely. Besides, when (if) the hammer falls a half decade later there will be excellent battery replacement technology ready and waiting. The Volt needs to be spectacular NOW. I’m confident they allowed enough room to make it happen. It’s going to be great. I have faith in the Volt team and know they are burning the midnight oil to make it happen.
(Quote)
+1
Aug 13th, 2009 (10:08 am)Newman, the 230 number IS the realistic one.. based on EPA statistical methods.
(Quote)
Aug 13th, 2009 (10:11 am)My complaint isn’t that the numbers are incorrect–and by numbers I’m referring mostly to the 230 MPG number. I can see how it is correct; now valid, on the other hand, is a bit of a stretch. My complaint is that they aren’t that helpful to the consumer that is trying to figure out if the Volt is the right car for them, they are only meaningful to the people marketing and selling the car as a means to get attention and sell more cars.
(Quote)
Aug 13th, 2009 (10:13 am)OT:
HELP
Is there a way to search the entire site for a post I made months ago? If so, how’s that work?
TIA,
Be well,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The Volts’ Wheels On The Road!!**********NPNS
(Quote)
+1
Aug 13th, 2009 (10:16 am)See what will be confusing is that I am almost 100% postive that J1711, PHEV, will take into account charging losses.
I base this on Slides 20 and 23 of this presentation
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/pdfs/merit_review_2009/vehicles_and_systems_simulation/vss_05_duoba.pdf
Hymotion’s Prius is barely larger than 5kWh battery pack. If you discharge 5kWh 15 times (Slide 23) you get 75kWh but the Hymotion was labeled as using any 79 kWh to 87 kWh…
(Quote)
Aug 13th, 2009 (10:22 am)A glimmer of BEV light peaking through?
(Quote)
Aug 13th, 2009 (10:23 am)1) NGMCO can upgrade the current experimental LG Chem battery within the next 15 months.
2) NGMCO doesn’t need to meet any future buyers standards until November of 2010.
3) Battery technology will be at least 20%-30% better in 12 months time.
Be careful what you wish for. You may get a 50 mile battery with a price adjustment on the 2011 Volt to $42,000. Last week I heard NGMCO stating $39,900 MSRP. The statement was, “Somewhere just under $40,000″. And yesterday Bob Lutz supported this by saying the after tax credit price will be (an unverified) $32,500. This was during his “Ed Show” interview.
The current bottom line is 2 cents fuel cost per city mile. Should we demand an efficiency increase to1.8 cents a mile?
1.8 or no deal!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BpwEbPZjg9g
=D~
(Quote)
Aug 13th, 2009 (10:24 am)That depends on how they treat it when not in use and not plugged in. We haven’t heard much from GM about this yet. Tesla had an issue of always running their cooling pump in the beginning to avoid heat. I’m not sure how that was resolved.
(Quote)
Aug 13th, 2009 (10:25 am)Koz,
Yesterday I “wondered out loud” what the AER of the Volt would be without the engine’s weight. No replies, but the site was iffy yesterday too.
Be well,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The Volts’ Wheels On The Road!!**********NPNS
(Quote)
Aug 13th, 2009 (10:29 am)I honestly don’t know much about the Tesla, but I do know that the Volt’s battery is heavily insulated. Is the Tesla’s?
Be well,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The Volts’ Wheels On The Road!!**********NPNS
(Quote)
Aug 13th, 2009 (10:32 am)I’m thinking that the EPA number is tank to wheels not wall to wheels. I only say this because neither Jon Lauckner nor Frank Weber mentioned this, and you’d think it would be natural for them to do so. It may however just be staying on some message or other.
I would think that as a practical matter “opportunity charging”, for example charging at work, would be more likely to move the needle. For example, if you charge at work or at home between trips, then the once a day charge assumption goes out the window, and the MPG number will really kick up. It would likely also help maintain the battery pack as well.
(Quote)
Aug 13th, 2009 (10:35 am)Drive train losses are also significant at all speeds, but especially at very low and very high speeds. You need a lot of power to overcome drive train and aero losses at higher speeds.
(Quote)
Aug 13th, 2009 (10:36 am)That depends how they implement it. I don’t recall complete details. They have talked about lift off regen as you describe and having two modes, although I think the engine simulation would be the lesser of the two. I don’t recall hearing anything about break pedal regen, but either way there is only so much power (KW) that they will allow to flow into the batttery. After that, the energy will be dumped as heat either by resistors or friction brakes.
Also, I should clarify my comment about weight being a bigger hit for BEV’s. This is not the case for city driving. Regen actually improves the weight related losses significantly when braking is involved.
(Quote)
Aug 13th, 2009 (10:41 am)up to a point.. if you accelerate gently, but dont forget you get some of that back in brake regen. In a BEV tire drag is the thing most affected by weight and it is unavoidable. This is not true of ICE powered cars.
The charts at the Tesla website are very instructive regarding tire losses, note that tire losses are constant and are around 50wh/mile.. if you increase vehicle mass of the Volt by 750lbs (3 extra passengers and 250lbs of luggage) then rolling drag will go up proportionally, it will go up approx 20%, to 60wh/mile.
So putting 750 extra lbs of weight in the Volt increased your tire losses by a lousy 10wh/mile.. or about 200 feet of range. By contrast losses due to aerodynamic drag are vastly larger.. so slow down and accelerate gently.
http://www.teslamotors.com/blog4/
“2. Tire losses are mainly determined by the weight of the vehicle and the rolling drag of the tires themselves. For the Roadster we have chosen tires that offer a great combination of low rolling resistance and traction or grip. The air pressure in the tires has a large effect on this rolling resistance, grip and the overall tire loss. Higher pressure gives lower rolling resistance but a harsher ride and degraded handling. The above modeling is done at 30/40 psi front/rear. You can expect about a +/- 10Wh/mile variation with a +/- 20% variation in tire pressure. Similarly, by reducing vehicle mass you see a proportional reduction in rolling loss. So if you reduce total mass by 1% then you would reduce rolling loss by about 1%. In the configuration above, 1% equals about 30 lbs. So it is good to make sure that you are not “accidentally” carrying extra weight in the trunk or elsewhere if you are trying to get the best range possible.”
(Quote)
+1
Aug 13th, 2009 (10:44 am)“15,000 miles in a year will use about 65 gallons of gas…”
I like these numbers.
Since my family already has a new sedan we will probably be waiting on the NGMCO truck EREV. Yes, I know the truck will need a slightly more advanced battery to attain this efficiency.
BTW: I am still available to be a test driver for the Volt. And who knows, if my wife gets a shot at driving it, I (we) may change my mind on the truck. Marriage is a wonderful thing.
=D~
(Quote)
Aug 13th, 2009 (10:52 am)steel,
Yes, this is a good point.
In addition, there are electrical->chemical power losses going into the battery which also come into play here.
In other words, if you have 8kWh of usable energy in the battery, which is what they say they use to go 40 miles, you would need to have put a little more than 8kWh into the battery, since some is lost in the electrical->chemical conversion.
So with the power losses of the charger and the battery itself, the 25 kWh/100 miles figure could correspond to more than 36 miles AER.
(Quote)
Aug 13th, 2009 (10:57 am)good post Dwayne.. very simple.
(Quote)
+1
Aug 13th, 2009 (10:58 am)I’ve seen up to 40 mpc for a few months now. Didn’t really pay much attention before that to the exact wording.
If they said no matter the weather or environment, how many hundreds of pounds landscape materials you stuff in the trunk, won’t matter if you fill every seat with burly landscapers, tow a cement mixer, burn out at every start and drive at top speed all the time, you’ll always get 40 mpc, I would consider that highly disingenuous.
All parties should be expected to apply some common sense to the expectations.
(Quote)
+3
Aug 13th, 2009 (11:01 am)MDDave says Beyond the BS, I’m also annoyed that in all likelihood I will be getting more like 32 MPC or less instead of 40 MPC.
Personally I find comments like this — and we’ve seen a whole lot of them lately — annoying. Do you get the mpg that you find on the car sticker? If you do then you’ll get the range on the Volt sticker. If you don’t then you won’t. At this point we only have two numbers: the MPG number for City and the kWh number for the City. Can’t you wait for the Highway and Combined numbers before you start whining?
I’m also having a problem seeing why you — and others like you — think everyone in the country should get a sticker based on YOUR driving style or on YOUR idea of what a drive cycle should be. There is nothing wrong with the methodology. The numbers are not gimmicks or lies, they’re just numbers based on the entire population of drivers, not just you. Get over yourself for heavens sake.
Somehow a lot of people seem to have lost their common sense, making a huge deal out of devising scenarios in which the PHEV numbers don’t make sense. Guess what? I can do the same thing for standard ICE vehicles. Take your Town Car, load it up with friends and stuff in the middle of winter, and drive it up Pike’s Peak at 50 MPH. Do you think you’ll get the MPG listed on the sticker? I don’t think so. So what? That doesn’t make the sticker wrong on average, it just makes your drive unusual.
In this regard, you claim that all you want is EV range and mpg in charge sustaining mode. Really? EV range under what conditions? MPG under what conditions? The fact is that there is no such thing as EV range or MPG in charge sustaining mode in the abstract. At some point you’ll have these numbers under certain conditions. But those aren’t going to satisfy you seemingly expect them them to be tailored to your specific circumstances, and that’s not possible unless you want to design your own personal drive cycle and pay to test on that cycle.
(Quote)
+1
Aug 13th, 2009 (11:01 am)yeah, we like to pick our nits and beat our dead horses..
(Quote)
-1
Aug 13th, 2009 (11:03 am)Just a YMMV? well I like the thought. thanks
(Quote)
Aug 13th, 2009 (11:05 am)Yes, to get 40 miles AER with 25KWh/100 miles, you would need 10KWh of energy going into the charger. But as “steel” pointed out above, not all of that energy goes into the battery.
For example, let’s say the charger is 90% efficient, and the battery itself (taking on a charge) is 93% efficient. This would make for a total efficiency of around 84% (.9 x .93). So when you put 10KWh into the AC plug, you may only get 8.4kWh of that into the battery, which is not far off from what GM says.
(Quote)
-1
Aug 13th, 2009 (11:06 am)I’m not rooting for any car either way, but I just don’t see how the Volt survives the assault the the Leaf will provide. We have already seen with the cash for clunker program that American will lean towards the Japanese brands. Given the fact that the Leaf will have over double the electric range, “EPA MPG” of 367, cost 40% less, and be available first, I just don’t see someone choosing Volt. I think I know what my next car will be.
(Quote)
Aug 13th, 2009 (11:10 am)Ford, GM Boost Production to Meet Demand
08/13/09 – 12:05 PM EDT
To meet that demand, the company said it will boost production of its Focus and Escape models — both of which have proven popular among those who have traded in their clunkers for cash.
In the third quarter, Ford now expects to put out 495,000 vehicles, up 2% from its earlier estimate. The margin includes 6,000 more Focuses and 3,500 more Escapes, Ford said.
The Focus, a compact car that gets an estimated 35 highway miles per gallon, is according to some estimates the most bought car purchased under the clunkers program. The Escape, meanwhile, a crossover SUV with fuel efficiency of 31 miles per gallon on the highway, ranks as high as 5th on some tabulations of trade-in popularity.
In other positive auto news Thursday, General Motors CEO Fritz Henderson said he expects “robust” sales in August and September. Like Ford, GM will boost its production in response.
Henderson made the remarks in an interview aired Thursday morning on CNBC. He didn’t quantify how much GM would increase its production.
During the final week of July, GM saw a 30% increase in demand from the previous week, Henderson added. He too attributed the spike to the cash-for-clunkers program.
http://www.thestreet.com/_yahoo/story/10574199/1/ford-gm-boost-production-to-meet-demand.html?cm_ven=YAHOO&cm_cat=FREE&cm_ite=NA
=D~
(Quote)
Aug 13th, 2009 (11:12 am)I’ve heard that those 72 or older will be able to get a free option that makes Rush the default station in 734 markets across the country. Those under 35 won’t get a radio, only a USB plug.
(Quote)
Aug 13th, 2009 (11:21 am)I don’t believe you are correct in saying that conversion losses going into the battery would affect the AER. It would make a difference on the cost to charge the battery; you need more electricity to get to a full charge because of the losses but after the battery is fully charged to 8Kwh, the only losses that would affect AER would be those that would occur in the circuitry on the car.
It seems to me that what GM is saving is correct. The 40 miles AER are what they calculated and have obtained in testing of mules. I believe there are articles on this cite that said they have actually had better than 40 AER on some of them.
Lyle, can we get clarification on this issue? Since the average driver goes less than 40 miles round trip, we need to know if what they are actually getting under various conditions. I am particularly concerned about the effect of daily temperatures around 100 degrees Fahrenheit.
(Quote)
Aug 13th, 2009 (11:24 am)Many still don’t understand what EPA is doing with its J1711 EREV mileage testing standard. The mileage that GM computed, and that EPA Will also compute using J1711 methodology, and attribute to the Volt is an “extended average expected Mileage”. Its not a range measure at all.. If you drive a VOLT EREV for a month and you are an average US driver that travels about 40 miles per day as 78% of US drivers do, (fifth quintile), than if you compute the gas/E85 that you consumed over that extended period, be it a few weeks or months, you would converge on an average of about 230 mpge of gasoline fuel consumption.
So its a long-term average, and what you really want to know. Not what one tankful will necessarily get you, but your overall long-term gasoline consumption mileage. You will note that the EPA J1711 standard that GM uses, also states the KWH consumption per mile as well.
For those that criticize the 32 miles per AER that EPA assesses, please note that the EPA standard includes provision for the losses involved in charging up your battery. No charging mechanism is 100% efficient. All create some waste heat, under the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The EPA standard docks the electric driven portion of the drive train for charging losses. Some portion of that 32 versus 40 mile AER, is a mechanism to reflect those charging losses.
The only question remaining is the pollution “cleanliness” of the generator ICE. I would expect it to be rated at least SULEV, and to protect the gasoline from going stale, provision to seal the gasoline tank might be specified. If so then th Volt might attain PZEV status as well, for the ICE portion of the EREV, but GM has not been definitive about that. Then it would be a totally “pollution free” vehicle in both its battery driven and ICE generated operation.
(Quote)
Aug 13th, 2009 (11:27 am)That’s kind of my gut feeling as well, “texas.” All of GM’s public Volt teaser appearances (such as Letterman and CNBC) have Lutz throwing out 40 miles of electric range before the range extender kicks in. Lutz and GM will not want to walk that number back; if anything, they will want a tad bit more.
The media will always emphasize the goose poop on your lawn rather than the golden eggs it just laid. If I’m GM, I don’t want to give them the opportunity, because they will already be skeptical of the high cost.
(Quote)
Aug 13th, 2009 (11:32 am)I understand the point. However, the problem with using the Tesla Roadster as an example is that it’s not terribly aero dynamic and it’s drive train isn’t very efficient. It is, however, light weight. If you add weight while improving aero dynamics and drive train efficiencies then you end up with a different, and arguably more representative, picture of how important mass is.
Additionally the drive train is needed to move the mass, so drive train losses can be thought of as being attributable to mass.
Finally, driving up and down hills would also change the picture. You may not need to do this in Iowa but on the West Coast it’s hard to avoid, as anyone living in San Francisco or Seattle can attest to.
So I wouldn’t say that mass isn’t important. It may not be that important when thinking of trading off mass for more power from a larger battery pack, but it is important.
(Quote)
Aug 13th, 2009 (11:32 am)I’ll second NZDavid’s problem with connecting to the website. In fact, I had to re-register this morning, as it dumped me altogether. Lots of “database error” messages when I try to connect.
(Quote)
Aug 13th, 2009 (11:35 am)So an electric drive vehicle (EV-1) gets 100 MPGe in all electric mode, but 230 MPGe (Volt) when it weighs more, is larger, less aerodynamic and also uses a much less efficient ICE?
Anyone smell something wrong with that conclusion?
It’s all about gaming CAFE for maximum product flexibility, folks. So the Volts extra beefy MPGs are gonna CAFE subsidize a higher number of highly profitable 11 mpg combined GMC Yukon Denali and XL 1500 full size SUVs than could be built without fines otherwise, so that those Denali and XL profits are really Volt profits. So long as that means more Volts on the roads, go for it, GM!
@ Joe “I don’t care what the mileage will be.” Good point. It’s got 100% electric drive, so you automatically already know it’s super efficient wthout having to bother with a number or make marginal efficiency differences beteeen the cream of the crop your primary purchase decision when considering only electric drive vehicles.
(Quote)
+2
Aug 13th, 2009 (11:36 am)I didn’t say that.
I stated that if J1711 testing shows the Volt consumes 25kWh/100 miles on City Cycle, that figure includes losses from the wall.
It would be inappropriate to take 8kWh (Battery Dischange) and Divide by 25k/Wh * 100 mile = 32 miles AER
The more appropriate calculation, if I read SAE 1711 correctly is
8 kWh/Charging Efficiency(.9)/25kWh*100 mile= 36 miles from 8.8 kWh required to charge the Volt to “Full” for 12 hours.
(Quote)
Aug 13th, 2009 (11:36 am)DonC,
Sorry, but if this methodology can say that an ALL-ELECTRIC Nissan Leaf can get 367 miles per GALLON, then something is wrong. Like I said earlier, what kind of gas mileage would my cell phone or cordless drill get?
(Quote)
Aug 13th, 2009 (11:37 am)Given that the 230 MPG number was only a PR exercise, you have to conclude that it was a complete success. It was a bit of a stunt but that’s how you sell cars and cornflakes (and how Tesla survives).
I’m thinking this is part of the Lutz’s PR strategy. More flamboyant, more internet focused, and less cautious.
(Quote)
Aug 13th, 2009 (11:40 am)The difference between drive train and aero losses is in the rate of change.
Drive train losses are more linear (proportional to V). Lets assume they double in when you go from 30 to 60 mph. That means the rate of work (or energy use to overcome these) doubles. Of course you arrive in half the time at 60 mph vs 30 so your actual work done to overcome these losses (energy used) is the same.
Aerodynamic losses are proportional to V squared (V*V). Doubling your speed causes the work done (energy used) to quadruple. 2 X velocity = 4 x energy for aerodynamic loads.
So the issue with speed affecting range is mainly due to the aero loadings.
(Quote)
Aug 13th, 2009 (11:45 am)If you are 100% charged and regenerative brake from a mile high, will your volts batteries explode?
(Quote)
Aug 13th, 2009 (11:51 am)Looking at the J1711 drafts presentations by ANL, A Lithium A123 system was measured at ~83% overall charging efficieny from wall to battery.
If we carry this number over to the Volt. 250Wh/Mile plug –> 207 Wh/Mile Battery –> AER of 38.6 miles.
What worried me is that the 250 Wh/Mile could be from the full J1711 test. Which would make the whole conversion from J1711 –> AER nearly impossible…
(Quote)
+1
Aug 13th, 2009 (11:56 am)is the “25kwh / 100miles” only in electric mode? Or did they account for some time in RE-mode? How many stops at lights? Is the AC on? etc.
(Quote)
Aug 13th, 2009 (11:58 am)Not sure what your point is here. The description of aero losses is fine. But it makes no sense to talk about the rate of change for drive train losses because over some significant range of speeds the changes can be negative. At some speeds as you go faster the drive train losses decrease. At other speeds as you go faster they increase. So you have a “U” shaped function which can’t really be described as “linear”. When comparing aero losses to drive train losses you have two quite different functions which can’t be differentiated only by the “rate of change”.
As a practical matter the big issue is at what speed aero losses exceed drive train losses. If it’s at 65 mph then it’s one thing. If it’s at 30 mph then it’s another.
(Quote)
Aug 13th, 2009 (12:00 pm)On 8-11 I had “internal server errors” listed for a few hours. I just assumed that everyone was trying to find out what the 230 meant but you know what assuming does.
(Quote)
Aug 13th, 2009 (12:00 pm)The Volt will also have a energy-robbing drivetrain, albeit not what a conventional ICE-powered car has (no transmission or clutch). I had asked a question on one of the GM web chats, and never got an answer. My question was if GM ever considered a wheel motor like those used in the Japanese race car Eliica? Each of the eight wheels (!) produces 80 hp. No drivetrain losses at all, since the wheel IS the motor (each wheel may have high unsprung weight due to the permanent magnets, though).
(Quote)
Aug 13th, 2009 (12:05 pm)I totally agree with this. If the average AER of say, the top half of the consumer test fleet (that half would be the conservative driver ‘half’) comes in at 37 AER, then they’ll raise the top shelf a bit and _make_ the car get 40 AER for that or a certain range of drivers.
NPNS!!! =D~~~
(Quote)
Aug 13th, 2009 (12:10 pm)1. I don’t expect the test to be customized for my driving style, but I am concerned that an average of 48 MPH and a maximum of 60 MPH is *not* representative of typical highway driving.
2. With my ICE cars in the past, my actual gas mileage has always been close to the EPA sticker claim. Likewise, I expect to get close to 40 miles AER with the Volt. I would consider 32 miles AER under typical conditions (steady 65 MPH but no AC) a warranty problem. But under extreme conditions (loaded, over 70 MPH, AC on, etc.), I wouldn’t complain about 32 miles AER.
3. Ultimately, it is not GM nor the EPA who will determine if the Volt meets it’s claimed performance. If the customer’s reasonable expectations are not met, no amount of excuses and government specifications will help GM get over the bad reputation; the cars just won’t sell.
(Quote)
Aug 13th, 2009 (12:12 pm)MD DAVE,
Your being misinformed. The mileage estimate is much more useful than the BS that EPA places on its present window stickers. . You really don’t need what you asked for.
What you really want is how much fuel (dollars) you will spend to drive for a month or a year. You really want to know what your average gasoline mileage is. And its not simple, becasue the FIRST Forty miles any day is electric driving; That biases the long term average to a much higher actual proportion of miles driven electrically. That EPA standard gives you that “longer term average gasoline fuel consumption”. The longer the interval measured, the more it will tend to converge on that 230 mpge figure.
Provided that you fit into the 80% of “average drivers”. If you you routinely drive 300 miles per day, don’t consider a Volt. Go buy a dirty diesel instead.
(Quote)
-1
Aug 13th, 2009 (12:15 pm)Here is where I can’t financially justifiy the Volt.
Let’s assume gas is $3 and even make electricity free, and use your driving pattern for 15k miles.
Volt gas costs per year $195
Honda Insight fuel cost per year @ 45MPG = $999
In this best case scenario Volt saves $804/yr over the Insight.
But the Insight is $20k less. So you would have to drive the Volt 24 years to get to a break even cost with the Honda. Real world, the Volt will never make sense financially.
(Quote)
+1
Aug 13th, 2009 (12:22 pm)Bruce Clay,
Good for you. Go buy a Leaf. I’ll wave to you when I see you being towed off the freeway. And smile when you install a new $15,000 dollar battery in five years, or attempt to dump the car and find it has a negative residual value, since it needs a new battery….
Different strokes for different folks.
(Quote)
+1
Aug 13th, 2009 (12:27 pm)I’m starting to understand that, if GM has to boil it all down to one number to express to the general public how fuel efficient the Volt will be, 230 MPG expresses the concept well. And it is defensible. I ran the spreadsheet with my driving habits, and I get similar numbers.
Perhaps, when the general public is more familiar with EREV, they will be ready to understand, “40 miles AER, and 50 MPG after that.”
(Quote)
+1
Aug 13th, 2009 (12:28 pm)You’re right! This is what we should be talking about.
If the fuzzy math on mileage is accurate, you would go from 500 gallons per year (15,000/30MPG=500Gal) with the typical economy car to only 65 Gallons… Maybe LESS!
That’s the real story hear. I really expected to hear cheering from everyone over the last 2 days. Not all this anger!
(Quote)
Aug 13th, 2009 (12:30 pm)” Go buy a Leaf. I’ll wave to you when I see you being towed off the freeway. And smile when you install a new $15,000 dollar battery in five years, or attempt to dump the car and find it has a negative residual value, since it needs a new battery….”
Dont forget Stas, the TOTAL ownership expense will be lower.. yes you will have to spend money on batteries.
(Quote)
Aug 13th, 2009 (12:34 pm)Not sure I’m comfortable with you guys discussing how you are watching eachother “yanging”. Just doesn’t seem right. Some conversations should be kept private.
(Quote)
Aug 13th, 2009 (12:34 pm)“… highly profitable 11 mpg combined GMC Yukon Denali and XL 1500 full size SUVs”
My understanding is that the these vehicles are not selling well any more.
(Quote)
Aug 13th, 2009 (12:44 pm)The problem will be that after Labor day, CFC ends. I would expect sales of new cars to drop significantly, since many of those “on-the-fence” buyers, have cashed in with CFC.
So, when the Sept/Oct numbers come out, I predict a sag in sales. So, just when the ramped up production takes place, the demand dies…
CFC is the handout that stops giving….away our money, after Labor day, or unless they decide to drop a couple more billion of our tax dollars in again.
(Quote)
-2
Aug 13th, 2009 (1:02 pm)Let me explain the scenario to you.
GM is has gone bankrupt while the execs have been raking in obscene salaries.
All tax payers are now (mostly unwilling) investors.
GM execs refuse to develop a high mpg hybrid. (which virtually every other manufacturer is doing)
GM execs refuse to develop a BEV. (which virtually every other manufacturer is doing)
The $40,000+ (we’ll lose money on every one we sell) volt is supposed to be the technology of tomorrow which will leapfrog other hybrids and BEV’s.
So if this Billion dollar volt can’t deliver spec’d performance and can’t come down in price, it’s another billion dollars of our tax money down the shltter.
Holy crap
(Quote)
+2
Aug 13th, 2009 (1:14 pm)Jerry, what about if you cant get gas at all?.. you are rationed to 2 gallons a week and only on tuesday.. what price for the Volt convenience then?
(Quote)
+1
Aug 13th, 2009 (1:16 pm)that is an old way dead aurgument.. if you buy on a payback basis only, there is no justification for anything automotive higher than a TATA nano..
Cobalt XFE is about 12k, 8k less than the insight, anual gas use $417 = 19 year payback…
hell a bus pass at 40/month = 5000 months or 416 YEARS worth of insight….where’s your payback now?? and mass transport is considered green….
(Quote)
Aug 13th, 2009 (1:21 pm)To gain a current reference point for evaluating GM’s mileage claims please note the following: Argonne Lab is lead coordinator for SAE J1711 and estimates this standard is essentially ready for, if not right now, full release. J1711 is the applicable standard for the Volt as an E-REV PHEV. Whereas J1634 applies to ‘pure’ or BEV’s. In any case Argonne emphasizes harmonizing J1634 with J1711. Source: Argonne Facilitation of PHEV Standard Testing Procedure (SAE J1711)
What’s more, to comprehend these (and other) STP’s (Standard Testing Procedure) the reader should be conversant with battery parameters, a bit of power and electronic test equipment, certainly statistical basics and expect to reference interweaving related standards. Whatever, even a cursory understanding though makes browsing this pub productive.
This then sets a reference point as to how GM’s claim can be evaluated. In other words, we need the engineer-in-charge of data analysis arriving at these numbers to tell us exactly how his analysis comports with Argonne Lab’s data presentation. Now we’ll have something. Let me say I have full confidence Fritz would insist these numbers could withstand – before or after announcement – a full-blown audit. To make hay while the sun is shining … GM needs to do this.
(Quote)
Aug 13th, 2009 (1:24 pm)Somebody mentioned cabdrivers yesterday. Obviously cabs and other commercial vehicles, which are driven immense amount of a daily miles (mostly ICE mile) would not fit the 230 mpg picture. The Volt clearly is not the best choice for this kind of driving. I state it again: The 230 city mpg should be considered a MODEL number for driving the Volt. If one’s driving condition fit what this dual mode car is designed for then this number is perfectly reasonable when comparing the expected operating cost of the Volt with conventional ICEs. This is the way I see this: If you do city type driving at typical speeds and you drive 12 hrs a day (about the max. since the rest of the time is for recharge. (Model for a cab). This driving model would give you no more than about 50 to 60 mpg. On the other hand if you are a typical city driver and drive no more then 50 to 60 miles a day you would approach the GM mileage claim. 60 miles daily driving would give you about 150 mpg and 40 mile 250. Great many skeptics do not see that these high numbers simply indirectly reflect the fact that there are huge differences between the desirability of the two fuels used. Accept the fact that the Mode of driving you do will determine your mileage in addition to the conventional way of affecting mileage. By the way I think Nissan was pretty stupid to try to “educate” the public by putting out their number the way they did. They could have just say their gas mileage is infinite and leaving it at that. BEV is a different animal and should not be compared to an ICE because of its range limitations, whereas the Volt can be compared this way because it can use gas also.
(Quote)
Aug 13th, 2009 (1:25 pm)Why would I be towed off the freeway? It has a 100 mile range, I never have to go more than 20 tops….
(Quote)
Aug 13th, 2009 (1:27 pm)each motor is expensive, and each motor will need an inverter.. again more expense.. thousands more $$ … They cleverly integrated a single motor with a differential to the 4 cyl ICE so that it looks similar to what other cars have, and is also easy to install.
(Quote)
Aug 13th, 2009 (1:29 pm)If gas is rationed to 2 gallons a week, we have bigger problems that cost savings of the Volt. Being that 99.999% of the population will still be driving gas cars in the next decade.
(Quote)
Aug 13th, 2009 (1:30 pm)The first 10,000 VOLTS will sell very quickly, even at $40K. [no thanks to eBay, I'm sure...]
I’m not ready to buy a $40K car, (like most others on this site) but I am willing to wait for the Voltec system to show up in the new Chevy Cruze (for about $29K), which I think is a better looking car anyway.
There has to be a first step in this process, and even with its flaws, the VOLT is it. You can’t change the entire auto industry overnight.
(Quote)
Aug 13th, 2009 (1:43 pm)Tagamet and Dwayne, you’ve both come to the same (incorrect) conclusion that the car companies have. The reality is that there are always conversion losses associated with regenerative braking. For this reason you will get better range with regenerative braking than without (because any recovered energy is better than none), but you’ll lose more than you would if you could avoid converting momentum in the first place.
This is why I use the battery in my Insight as little as possible. Any replenishment must occur through regenerative braking and so returning the battery to its original charge level is more expensive in terms of fuel economy than if I never used it at all.
For best fuel economy in a conventionally powered car or best range in an EV, avoid stops and even much variation in speed if at all possible. If you absolutely must slow down, by all means use regenerative braking… but don’t expect that it will completely compensate for the lost momentum.
(Quote)
Aug 13th, 2009 (1:44 pm)That would be great as far as I’m concerned. Better to use it rather than lose it to the calendar.
(Quote)
+1
Aug 13th, 2009 (1:45 pm)I have read and reread the GM press release and the press release and here is the best I can glean
Under the new methodology SAE J1711-based the Volt will consume
230 MPG AND 250 Wh/mile
The SAE J1711 spec contains some testing done in City, Air Conditiong, Highway, US06, and Cold Start EPA cycles AND measures Electric Power -from the wall- before conversion and battery inefficieny.
SAE J1711 spec should compare to EPA Combined 2008 MPG, as in a Prius Hybrid or any other car tested in SAE J1711 conditions should return close to its EPA Combined 2008 MPG.
To go from SAE J1711 –> AER per charge we need to know the following details
#1. Conversion Efficieny (Wall –> Battery)
#2. kWh Battery that will be availible to provide AER
In the press release, GM stated clearly that while performing EPA City (pre-2008) and EPA Hwy (Pre-2008) the Volt will acchieve 40 miles + per Charge. As a side-note, from the way J1711 appears to be calculated, I expect the Volt is probably able to acchieve closer to 45 AER EPA pre-2008 City. The Higher this AER, the higher the Ultility Factor and thus the higher the MPG for a Volt type machine.
Based on this I can now come to this conclusion
The Majority of drivers, those within one standard devation of the average
Should have -roughly- running costs per mile for the Volt, over a year worth of driving, of
1/230 * Price of Gas + .25 kWh * Price of Electricity
This should compare directly to the Toyota Prius with Running Cost of
1/48 * Price of Gas
In my area Today, Cost per Mile Volt = .033 cents per mile, Cost per Mile Prius = .063 cents per mile. A Savings of over 3 cents per mile on the next most efficient Automobile, yearly savings of 450 dollars / average driving year (3 dollar gas, .0805 dollar electricity)
(Quote)
Aug 13th, 2009 (1:55 pm)It’s all good. If I remember correctly, my guess from just dropping the ICE would add about 5-7 miles of range using the same SOC window. A BEV wouldn’t need as much in the tank for long steep hills or 10 year warranty, so they could do 75-80% SOC window. This would add another 12-15 miles of range. The car would also be a bit quicker and have less issue with hill climbing (while the charge lasts).
(Quote)
+1
Aug 13th, 2009 (1:57 pm)I knew it was a crock! You get 40 just as often as you get 230 MPG running on your ICE after the first 32. I’m not knocking the Volt just the honesty behind its presentation by GM. We have been told 40 miles all along so now without changing the charge depletion range it will be real world 32 unless you stand on one foot turn counter clockwise three times while whistling Dixie driving downhill with a tail wind. They should change the charge depletion cycle to allow for 10 KWH use if it will not prevent meeting the lifetime warranty (incidentally it won’t meet the 40 mile range on day 1 let alone year 10 at 8 KWH) or be truthful & just say we had hoped for 40 miles & realize ideal conditions will not be the norm so we are revising our projection to 32 all electic miles with some getting better & some getting worse depending on driving habbits & conditions. I have followed this thing for years but if they can’t be honest up front about the basics what serious stuff are they hiding. I may have to step back from the edge get the wife a Leaf and wait for Gen 2 or whatever is shaking at the time. This revises anyones calculations on ICE efficiency if cycle is like 51 miles-32= 19 miles of ICE/cycle. So with 80 % of population driving 40 miles or less per day, what percentage of population drives 32 miles or less/day? Could be an exponential shift.
(Quote)
+1
Aug 13th, 2009 (1:58 pm)Tooling down the highway at 20 mph just to get an AER of 60 miles? Not my idea of fun.
(Quote)
+1
Aug 13th, 2009 (1:58 pm)Exactly, and GM can compensate in the city where the range of 40 miles might be higher. So on some trips 40 miles will result from using 45 % of battery capacity and on some trips you will need 55%. In other words, those who are hopping to be able to get 60 electric miles by managing there driving stile are probably out of luck. The software will likely limit you to 40miles, period.
(Quote)
Aug 13th, 2009 (1:59 pm)See this is really confusing to me Coffeetime.
Both SAE J1711 and SAE J1634 do not list electrical consumption in “equivalent MPG”
Early ANL presentation
http://www.che.ncsu.edu/ILEET/phevs/plug-in_2008/2A-2_PHEV%20Testing.pdf
Note the equation on Slide 18
Using the equation, and the Leaf’s 100 miles AER a Leaf setup with have a UF of 0.86.
Lets assume that what Nissan is doing is saying, If you Have a Leaf + a normal ICE, and you use the Leaf -as much as- possible, and the ICE for the rest, you can get a SAE J1711 result of 367 with a MPG of 51, IE the Prius + Leaf solution.
I think this is very possiblely where Nissan is getting its numbers and they just aren’t mentioning that the 40 gallons of gas a year a typical driver does would need to be done in another car.
(Quote)
Aug 13th, 2009 (2:01 pm)Koz,
Why wouldn’t a BEV need as much in the tank for hills? I thought that that was a situation in which the range extender might even help out (long uphills anyway).
Be well,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The Volts’ Wheels On The Road!!**********NPNS
(Quote)
Aug 13th, 2009 (2:03 pm)It’s reasonably insulated if I remember correctly but the heat issue is not just an insulation issue. For cold, battery function actually aids the situation because heat is generated as it is used. For hot situations, battery use exacerbates the issue by adding more heat. For cold days, once the battery heats up to the usable temperature range, the heat from use should be sufficient to keep the battery at an acceptable termperature. For hot days, battery use just adds more heat that needs to be removed. There are also issues with batteries sitting in heat, even when not in use. Batteries tend to like the cold, as far as storage goes. They just need to be warmed up before much use.
(Quote)
Aug 13th, 2009 (2:06 pm)I’m pretty sure one of the GM guys did say this and you’re right, I’m very surprised neither of these two were pointing this out. See Steel’s comments under #1. This makes a little more sense and is certainly worth seeking a clarification.
(Quote)
Aug 13th, 2009 (2:11 pm)I’m in the same boat.
I would vastly prefer the 20 miles AER.
However, an Issue with the smaller battery size that still produces the same power is that it becomes more expensive and less reliable overall. I am not even sure there is a Lithium Chemistry capable of this. As people point out a BEV with large battery will put less strain on a battery than a PHEV with low battery.
Also consider that the 30% SOC would be much much smaller as well, potentially limiting your performance even more….
Unfortunely it appears the issue is more complicated than just “chopping” the battery in half. (I do think a 3/4 size battery would be workable for the Volt though)
(Quote)
Aug 13th, 2009 (2:12 pm)My only point was that drive train losses are not V squared and I have read of them being described as more linear. I was just trying to clarify the importance of Aero losses to the discussion about driving speed not affecting range.
As to the point where aero and drive train losses are similar, this is of course car dependent. I have seen references that put this in the 40 to 55 mph range.
(Quote)
+1
Aug 13th, 2009 (2:14 pm)Prius mileage was not as advertised and these things continued to sell anyway. They might not have met the initial specifications but people were smart enough to know they were doing pretty well.
(Quote)
+1
Aug 13th, 2009 (2:16 pm)A twenty mile range EREV sounds nice in theory, but the Volt’s battery probably could not stand the extra stress and still meet the CARB operating life requirements. You could probably switch to more expensive lithium titanate batteries and get the required lifetime, but then you’d be spending just as much on batteries to get half the AER. Maybe the new high power versions of LiFePO4 batteries will make this feasible, if their costs are low enough.
(Quote)
Aug 13th, 2009 (2:18 pm)The EPA’s MPG standard was a rough way of comparing apples to apples so people would know that a big 4X4 hemi-powered truck would get worse gas mileage than a Honda Civic. It evolved over time to where it is much more representative of what you can expect to get. People can understand that, I think, and they also know that their “mileage may vary.”
Trying to shoehorn electric vehicles into any standard that includes gas-powered vehicles is just plain stupid, IMHO. For pure electrics, there should be one sticker with two numbers – miles per kWh (at the source, not by the time losses are taken into consideration), and miles per charge. The first number is important in that it will help consumers compare the efficiency of one vehicle against another. A vehicle like the Volt should have those numbers as well as a MPG number for the time it runs off of the gas engine. Very simple, straightforward, and understandable by Joe Consumer.
(Quote)
Aug 13th, 2009 (2:20 pm)Totally agree with you on that one. They can’t afford to lose face on the 40 miles metric.
(Quote)
Aug 13th, 2009 (2:22 pm)Thats good, because with the 100 mile LA04 on the day it was delivered Leaf, your unlikely to get much more than 60 miles on the US06 just a few years after purchase.
This may work for you. For me, its an uncomfortable feeling thinking I probably wouldn’t be able to rush (key word) to the airport or on an errand after my 20 miles one way commute to work.
(Quote)
+1
Aug 13th, 2009 (2:23 pm)Billion Million, Trillion….
, its 2009. Billions barely make the round off digits with the budgets this Govt throws around.
Fortunately, Our boys in Congress setup the $3B “Yours and My Money for clunkers” program and over half of this went to Foreign companies.
More than 1.5 Billion to help Toyota and Friends…
Holy Crap is right.
(Quote)
Aug 13th, 2009 (2:23 pm)I think you are actually not understanding my gripe. I am fully aware that the no car is going to get the mileage on the sticker if you drive it to extremes, I’m fine with that and I really don’t need to be lectured about it (although, I do regularly beat the sticker MPG in my Town Car).
My gripe is about the BS and the marketing. Here is a quote:
I feel like I’m listening to a lawyer or a politician… all BS. If someone gets in a Volt in a year or two and actually beats the projections on a regular basis, then that’s great and I’ll be happy, but if nearly everyone is getting 32 MPC (kind of like Lyle in his 70 MPC Mini that’s supposed to get 100 MPC), then we will know that the numbers were inflated for marketing purposes.
(Quote)
Aug 13th, 2009 (2:27 pm)DonC,
You sound a little like a town hall meeting (lol) BUT I AGREE WITH YOU.
All I’d add is that there is nothing prohibiting the range AND the mileage (especially AER) from being, (yes I’m going to say it), BETTER than they are promising. Perhaps the batteries are testing out even better than hoped and they can adjust the software to allow a slightly deeper discharge. Lots of “perhaps” – including the price.
I need to go now, my unicorn is calling me. (But remember the Independence Day release date used to be “impossible”).
Be well,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The Volts’ Wheels On The Road!!**********NPNS
(Quote)
Aug 13th, 2009 (2:28 pm)Same thing for me too, on the same day.
(Quote)
Aug 13th, 2009 (2:28 pm)Yeah, its not MPGe
In fact, its not even close
GM is saying
230 MPG AND AND AND 250 wh/mile
(Quote)
Aug 13th, 2009 (2:31 pm)Most people would rather have “Under promise/Over deliver” in all aspects of their 2nd most expense purchase (namely a car).
- Price
- Performance
- Efficiency
- Appearance
- Customer Service
A 230 MPG EPA rating claim sounds like nothing more than “loud pipes, show car” marketing. Once you get to “look under the hood”, it might be disappointing to some people (like the estimated 20% that drive more than 40 miles per day). Sure, 230 MPG could be the average if (note I just made up the following numbers) :
- Driven less than 50 miles between full charges (GM did hint at this one in their ad…the smiling electrical receptable)
- The ambient temperature is 55-85 F
- The road elevation changes are infrequent
- Production methods/materials allow for neglible performance degradation over the life of the vehicle
- Minimum use of electrical accesories
Bold claims with so many requirements on the driver do not win skeptics without a LOUD, CLEAR detailed explanation.
For example, I want to know if my Volt is driven in 100F, AC max setting, hilly road, headlights on, and 4 passengers…will my Volt get 40 MPC or 20 MPC?
(Quote)
+1
Aug 13th, 2009 (2:37 pm)Do you think the $15K battery evaporates when you drive off the lot? The Volts that will be sold for $40K will also have $7500 tax rebate. The Insight is not the Volt. It’s not even measuring up to a Prius in fit, finish, and driving quality. Gas being $3 more per gallon on average than the equivalent amount of electricity is a risky assumption. Protection for oil supply, Trade defecit. Pollution. Noise. Etc, Etc.
If you don’t want a Volt, don’t buy one. If you want the cheapest drive out there go buy an 8 year old Corolla or something. Assigning a grand total of $0, thats zero dollars, and absorb this higher risk of future gas prices; be my guest, more power to you, you’ve got yours (maybe).
(Quote)
Aug 13th, 2009 (2:40 pm)Perhaps there is a in-site search that goes accross all posts but I haven’t found it. The best way may be Google. Use your name and whatever words are most specific that were included in your post.
(Quote)
+2
Aug 13th, 2009 (2:42 pm)Lets see. Thats not really an Apples to Apples Comparison
The Volt will be quicker. What is that worth to you?
The Volt will handle better. What is that worth to you?
The Volt looks better (I mean, than an Insight!). What is that worth to you?
The Volt has a 10 year warranty on its most expensive component. What is that worth to you?
A much better car to compare the Volt to is a Jetta TDI with 10 years of maintaince to its Diesel Engine. 35 MPG and 25,000 purchase price (for same convience, Automatic Transmission, etc). Maintaince charges, who knows. Yearly cost savings, EPA 15,000 miles –> 1090.
Still not enough to justify 40,000. But enough to justify 32,500 post rebate.
(Quote)
Aug 13th, 2009 (2:43 pm)Aptera reveals production interior
– which includes Eva, a computing/infotainment system that likely has twice the computing power of any machine in your house . . . and big gulp cup holders.
http://www.aptera.com/newsletter072709/
(Quote)
Aug 13th, 2009 (2:45 pm)Exactly. Lutz’s fingerprint is all over this. It kills me that this sort of stuff works, but it is clear that it does. If it gets us Volts, I’m all for it despite how it makes me cringe. We need aggressive advertising to wake people up to the fact that electric propulsion is the future, and EREV is the first step.
Now what GM really needs to do is all sorts of “honest talk” commercials or something like that where they address people’s past concerns about the company (blaming them on factors outside of their control whenever possible, of course), and then explain how they have now become saints. For instance “we wish people would have shown more interest in leasing the EV-1, but we guess it was just too far ahead of its time. We spent a lot of time and money on the car, it wasn’t just a lark. Thankfully we are using all the things we learned about in the Volt.”
(Quote)
Aug 13th, 2009 (2:52 pm)That is correct I think. At slow speeds, weight is king. The original EV-1 had a *1200 lb* battery, while the Volt’s is 400 lb. The city energy consumption results really aren’t surprising if you think about them. Besides, the Volt can take advantage of newer regen technology.
Of course the Volt is not a 2-seater jetsonmobile. On the highway I bet the Volt is much worse than the EV1. If you want a jetsonmobile, get the aptera 2h when it comes out (I would consider doing that but most people it seems wouldn’t/can’t).