For the last 100 years, calculating a car’s efficiency was easy, one determined how many miles a car could travel under certain standardized conditions on one gallon of gasoline.
However, the new era of electric and partially electric cars is turning that convention on its head.
This was too brought to a head earlier this month when GM announced that Volt would get 230 MPG in typical city driving, and later that day Nissan tweeted that its LEAF would get 367 MPG.
In the case of the Volt, that number was arrived at by looking at the average amount of driving a cohort of city drivers did, presuming they were driving Volts and charging daily, and determined a total of 230 miles of driving would be covered over time for every one gallon of gas used.
Nissan’s number was based on a completely unrelated measure of the petroleum equivalence factor, which converts electric consumption into an equivalent amount of fossil fuel.
These numbers aren’t the end, but the beginning of a potential list of numbers that if displayed on window stickers may make it hard for consumers to compare and choose vehicles. Some even argue that a dollars per mile measurement should be adopted, but due to volatility of energy prices and wide variability among different energy sources this method is insufficient as well.
Progressive Automotive X Prize is a marketing-neutral organization which will award $10 million to the winner of a competition among vehicles for the one that will get at least 100 MPG.
They are promoting the widespread adoption of a measure known as mile per gallon equivalents (MPGe), determined by the following formula:
MPGe = (miles driven) / [(total energy of all fuels consumed)/(energy of one gallon of gasoline)])
This system essentially levels the playing field for all energy sources propelling the car including electricity, gas, or alternative fuels.
As examples, using these methods, the Tesla Roadster consuming 53 kwh over 244 miles of driving would get an MPGe of 158. The Nissan LEAF traveling 100 miles on 24 kwh of charge would get 142 MPGe.
And what about the Volt?
Well the calculator found here would work for it too, but still missing is the value for the Volt’s MPG in charge-sustaining mode, Another problem is the fact that MPGe will vary as a function of range, from 170 MPGe for trips under 40 miles down to 58.2 MPGe on a 200 mile drive (assuming 50 MPG in generator mode.)
I asked John Shore who is Senior Advisor of Progressive Automotive X PRIZE what total driving distance he believes the Volt should be analyzed over.
He wrote:
Two relevant data points are the MPGe achieved at the 100 mile and 200 mile range requirements of the Alternative and Mainstream Classes, respectively. But it’s very important to note that the overall MPGe value used for scoring our competition will likely be considerably higher than these values, since MPGe over shorter ranges will contribute more to the overall value. Thus you might want to estimate the Volt’s MPGe at the various trip lengths listed in the table on page 36 of the Competition Guidelines – current version available here. You could then estimate a combined MPGe by taking a weighted average with the distribution weights shown in the table.
If we do the math he suggests up to 100 miles (99% of trips), the Volt then gets 167 MPGe, beating both the LEAF and the Roadster.
[NOTE: Graphic above is from Wall Street Journal article and illustrates yet another efficiency measurement, gallons per mile]
This entry was posted on Friday, August 28th, 2009 at 6:04 am and is filed under Efficiency. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
Aug 28th, 2009 (6:13 am)In the end the Volt appears to be the one that will most fulfill people’s needs and and get high numbers no matter what system is used to calculate MPGe!
+2
Aug 28th, 2009 (6:14 am)Leaf would be a great second car though!
Aug 28th, 2009 (6:17 am)No one measure will ever suffice.
Electric cars should have their range stated in miles for a full charge and a cost per mile to operate based on some stardard price of electricity used by all EVs on their sticker (with the note that electricity prices may vary).
A car like the Volt or the Fisker should have two ratings: One for the EV range, and one for MPG in charge-sustaining mode. A standard methodology would have to be developed to measure the latter, perhaps incorprating some hills etc to provide a realistic sample.
This ulitmately would be less confusing and more transparent to the public.
+4
Aug 28th, 2009 (6:31 am)I just think it is silly to try to gauge a BEV or an E-REV using the rating for an ICE. And MPGe is just too complicated.
These cars are different, so it is time for a new rating system. Why is everyone so afraid of that? Are we really that stupid that we can’t adjust to anything new?
It could be done as a “cost to fuel for a year”, like they do with appliances. This could be used for ICE, BEV, and E-REV vehicles.
If you want to rate the actual efficiency of the electric vehicles, it could be done as a “KWh per mile” rating. But this causes confusion with ICE based vehicles.
Or it could be done as we have said here many times as simply a “miles per charge” for electric driving, with a rating for both city and highway driving, along with a city/highway MPG rating for ICE based vehicles.
But whatever rating is used, it has to be something that average drivers will expect to be close to when they look at the ratings.
Personally, I think the Volt’s “230″ number is a mistake. When people start to take a 1000 mile trip and do not get “230″, I think it will do more harm than good.
JMHO
+6
Aug 28th, 2009 (6:35 am)The objective information that we need as customers is EV range and mpg in charge sustaining mode. But objectivity gets mixed up in a fun sort of way with the marketing need to compare cars combined and the limited knowledge of the general public about what it all is about, and we get these fantastics like 230 mpg. The good part is that once there are EVs and EREVs on the road people will figure it all out. Here the Volt will come out fine.
+3
Aug 28th, 2009 (6:42 am)I’m for any system that makes sense to the average auto consumer.
Perhaps the 230 mpg PR stunt was just to get people talking about the issue. If so, mission accomplished!
BTY, it’s silly to talk about mpg for a BEV that does not even use gasoline. It’s like saying, “Yo dude, what mpg do you get while using that fancy iPhone?”
Aug 28th, 2009 (6:43 am)40 m AER / 50 mpg combined city/hwy
+2
Aug 28th, 2009 (6:52 am)Miles per charge. Followed by cost per mile. Dual Fuel cars like the Volt should have three. Cost per mile electric. Miles per charge. Cost per mile Gas.
Let the public decide which fuel is right for them.
As for me my next car will be electric.
Take Care,
TED
+3
Aug 28th, 2009 (6:54 am)In the case of the Volt, that number was arrived at by looking at the average amount of driving a cohort of city drivers did, presuming they were driving Volts and charging daily, and determined a total of 230 miles of driving would be covered over time for every one gallon of gas used.
——————-
Some favorable group in some favorable patterns —- really one can prove anything this way — “my doctor told me….”.
A better way to say it is that if you fully charge the Volt then 230 mpg is about what you get over the first 50 miles thereafter. You’ll get a higher number with a shorter trip and a lower number with a longer one. This way does not have the pseudo-scientific marketing mystique surrounding it but allows people to much more easily compare the 230 number to what they might do themselves.
+1
Aug 28th, 2009 (6:57 am)I have never purchased a vehicle based on MPG alone. I have had dozens over the years.
Using 100 mile and 200 mile benchmarks is not real. No EV is designed for these every-day totals. (200 x 365 is 73k) If you drive that much, a 2-mode hybrid or diesel would be your choice.
I think there will be some push-back on MPG stickers and this will cause some changes in the EPA methodology. Ultimately, the window sticker is the benchmark that calculates CAFE, so, the method needs to be realistic to the goal of reducing fuel consumption.
Since GM has already announced 250 city, this is likely the EPA method that will be approved. It would be incredibly stupid to announce 250 and not get that on the sticker.
Personally, it doesn’t matter to me. 100, 167, 250mpg are all less than my drive cycle. Likely I will be getting > 250 driving the Volt.
Even that doesn’t matter because buying a new car (Volt or otherwise) is way more costly than keeping my 27Mpg (real-world combined) Intrepid until it’s wheels fall off.
Aug 28th, 2009 (7:02 am)I agree but would add a 3rd (very important) stat to the Volt EPA sticker.
Charge Sustaining Mode – Full Tank Range in Miles / km.
-3
Aug 28th, 2009 (7:03 am)230mpg the way the EPA tests it. 70mpg the way I would use it. MPG is a rate. It should not change depending on how far one drives it.
Of course, if GM and the EPA want to go through with this 230mpg silliness, they are welcome to do so. “230MPG and the More You Drive it, the Lower it Goes!” That will make a great slogan.
-1
Aug 28th, 2009 (7:04 am)Now let’s use a fuel cell for the range extender in the Volt, add another fuel (besides gasoline and electricity), and try to come up with another rating system!
No matter what you do, it’s going to be confusing for the average consumer.
-13
Aug 28th, 2009 (7:10 am)(click to show comment)
+4
Aug 28th, 2009 (7:15 am)I would like the EPA to tell me:
1. How many miles will the car go in electric mode while running the heater (cold weather)
2. How many miles will the car go in electric mode while running the AC (hot weather)
3. What is the MPG while driving at highway speeds on gas only.
4. How many KW to charge the battery
-1
Aug 28th, 2009 (7:20 am)That’s what everybody wants to know and GM has evaded that question many times.
+4
Aug 28th, 2009 (7:21 am)Repost from yesterday. I am fuming over this:
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE57P5C220090826.
What suckers the Japanese and Koreans must think we are – using our taxpayers money to pay for sales of their cars.
I just want to throw up.
Aug 28th, 2009 (7:22 am)The first thing we have to do is to figure out an average of how Americans put miles on their cars in a years time. Do we put most miles going back and forth to work and around town, or do we put most of it from long trips? Once that is figured out, then it should be much easier to come out with a formula.
Aug 28th, 2009 (7:29 am)I hear you. UFB!
Aug 28th, 2009 (7:33 am)I’m sorry but this doesn’t pass the sniff test. How can the bigger EREV that was quoted at 100 miles on 25KWh have a better MPGe than a pure EV that is quoted above at 100 miles on 24KWh? And does anyone really believe the EV Tesla will use les enegery per mile than the Leaf? Really? Either the MPGe formula is useless or it has not been applied properly.
The Volt is a great concept and a great vehicle. I want one. Making up a formula or numbers so that the Volt seems to have the “best” values when it is obvious that it can’t, does the Volt a disservice in the long run, especially if it makes people doubt other valid claims. Let the Volt stand on its own merits. It will come out just fine.
+3
Aug 28th, 2009 (7:41 am)texas,
I agree, BUT try explaining MPGe to Joe Sixpack who wants to compare vehicles. The Leaf appears to use no energy using mpg’s. Your electric bill will rise with any plugin, so it has to be considered somewhere pre-purchase.
Be well,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The Volts’ Wheels On The Road!!**********NPNS
Aug 28th, 2009 (7:42 am)Cost per mile electric
Cost per mile gasoline
Usable Battery capacity
Gasoline Tank capacity
Electric range on one charge
Gasoline range on one tank
Miles per grid kWh in CD mode
Miles per gallon in CS mode
Then leave out one category if your car doesn’t use both.
If you have a plug-in parallel hybrid count only the kWh from the grid.
If your hybrid runs only on gasoline or diesel treat it as you would and ICE vehicle and calculate only with the fuel.
Calculate the numbers for CITY and HWY
+1
Aug 28th, 2009 (7:44 am)Jim I
I’ve been pushing for a similar Energy Star sticker with the cost to operate as a basis.
Be well,
Tagamet
/The public isn’t stupid, but are largely ignorant in this area.
Let’s Just Get The Volts’ Wheels On The Road!!**********NPNS
+1
Aug 28th, 2009 (7:47 am)Considering that cars will increasingly be fueled by things other than gasoline (e.g., natural gas, electricity, etc.), the “gallons-of-gasoline” concept will cease to be a useful measure and just cause confusion–trying to figure out how many gallons of gasoline an electric car consumes is going to stump most people… and it should because it really doesn’t make sense.
When it comes to the “miles” part of the MPG equation, the meaning is clear and it continues to be relevant, but providing the car-purchaser with a number that will be accurate for them is impossible when you consider all the different driving conditions and styles out there.
Maybe what is needed is a standard that is detached from miles and gallons. It would only be meaningful in relation to other vehicles and it wouldn’t try to provide any real-world measurement. Ultimately, it would be still be based on energy usage per mile driven (in a very precise laboratory setting), but it would obscure that fact so that people wouldn’t complain and argue when they don’t get the exact results “promised” by the manufacturer.
+3
Aug 28th, 2009 (7:48 am)zipdrive —>The purpose of cash for clunkers was to improve average fuel efficiency and, as a secondary purpose, to give the economy of each local community a slap on the bottom to get them jumping, at least a step or two, with some auto sales. Both goals were achieved. Be happy
+4
Aug 28th, 2009 (7:48 am)Charlie H,
Hint: stay away from a career in marketing. (g).
Be well,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The Volts’ Wheels On The Road!!**********NPNS
Aug 28th, 2009 (7:51 am)Mike A
All good info, but you let some “interpretable terms” slip in there. My wife runs the heater on full @ 65 degrees and I use the AC at the same temp.
Be well,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The Volts’ Wheels On The Road!!**********NPNS
Aug 28th, 2009 (7:54 am)I have thought more about my post…..
I think we must all be that stupid and can’t change.
We still rate our electic motors and ICE engines by horsepower, don’t we?????
And don’t even get me started on weights and measures…..
Aug 28th, 2009 (8:00 am)What matters most to people is dollars/mile (well, and for some of us lowering CO2 emissions and environmental damage). Comparing energy equivalents isn’t really that useful since energy costs vary.
Aug 28th, 2009 (8:01 am)Average Joe, 80% of us, drives < 40 miles/diem…
Aug 28th, 2009 (8:02 am)Jim I
Not stupid, but definitely human. It’s institutional inertia. It’s not “in motion, so it “wants” to stay still. These new technologies may provide the necessary tipping point for change.
Be well,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The Volts’ Wheels On The Road!!**********NPNS
Aug 28th, 2009 (8:03 am)A better way to say it is that if you fully charge the Volt then 230 mpg is about what you get over the first 50 miles thereafter. You’ll get a higher number with a shorter trip and a lower number with a longer one. This way does not have the pseudo-scientific marketing mystique surrounding it but allows people to much more easily compare the 230 number to what they might do themselves.
As I stated in several previous threads, the arguments could easily be avoided by basing the mpg values on miles driven and the amount of gas consumed between recharges currently once a day.Recharging has the greatest effect on the GM published numbers. Your 50 miles range value is exactly right for what we know of the Volt today.In fact with standard recharge this could be considered 50 miles daily driving.
Your ability to recharge more frequently would clearly change this value on a per day basis.
+1
Aug 28th, 2009 (8:16 am)Perhaps the ONE number method doesn’t apply anymore? Use MPGe or whatever formula works to account for all fuels and then the sticker would show:
DIstance – MPGe
24 miles – 230
50 miles – 220
100 miles – 137
250 miles – 83
or something that would allow you to see what your expected MPGe would be for your average driving distance.
+1
Aug 28th, 2009 (8:27 am)I like Tagamets idea.
Post it as follows:
Estimated cost per year based on a fixed price for the fuel. Set these prices once every year for each fuel type and keep them consistent for that year. Then the consumer can really compare the average cost per year to operate. They need to post these static fuel costs so we can compare against our regional costs.
It’s not going to be perfect, since in the case of the Volt some drivers will use more gas then electricity and vice versa, but it should be good enough.
+6
Aug 28th, 2009 (8:30 am)Exactly and… that has already been done by ANL (A DOE Lab study) and a typical driving pattern can be obtained from this.
This is the basis, more or less, for the 230 mpg number.
Everyones mileage will vary by a lot with these electric/gas vehicles. We need a single number for comparison purposes so people can make a rational decision on which car is more efficient. Using a statistical average of driving patterns as ANL did makes the most sense if you are looking for a single comparison number.
If you want multiple numbers, how many do you want? 2 ratings, 3 ratings, 4 ratings, 5 ratings.
For aggressive city driving…… All you would need is…
XX electric range
XY electric range carrying fat people.
XZ electric range in a head wind with the radio and heater running
YY electric range with AC and no luggage
YZ electric range wirh a roof rack
Now give me the same set of numbers for gentle city driving.
Now give me the same numbers for aggresive city driving with a dead battery
Now repeat for passive driving and a dead battery.
Now I want to know all of this for starting out with my battery at 43%
Repeat..
Now lets do all of this for highway driving..
72 more numbers.
Now lets repeat all of this for blended highway and city driving.
144 more numbers.
Lets put a huge spreadsheet of tiny numbers on the windsheild (it won’t fit on the side window) of new E-Revs so that everyone can find their driving style and get a mileage number for comparison purposes.
No thankyou.
I’ll take the one number on the window as good enough information.
Onc can always read some 3rd party reviews to make a decision clearer.
Mileage is not really that important for high mileage cars anyway.
The difference between 100 mpg and 150 mpg is only 40 gallons of gas in a typical 12000 mile per year scenario. At that point, I am going to start to look at other features of the car to make my final decision.
-4
Aug 28th, 2009 (8:43 am)Joe Sixpack should not buy this car, as he will not remember to plug it in. Kinda like when you call his cell and it goes straight to voicemail cause he forgot to plug it in!
Aug 28th, 2009 (8:45 am)For me as energy guy would be obvious to use kWh for everything – gasoline, ethanol, diesel, CNG, LNG or coal and electricity. Normally we operate on those terms not to confuse things. Gallons, barrels, tones, bttu, cubic foots or meters are for traders not for engineers.
Aug 28th, 2009 (8:47 am)and he forgot to define the average speed of these ratings.. everyone forgets that and it is the MOST important factor. EPA hwy and city cycles are designed using statistics of actual drivers.
So what is the average temperature a driver likes?.. and what is the average temperature in their city?
-1
Aug 28th, 2009 (8:50 am)Q>How to Calculate Efficiency of New Technology Cars?
A>In an honest, straightforward, and understandable manner.
The EPA sticker should reflect liquid fuel use measured in miles per gallon. Listed in both Highway and City numbers based on moderate temperature conditions and moderate degree of work load (at sea level?).
Under this main “liquid” listing should be an “other” rating. This will cover battery, fuel cell, or direct power from other sources.
The Volt for example may look like this:
EPA
liquid fuel city: 50mpg ~ liquid fuel highway: 40mpg
Other:
battery range city: 50 ~ battery range highway: 40
solar city: n/a ~ solar highway: n/a
hydrogen city: n/a ~ hydrogen highway: n/a
compressed air city: n/a ~ compressed air highway: n/a
230 mpg of what? The public will view this as being a liquid gallon.
Manufacturer advertising may be used to demonstrate consumer savings via opportunity plug in, solar assist, back yard turbine and several other means. The EPA sticker is not an advertisement, it is a buying guide. The manufacturer can boast about battery size and weight. About total available range. And about wind tunnel testing.
The Volt is what it is and will stand on it’s own.
=D~
+3
Aug 28th, 2009 (8:59 am)zipdrive, I couldn’t agree with you more. Our representatives think nothing of borrowing a trillion a year and supporting foreign industries with some of that money. Who elected these guys????
Chris
+2
Aug 28th, 2009 (8:59 am)Agree with RB … give the consumer numbers they can USE.
Give a single MPG and people with an 80+ mi commute will buy one without understanding how it works – and expect to save tons on gas. 230 MPG is simply not useful in trying to calculate one’s actual fuel usage due to the bi-modal functioning of the car, unless you exactly match the characteristics of the ‘average American’ … which very few people do.
Of course, the whole 230MPG ad has brought up a lot of needed discussion around the topic, which is good whether you agree with using the number or not.
-1
Aug 28th, 2009 (9:00 am)THIS would be best. I mean EVERY person would fit in this. EVERY person would know what their miles per day usage is or equate to miles per week or month. But this would work well for ER-EVs with different numbers AND for EVs with static numbers across the board.
I think this model is best as it offers a solution for any and all drive trains. Nice job.
Aug 28th, 2009 (9:01 am)This is WHY I like the Volt!
During the week in the commute cycle I’ll do very close to that 230 mpg.
But the Volt’s range extender saves me another $25-40k for a highway capable car because it already is!
As for how to calculate average mileage, that is very tough because its so incredibly personal habit driven.
I think we still need an “EPA” type standard test with an added longer distance test. Yes it will be fiction much like current test results are, but at least it will be a consistant fiction that the consumer can use to compare model to model.
You still get a ‘city’ and ‘highway’ rating because that’s how people use cars.
The Volt will be super efficent in the city, and somewhat less so on the highway. For someone who drives to work 5 days a week this could be a very good thing, one car that does it all.
+1
Aug 28th, 2009 (9:02 am)Agreed. But this is something that everyone can understand.
The marketing people won’t allow that.
But I think Statik was correct with his break down.
I think he showed AER based on driving style.
It went something like this:
40 miles AER Slow driving
30 miles AER Moderate driving
20 miles AER Aggressive driving.
Then I would add 50 MPG. But then again, driving style matters here too.
Aug 28th, 2009 (9:02 am)In Electric mode we could rate it like an appliance. You go to a store and look at all the Fridges and there average yearly consumption. We are used to that which means it would not be that big a change. That would mean we could keep MPG for charge sustaining mode and even Joe Sixpack could figure it out.
+7
Aug 28th, 2009 (9:03 am)I must be the only person in the world that thinks the methodology they used to come up with the 230 MPG number is just fine the way it is. (Obviously GM cherry picked the number — the Highway and Combined numbers will give a more complete picture — but that’s a different question). Let’s start by recognizing that the solution to a problem can’t be any less complex than the problem, and comparing PHEVs, EVs, and conventional ICE cars is a complex problem.
Then let’s recognize that the primary purpose of the methodology is to compare PHEVs to one another. Here’s the problem. You have three plug-in cars which all use 25 kWh / 100 miles and get 50 MPG when in charge sustaining mode (when they use the internal combustion engine). But each car has a different EV range — say 10 miles, 50 miles, and 100 miles. If you just look at the MPG in charge sustaining mode, which many have suggested, then all the cars would get identical ratings. In this case they’d be rated at 25 kWh / 100 miles and 50 MPG. That would obviously be misleading.
Let’s also recognize that you want numbers that are at least somewhat consistent with the numbers you publish now at fueleconomy.gov. That means that, at the end of the day, you want to tell the consumer how much it will cost to fuel the car and the number of barrels of oil used by the vehicle over the course of the year.
The suggested EPA methodology addresses both issues admirably. It uses real world data to create a Utility Factor, a simple a ratio of the EV miles expected to be driven in a day divided by all the miles expected to be driven in a day based on the EV range of the PHEV. By using the UF you can show how much gas each vehicle will use ON AVERAGE over the course of a year, which allows an easy comparison between the PHEVs. Now our three vehicles in our example will have different MPG ratings, say 75 MPG, 200 MPG, and 350 MPG (totally random numbers).
The methodology also allows a simple cost number to be presented to consumers. By first dividing the number of miles expected to be driven over the course of a year by the MPG for the PHEV and then multiplying that number by the price of a gallon of gas, and by then adding to this number the number of kWh needed for the EV miles (the EV miles will be given by the Utility Factor) the DOE will be able to give the consumer both the cost of fueling the vehicle and the number of barrels of oil needed to run the vehicle over the course of a year. This means that the information given to consumers will be consistent and presumably easy to understand.
Aug 28th, 2009 (9:06 am)Lyle,
If your MPGe number for the Leaf is based on 24kWh of charge, it’s incorrect. Nissan has already announced that the Leaf will only use a subset of the pack to extend its life, but they have not settled on a final number. I’d guess about 18kWh.
-3
Aug 28th, 2009 (9:07 am)I ahve purchased a car based on fuel usage much. You buy the car you need and the fuel mileage comes with it.
I buy cars based on performance and the fun to drive feeling. If I wanted a commuter car (ie, lousy car to drive for fun or on trips) that is what an old beater is for. You could buy a Geo Metro for $500-1000 and get 40-50MPG and save about $20k over its LIFE SPAN when compared to a Volt.
So is car to drive or to just exist inside of while commuting to work? The Volt satisfies neither $$$ wise or fun wise, so why bother?
+2
Aug 28th, 2009 (9:08 am)FME III – I really agree with your points above. My ideal sticker:
– AER (miles)
– Miles/kWHr (electric efficiency)
– Post-AER MPG (charge sustain MPG – gas efficiency)
– Full Range (AER + Gas miles – to address ‘range anxiety’)
– Average cost for 30 miles / day: (use avg electric & gas costs)
– Average cost for 60 miles / day
Clearly this would be a lot to swallow, but at least would give people the information to understand their own cost of driving.
Aug 28th, 2009 (9:08 am)Hey Tag,
Terrific term: “Institutional Inertia”. That was the very one that I’ve been trying to capture in a “nutshell” for quite some time.
“Institutional Inertia” also applies to all other highly technical things!!
This concept is precisely the definition that a new thread topic should explore (for anything technical).
Institutional Inertia worked against my efforts this month, where I placed a bit to the State of Texas for 4 Genisys diagnostic scanners along with a proven value of $1600 in ASE-L-1-recognized and job-specific/highly-customized training, and a full year of Statewide telephone support specific-to-need.
The training value however, was not apparently able to be technically-recognized as being any different than anything else out there, so, apparently, I lost the bid, just merely due to the bottom line, with the training value, unrecognized, and subtracted from the value of the bid. Non-technical decision-making regarding technical decisions happens every second. It’s just simply the way it is.
This is the only reason I am not generally chosen to serve big chains, because the technical-explanation time-load is equal or greater than what it would take to close a contract with a smaller (chain of 3 shops) individual owner.
In my Austin 50 mile radius alone, there are 1,800 auto servicing facilities that definitely would benefit from my courses with immediate ROI. I have trained only 145 of them in 4 and a half years. Plenty remain certainly, but the lesson here is that the insufficiently-technical-decision-making of those in large organizations who “are too big to fail”, are the very ones who unintentionally may be allowing for too much of their own failures. (I could spend the rest of my life attempting to close contracting with any of them, but, I would likely certainly starve, because the fact is, Institutional Inertia is a “front and center” roadblock in my ability for contractual-closure to assist those large organizations, even though I can easily perform with military precision for them, given an honest and fair chance the first time.
Institutional Inertia (just approving the lowest bottom line cost), has possibly just cost the State of Texas the practicable usage and an entire year of telephone support for all of the extremely serious confounding usage variables that the offices will absolutely need to be worked-through.
But, due to Institutional Inertia (not anyone’s individual fault, by the way), inefficiencies for their critical missions will not be eliminated, due to an unrecognizable technical set of differences causing this technical impasse.
Aug 28th, 2009 (9:08 am)The proposed methodology makes it easy to show the two numbers that consumers really want to know about: cost and gallons of gas consumed. If you go on fueleconomy.gov those are the two featured numbers. The Volt will have the same numbers, only there won’t be that many little red and black barrels of oil!
-8
Aug 28th, 2009 (9:09 am)Give fuel cells or straight Hydrogen gas 5 years and it will begin to push the gasoline motor away.
Then the big VHS-Beta or HD-DVD versus Blu ray (for you young people) style battle will begin between hydrogen and electric.
-1
Aug 28th, 2009 (9:10 am)On an E85 engine (which is what the Volt has), your mileage will vary wildly if you buy pure gas (10% alcohol) verses 85% alcohol.
+1
Aug 28th, 2009 (9:10 am)The 230 number was refering to gasoline use on the city cycle using ‘normal’ commute distances and charging each night.
Of COURSE the highway number will be less, it is with most hybrid type vehicles.
I still think the mpg in CS mode is going to be very good.
-1
Aug 28th, 2009 (9:13 am)The single biggest issue is the ~11 mile city driving course used to develop the rating. The biggest issue is who drives only 11 miles (round trip) to work in big cities? Not many people I know, at least not in Chicago. The average time to go one way to work was ~35 minutes over 10 miles, one way.
Update the course, and yes change the miles per gallon rating to something per mile.
+1
Aug 28th, 2009 (9:15 am)Dave K is correct. How about me, I have 5000 watts of solar to charge my EV with. How many MPGe’s do I make. Off the scale :>). You going to book keep the gals of fuel used to manufacturer the PV cells? How about numbers of mpg on IC only at highway and city, MPGe on electric only (someone has to establish the nominal watts per gal of petro power plants). It is going to be an advertising blitz like we haven’t had on auto efficiency yet!
Aug 28th, 2009 (9:15 am)The Volt actually claims 100 miles on 20kWh. The Leaf range is probably not based on using all 24 kWh in its battery, so an exact comparison is difficult.
Aug 28th, 2009 (9:15 am)A better way to say it is that if you fully charge the Volt then 230 mpg is about what you get over the first 50 miles thereafter.
Even better would be to think of it as what you will get ON AVERAGE during the COURSE OF A YEAR during CITY DRIVING. The City number is cherry picked, which is distracting. If you had the Combined number you’d probably be more comfortable.
Some days you’ll drive all EV. Some days mostly EV. And a few days mostly Charge Sustaining. Over the course of a year all this will average out and the average driver will get the Combined MPG.
What confuses people is that the current MPG is actually an average but it can be used as a more instantaneous measure and people have come to think of it this way. But it’s really an average over a given course driven over a given amount of time. It’s just that the distances and time frames used for PHEV comparisons will be longer … a lot longer!
+1
Aug 28th, 2009 (9:18 am)You’re absolutely right that opportunistic recharging can really move the MPG needle. The committee recognized that, but, without any real world data, it’s hard to figure out how to incorporate this type of charging into the MPG number.
-2
Aug 28th, 2009 (9:19 am)What will be initially frustrating is since the US is a state run country (or at least it should be), every state is starting their own projects. CA is building/funding Hydrogen highways already. So these changes need to happen fast. It would be nice to see the car companies dictate what the sticker should read. Having to depend on a ineffective unelected federal government agency isn’t the way to handle this anyway. We will end up with the worst option and be stuck with it.
So GM, Ford, Toyota, etc… time to step up and get this done.
+2
Aug 28th, 2009 (9:19 am)1,2,3, The car is still in development and they haven’t shared that information as yet, were I Frank and team I wouldn’t either!
The EPA likely has preliminary numbers.
But really guys they haven’t finished BUILDING the car yet, they will have ballpark numbers now but they can’t be final until the car is!
Since every rumour is taken as hard fact they MUST be very careful releasing anything.
4, the battery is 16 kw and they will use roughly half so that means 8 to 8.5 kw to charge from ‘depleted’.
+2
Aug 28th, 2009 (9:23 am)Yeah, let’s see. You have a 230 MPG number and a 145 MPG number so you use the 145 MPG number. Not!
Every manufacturer has a handle. The Ford Fusion has the “best fuel economy for a full sized car” and Chevy has “the SUV with the best Highway mileage” and so on and so forth. Some of it is a stretch, but it’s kinda what you do in sales and marketing.
Charlie is just sore that 230 MPG makes 50 MPG look pale. LOL
+1
Aug 28th, 2009 (9:23 am)I disagree. The 1000 mile figure clearly implies mileage over time rather than in one continuous run. Who drives 1000 miles in a single go? I’d stop for the night before 1000 miles on a long trip. In my normal driving it takes me a couple months to do 1000 miles.
+5
Aug 28th, 2009 (9:24 am)I want a Viper with a V10 and a blower
+1
Aug 28th, 2009 (9:24 am)I am fine with it too, but if they are going to change it, then I recommend:
40 miles AER, 50 mpg combined city/hwy
+2
Aug 28th, 2009 (9:26 am)I don’t agree with the 30 and 20 numbers. The 50 mpg city/hwy already uses a grandma driving style, so the 40 mile AER should too. We all know we get less, because of our driving style – that offset is already built into our thinking.
Aug 28th, 2009 (9:26 am)It seems to me that anyone who buys a plug-in car will be reasonably diligent in plugging it in.
I already check the cars to ensure the windows are rolled up and the sunroofs closed before bed, an unplugged Volt would get juiced then anyway.
+1
Aug 28th, 2009 (9:26 am)You don’t get this information now and you’re not going to get it for the Volt so you probably need to move on. The Ford Fusion got 38 MPG in California and 28 MPG in Michigan last winter — same testers. Yes cold weather makes a big difference in MPG.
You get averages. The EPA is not giving you a personal report for what mileage you will get driving any car.
+1
Aug 28th, 2009 (9:29 am)If you go to fueleconomy.gov you’ll find that’s more or less what they do now. The DOE even goes a step further and gives you one number for the cost of fueling the vehicle.
Your government at work.
Aug 28th, 2009 (9:29 am)I think you’ve got it. Things are getting too complex to try to list the efficiency of each type or combination of power sources. The “best” bottom line report would be:
– Annual cost of ownership for 25 miles / day
– Annual cost of ownership for 50 miles / day
– Annual cost of ownership for 75 miles / day
Include average cost of electricity, gasoline, LNG, hydrogen, etc.
Use average standard driving patterns for City / Highway
*Include average costs of maintenance and depreciation as well.
This would clearly show how a $40K Volt could be cheaper to own after 10 years than, say, a Honda Accord. People would be far less likely to buy SUV-like vehicles when they see the annual costs.
-3
Aug 28th, 2009 (9:31 am)What the hell for? As long as we are still tied to that Internal Combustion Engine that has been so well placed in the Volt that burns fuel, I want to know when I use that engine how many miles I can get per gallon of fuel that I will be purchasing. Otherwise, MPG.
This question goes right along with the other stupidy so recently put out to the public about a ridiculous MPG the Volt will get and, the media just put that crap out like it was the truth.
Dosen’t GM have their plate full in getting this Volt out to the public versus somebody eating up the valuable funds available setting around thinking up some new way to screw with the public?
As an old GM man seeing the company grow out of World War II, I am supprised how the NEW GM is so ladened with stupidity. Obviously! this is how they got in this mess to start with.
My support for GM is fading rapidly.
+1
Aug 28th, 2009 (9:34 am)The MPGe idea is fine from an engineering standpoint but not from the standpoint of what consumers care about: cost or oil consumption. On the cost front, it may be nice to know that a gallon of gas contains 34 kWh of energy — or 88 kWh as Nissan would say — but if that gallon of gas costs $10 and the 34 kWh costs $.34 then telling a consumer that the cars use the equivalent amount of energy is meaningless. The consumer will be far more interested in looking at the difference between the ten bucks and the thirty cents. MPGe ignores the cost difference, making it less than useful from the standpoint of what most consumers care most about. (Note that from an economic standpoint cost represents the burden imposed on society of producing the energy, so these costs should be critical in determining which energy source is used).
Likewise it doesn’t tell anyone how much gas they’d consumer, only the energy equivalent of that gas.
Finally there is a substantial question if you can use the MPGe numbers with a straight face. The intellectual arguments for using MPGe leads to the conclusion that you have to calculate it, not tank to wheels or even plug to wheels, but throughout the entire process of moving the energy to the wheels. This leads to speculative and difficult to measure numbers which are informed more by politics than science. CARB has run into these issues when trying to quantify the amount of energy used to produce ethanol, and the process is frightfully messy. If you can’t use good numbers sometimes it’s best not to use them at all.
+1
Aug 28th, 2009 (9:37 am)Running heater and a/c and other accessories is already part of the EPA drive cycles. If the EPA allows you to toss in a couple of KWh in an onboard battery and count that as zero gallons, then, so be it.
The sticker is the sticker. It’s only one thing to check while making a purchase decision.
Nobody makes a decision to spend $40k without checking more sources for information. What the sales guy tells you is totally ignored if you’re smart!
Tagamet is right. We need a sticker that says ‘here’s how much it will cost you per year’ to operate. Just like a refrigerator. It wouldn’t matter if you used gasoline, electricity, CNG, hydrogen, diesel or camel farts.
Trust, but verify.
-3
Aug 28th, 2009 (9:37 am)So based on that graphic the Volt gets 192 Mpg in generator mode??? 1000 miles – 40 on electric= 960 miles/5 gallons=192
I think we have some more funny math going on here!
Aug 28th, 2009 (9:38 am)Just my opinion, but the Volt gets brownie points for being the sexiest car in that illustration. Of course that is the pre- design change as Statik pointed out earlier, so we’ll see… We all know the mileage for the Volt is a YMMV type of thing (ha ha, that fits well here), so it’s a bit of a waste of time arguing about the MPG, isn’t it?
In other useless news, reporting from central China, in two weeks here I’ve seen a grand total of two BYD cars, and I daresay neither were electric. Quite a few Audis, VWs, and Citroens though. Ho hum.
Aug 28th, 2009 (9:44 am)No.
From http://gm-volt.com/2009/08/13/gm-still-claims-volt-will-get-40-all-electric-miles-both-highway-and-city-but-under-what-conditions/
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.”
So 100 miles on 25KWh is a best case scenario.
-1
Aug 28th, 2009 (9:45 am)Sort of on Topic: HybridCars has posted a story that suggests GM’s 230 MPG claim served the purpose of drowning out the story of GM’s toxic legacy.
http://www.hybridcars.com/environment/new-gm-shirks-responsibility-toxic-dumps-and-mercury-disposal-26044.html
+2
Aug 28th, 2009 (9:49 am)The problem with the cost of fuel per year measure is that electricty rates vary too much according to region and even time of year. And we need one nation-wide rating. For comparison purposes. And cafe purposes.
I actually like MPGe. For one thing–it hammers home the idea of how much more efficient electric cars (and plug-in hybrids) are than conventional cars. Secondly, it enables you to compare efficiency even among BEVs. Electricity use is not a free ride. It’s better than gasoline. But it’s not free either.
+4
Aug 28th, 2009 (9:54 am)Actually, it was billed as a stimulus measure first, and improving fuel efficiency second.
The point is that we used taxpayer dollars in a way that will hurt us in the long run. That’s not a good thing.
+1
Aug 28th, 2009 (9:56 am)Achieved? Maybe. It’s arguable. But at an utterly absurd cost!
Aug 28th, 2009 (9:58 am)Very interesting report, Lyle. It would seem the Volt still shows up as a very economical vehicle. I wish GM would go ahead and release their determined MPG under generator operation and lets be done with it. Come on, GM. Fess up.
Aug 28th, 2009 (10:01 am)Herm,
And if it’s a couple, who gets to pick the temp?
Be well,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The Volts’ Wheels On The Road!!**********NPNS
Aug 28th, 2009 (10:04 am)I don’t like the idea of seeing anything to do with gallons when it comes to an EV, especially a BEV.
I think it needs to be separated. Keep MPG or L/100KM or whatever for the ICE and give us an average electrice range.
Aug 28th, 2009 (10:04 am)Dan,
Maybe you can use the phrase in your next bid. Just a thought.
Be well,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The Volts’ Wheels On The Road!!**********NPNS
+3
Aug 28th, 2009 (10:07 am)DonC,
God willing, 50 mpg will look pale in the very near future. Soooo many neat options coming down the road!
Be well,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The Volts’ Wheels On The Road!!**********NPNS
+1
Aug 28th, 2009 (10:10 am)Muddy,
I’m guessing CS at 60 mpg (and a very small gas tank). Just a hope, time will tell.
Be well,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The Volts’ Wheels On The Road!!**********NPNS
Aug 28th, 2009 (10:11 am)I’d say your support has already gone from the sounds of things.
The 230 mpg number will absolutely be achiveable in a sub 40 mile commute cycle. (Assuming I can get my hands on a Volt I’ll see ‘mileage’ much like that.) It’s an average over time and distance, which will be padded nicely with the plug.
When you are talking about your work do you not point out the ‘best’ numbers to your clients?
If you don’t then you are VERY unusual.
The Voltec system could use any number of possible genset engines, they picked an existing 1.4 litre gas engine to reduce costs and ensure fuel supply (there are gas stations everywhere) for the first generation car.
They haven’t shared the CS mode (genset running) mileage as yet because the car isn’t finished so they DO NOT yet have the final number.
+1
Aug 28th, 2009 (10:12 am)Landkurt,
I totally agree that the numbers have to have SOMETHING(s) that relate to real life behavior. Driving a thousand miles continuously just ain’t done.
Be well,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The Volts’ Wheels On The Road!!**********NPNS
Aug 28th, 2009 (10:14 am)My solution.
1. Obtain typical driving statistics for the American public and publish them for nerds to ready. Done. ANL has these.
2. Run each car through these numbers and get gallons and kW-hrs used.
3. Publish Gas used and yearly gas cost along with kWhrs used and yearly electric cost.
Now the average consumer can compare vehicles with simple numbers. This is similar to big appliance purchases. They tell you home much energy they use and an estimated yearly cost based on some generic use standard. This works out well to determine how much your fridge costs to operate and would work well with cars too.
+1
Aug 28th, 2009 (10:16 am)RB:
I agree. Well said.
Aug 28th, 2009 (10:17 am)No, 25 kWh per 100 miles is not a best case. The 8 kWh for 40 miles that GM claims, i.e. 20 kWh per 100 miles, is clearly a better case. The 24 kWh for 100 miles for the Leaf is not comparable to either number, so it’s all quite pointless.
+3
Aug 28th, 2009 (10:19 am)Jason, I agree. First state the AER, then state the CS mileage for ER-Ev’s. No comparing apples to oranges to bananas. I think discussions like this will inform more and more people over the next 14 months and by the time the Volt and other ER-EV’s come out it will be generally understood by the people that are interested in buying this type of car. But trying to compare the Prius to the Volt to the Leaf is not going to done effectively if we try to use a one size fits all approach. I understand why GM used the 230 mpg number, and after looking at my mileage over the past year, I found that my mileage would have been more than 300 mpg. But I don’t think that that is what everyone would get. I drive fairly conservatively because I often have clients in the car, and I don’t have many days where I drive more than 35 miles.
+2
Aug 28th, 2009 (10:20 am)Dave99 says:
“unless you exactly match the characteristics of the ‘average American’ … which very few people do.”
Actually, that is not true. This being AVERAGE does indeed mean that a large amount of people DO match these characteristics, or at least very close to it.
I know for sure that I match the characteristics.
Aug 28th, 2009 (10:26 am)A gallon per miles really irritates me and confuses all things. That is really marketing stuff. May be it is time getting to basics and recalling secondary school physics. Can everybody get to the international units and calculate how much energy (kWh or MJ) should use vehicle to travel 1 mile. Each type of fuel can be expressed in kWh and that really matters how long you can travel on 1 gallon of fuel. In case it is not satisfactory indicator, you can add CO2 emissions per mile. Please have information on fuel calorific values calculated per gallon.
kWh/gallon
Ethanol 24,89
Methanol 19,14
Diesel fuel 39,75
Kerosine 38,86
Petrol 33,27
LPG 28,83
Otherwise we shall invent some new international energy unit “gas equivalent”. “Coal equiivalent” and “oil equivalent” I heard about, but gas – not existing yet.
Aug 28th, 2009 (10:28 am)zipdrive:
Amen. Everybody I’ve talked to, from my wife to the teenager next door, thinks it’s the dumbest thing they ever heard of. We own GM, and we are subsidizing the competition? If we never get our money out, it will be nobody’s fault but our own.
I heard a bit on NPR last week about the Cash for Clunkers program in Russia(!) They interviewed a Russian in Moscow who was furious. He said that it only applies if you buy a Russian car, and that everybody wants a BMW or a Mercedes because Russian cars are junk, LOL. Sound familiar?
Aug 28th, 2009 (10:34 am)For some it could be.
+1
Aug 28th, 2009 (10:35 am)>> Your chart is crap!
It’s not GM-Volt’s chart. It’s the Wall Street Journal’s chart. Why don’t you complain to them, instead?
+3
Aug 28th, 2009 (10:36 am)I’m with you Zip. The program should have always been domestics only or no program at all. In addition, I think we will now see a really poor forth quarter in auto sales not sustained sales. Silly and wasteful.
Aug 28th, 2009 (10:38 am)GM should go out of its way to educate the public on 230 MPG claim…or the general public will have good reason to complain about misinformation. Car salespeople can do the most damage to an auto company…due to their lack of knowledge or even caring to know techincal details about a vehicle.
Everyone cares about “Joe Six Pack”. Why? Because everyone can be a “Joe Six Pack” depending on their knowledge of a product. I have no doubt that the 230 MPG claim is practically the only info some people have about the Volt. And good percentage of them are probably car salespeople…the so-called experts of cars.
Aug 28th, 2009 (10:38 am)I live in CA, and I don’t see any “hydrogen highways”. Spin and ‘greenwash” from the Governator, yes. Facts on the ground? None that I can see.
+1
Aug 28th, 2009 (10:40 am)Joe Sixpack’s gonna have to get an equity loan off his double wide to buy this car. Probably not a good idea.
Financial planning rule of thumb is that you spend no more than 20% of your annual income to purchase a car. This would mean that the $40,000+ volt (when the rebates die out) is a reasonable financial decision only for buyers with income of over $200,000.
The people that make over $200,000 (i.e top 2% of wage earners) don’t have much trouble with basic math. Just give them the AER city/hwy and the CS mpg city/hwy. They can figure it out from there.
Aug 28th, 2009 (10:41 am)Loboc,
I think I’ll take a er, pass, on the camel farts, but point well taken. Jim I is also of this opinion (I mean the cost to operate bit, not the camel farts).
Be well,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The Volts’ Wheels On The Road!!**********NPNS
Aug 28th, 2009 (10:45 am)10-88. LJGT!@#$%VWOTR!!
Aug 28th, 2009 (10:46 am)nuclearboy,
You forgot the set of numbers for ancient citizens. We never drive over 35 and that’s only downhill with a tailwind. (g).
Be well,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The Volts’ Wheels On The Road!!**********NPNS
Aug 28th, 2009 (10:46 am)She does if you know whats good for you!
+1
Aug 28th, 2009 (10:47 am)That’s an excellent point, which people definitely should keep in mind. However, to some extent, it’s also a moot point. Nobody with a calculator and/or a brain buys E-85 right now. It is not cost effective for the consumer, despite being subsidized.
I have a flex-fuel Sierra, and E-85 has cost more per mile driven, compared to gasoline, for a couple of years now (Southeast Wisconsin). Add in the shorter per-tank range (read: more frequent fill-ups) and E-85 has been a real non-starter for me. I think I’ve used maybe five tanks of it in the past five years.
Actually that ‘more frequent fill-ups’ part doesn’t bother me too much, if E-85 were price competitive. So I sure hope inexpensive, cellulosic ethanol scales up quickly. Anything to reduce foreign oil demand!
+1
Aug 28th, 2009 (10:50 am)How about a website that has a calculator where you plug in all of your personal profile information and then it crunches numerous simultaneous polynomial equations and produces a multi-color X-Y chart of your carbon footprint per inch driven? Man, I’m getting sick of all of this talk. What’s wrong with MPGe?
+2
Aug 28th, 2009 (10:50 am)Once again, DonC, you have presented some very interesting points. I am not in disagreement with you or even with Jason M Hendler’s point of view. I am fine with whatever “sticks” as the final number for the Volt or the other vehicles presented in the graph above. I do find that the Honda Accord’s 21 MPG city number shown is not what I am getting with my 2009 Accord V6. I am getting 22.9. That is not much difference and I bring it up only to point out as many of us have that the “average” driver is only a guide to be used to compare similar vehicles. No one in their right minds really expects to match the stated MPG figures exactly because we all drive different enough to get different results. But it is an indication of what each vehicle will do on average and can be an indication how a single vehicle compares to others in the same class with the similar engines and transmissions.
I agree it is going to be confusing for most buyers until a new standard is determined and published. The MPGe, your example above and the EPA’s calculation for the Volt are the beginnings of determining just what that new methodology will be. Interesting time for mathematicians.
+2
Aug 28th, 2009 (10:51 am)I agree NP… the direction we are headed is battery powered. The local buzz is building. I have heard several people ask, “How much are they and where can I buy a Volt?”.
BTW: A car like the Volt which attains 40 miles per charge is a very good thing. It doesn’t need to be advertised as 230mpg for people to understand that very little liquid fuel will be needed. The number “230mpg” is desired by NGMCO because this offsets the heavier gasoline vehicles in their model line up. Just be honest. We all understand this and realize that the farmers, landscapers, and boat owners need a 200+ hp gasoline engine at this time.
Give me all the -1 scores you like, this is the truth.
=D~
+1
Aug 28th, 2009 (10:53 am)Muddy,
UNCONTESTED.
Be well,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The Volts’ Wheels On The Road!!**********NPNS
+1
Aug 28th, 2009 (10:54 am)In that last comparison of a trip of 100 miles for Volt and Leaf. We must always call attention to that fact that Leaf’s charge will be completely depleated at or before 100 miles, and then you’ll have an 8 hour charge, and that’s after the 1 or 2 hour wait for the auto club with the tow truck to bring you back home. No road trips to Disney World in a Leaf!
In the end it comes down to range and range anxiety. Volt has LOTS of range and ZERO anxiety.
Aug 28th, 2009 (10:55 am)You are not wrong, and as long as there were a chart to cross reference more familiar terms such as mpg this could be fine.
This should reference operating costs gas/electric which will be important comparison tools for later generation buyers.
First gen Volt buyers will buy as much on emotion as on facts, and that’s OK so this information although interesting will not be critical.
+2
Aug 28th, 2009 (10:56 am)I agree, Muddy. I think most of us will be very diligent in plugging in – especially at first. It won’t take but a time or two of not plugging in a full BEV before you start remembering to do it as part of getting out of the vehicle at night, closing the door, locking/setting the alarm and plugging-in. We sometimes learn best by making mistakes that hurt. The old saying “If there’s not pain, there’s no gain” holds true much more than we realize.
Aug 28th, 2009 (10:57 am)Don C –You are right on. Why start trying to change how you compute MPG City and Hway now that the Volt is about to kick some A–.
I think we should stay with the Dept of Energy program so that all electric plugins are treated the same.
Go to the following link and it shows how plug ins are to be checked and that is where Gm got their 230MPG
http://avt.inel.gov/pdf/phev/phevtestplan.pdf
Read and understand!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Aug 28th, 2009 (10:59 am)Joe,
That’s such an excellent idea that they have already gathered the info (seriously, it’s a great idea).
Be well,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The Volts’ Wheels On The Road!!**********NPNS
+4
Aug 28th, 2009 (11:01 am)Join the party, Zipdrive. One thing you can do is to keep a watchful eye on your senator and congressman and if the vote for things you don’t agree with, vote against them in the next election. Along the way and until you get that voting chance, let them know about your displeasure. Until we, the voters, let them know that they are OUR servants they will continue to believe that WE are THEIR servants. Our elected officials have begun thinking of themselves as the Princes of the Ruling Class in America. It is about high time that they learn the truth once and for all. IMO.
Aug 28th, 2009 (11:04 am)MDDave,
Kinda like an energy Star scale?
Be well,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The Volts’ Wheels On The Road!!**********NPNS
+3
Aug 28th, 2009 (11:07 am)RB–
Agree except for one thing–Not a single Prius is built in the US and the “Cash” should not apply to Vehicles built outside of North America.
+2
Aug 28th, 2009 (11:07 am)I have to agree and disagree with you on this one, RB. I agree the auto companies needed the boost as did the dealers and suppliers. The thing I disagreed with about this bill (other than the idea itself) is that it should have been limited to vehicles purchased from Ford, GM and Chrysler. That is one thing I did not like about the bill in particular. No amount of discussion or justification will change my mind on that one point. The American taxpayer was used to send money directly to foreign companies and that sucks.
Now, those of you who took part in the C4C program hopefully you realize that the IRS will collect taxes from you for the amount you received off on your clunker trade-in. The tax man awaits.
+2
Aug 28th, 2009 (11:08 am)nuclearboy,
Best idea I have seen. Good idea.
Whoops! Forgot to sign on as another userID.
Aug 28th, 2009 (11:09 am)Laura:
But “Big Iron” appliances use a cost per year, and they are nationwide. They just take an average of electric rate costs.
Just something else to consider!
Aug 28th, 2009 (11:10 am)NR.. my gut feeling is that the longer it takes to provide a working GO number. The lower it may be. Why not just say, “The IVER GO number is 50 mpg at this time. We expect improvement in the Volt”.
I agree, let’s be done with the “38mpg-58mpg” rumor factory. What are we waiting 1.5 years to buy? Is is best to buy a Fusion or a Prius now?
=D~
Aug 28th, 2009 (11:10 am)Ditto
Aug 28th, 2009 (11:12 am)They haven’t shared the CS mode (genset running) mileage as yet because the car isn’t finished so they DO NOT yet have the final number.
———————————————————
I agree…but GM would look significantly more transparent if their executives would say “The Volt team is working hard to meet all project completion dates including tests to determine the Charge Sustaining Mode (CSM) MPG. As we have stated in the past, we believe that the Charge Sustaining Mode allows the Volt driver to take advantage of the positive aspects of both the conventional ICE vehicle and electric vehicle with little or no sacrifice on the driver. We encourage everyone to learn about the Volt’s EV Mode and Charge Sustaining Mode as more details become available. Focusing on only one of the many aspects of the Volt limits your ability to understand how VoltTec technology might have a place in your parking spot.”
+4
Aug 28th, 2009 (11:13 am)We elected them! And the sad part of it is that we continue electing the same bastards election after election even while we fuss about what congress is doing to our country. We all think that our congressman and senator is not part of the problem. Well, they are all part of the problem. It is as simple as that. It is about time we cleaned up our mess.
Aug 28th, 2009 (11:13 am)Tag:
HAHAHAHAHA!
Great Politically Correct Term!
Maybe stupid is not correct. Fear of change probably fits better here….
+3
Aug 28th, 2009 (11:14 am)I agree with the Russian government on this one. Taxpayers should not subsidize the competition from foreign countries.
Aug 28th, 2009 (11:16 am)If the window sticker is the answer, what is the question? Why to we look to the sticker to compare vehicles? What do we really want to know? (“We” meaning the average consumer).
Do we want to know how much it will cost to operate the vehicle? Are we looking to get a sense of how much we’ll pollute the air while driving this vehicle? Do we just want to “use less gas”?
It seems like there are so many different ways to label it, that if we can figure out what question the average consumer is asking when looking at the window sticker, we might get some direction on where to even start.
Aug 28th, 2009 (11:20 am)KUD,
Not just electric mode, but all modes. Kinda like an Energy Star rating.
Be well,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The Volts’ Wheels On The Road!!**********NPNS
+1
Aug 28th, 2009 (11:22 am)I want 6 numbers for an EREV like the Volt, all measured to a consistent and realistic standard:
-AER city/hwy
-kwhrs per 100 miles city/hwy
-mpg city/hwy in charge sustaining mode
From these, anything can be calculated for a person’s individual circumstances.
I’d want different numbers for a BEV.
Aug 28th, 2009 (11:24 am)For some and for others it could be a great first car. For others, not so much. The good thing here is that there will be plenty of choice for the buyer. With a little time spent looking and thinking about the various options available and how they would apply to their situation, the buyer can make a purchase that will fit their needs.
+1
Aug 28th, 2009 (11:25 am)You are likely quite right on the demographic of the Gen 1 buyers.
Although I personally know a couple Joe six-pack types that make very good money, well into 6 figures.
Looks can be deceiving.
-3
Aug 28th, 2009 (11:28 am)It would seem that if we assume the Volt gets 50 MPG in gen mode it would take the Volt 19.2 Gallons of gas to go 1,000 miles.
I’m not sure where they are getting the 5 gallons either but the graphic appears to be wrong.
+1
Aug 28th, 2009 (11:39 am)That’s because Russia doesn’t care about world opinion or protectionist measures. But then again, they don’t have to. Their major exports are oil and natural gas. And people have to buy those.
America, on the other hand, just got badly burned in our last “go it alone” move. And while we are a major net importer, many of our corporations do very well in other countries. And, unfortunately, our goverment cares more about catering to them than the overall health of our economy.
Aug 28th, 2009 (11:45 am)I don’t think that anyone’s suggesting replacing MPG with MPGe. It’s just one more item of information for consumers to take into account while considering their purchase.
At some point, we’re going to need a way to compare the electric mode of various plug-ins. (And BEVs.) MPGe seems like a good way to do that. Unless I’m missing something?
Aug 28th, 2009 (11:46 am)I’m starting to think as the conversation preceeds that KW/100km might be the way to go.
It’s no problem to rate gas engines by KW output (It is used in Europe for sure.)
Obviously this works for electrics as well.
Working out the ratio in an EREV is the tricky bit.
Aug 28th, 2009 (11:49 am)Tag—Are you a physics teacher????
Always logical.
Aug 28th, 2009 (11:51 am)Fair enough.
A Volt still uses no gas in this scenario, unless it’s REALLY hot or cold and you are stuck in traffic for a very long time. (At which point you will be VERY happy to have a genset to get you home!)
Aug 28th, 2009 (11:58 am)My medium term goal is moving out of the city and setting up a wind/solar power system with some nice sodium/sulfur batteries in the shed.
You really need to take into account the cost of purchasing and setting up that power system in your ‘free’ fueling offset to be truly fair though. I’m still onside with ’self powering’ the farm but am trying to be realistic about the ‘free’ power generated by the system.
+1
Aug 28th, 2009 (11:59 am)LOL!
Aug 28th, 2009 (12:09 pm)I don’t see why it’s impossible to have a standard of wH/mile + MPG of gas generator while in charge sustain mode.
They’re two exclusive numbers because you’re using two different types of fuel, it’s impossible to throw out MPG altogether.
Aug 28th, 2009 (12:09 pm)E.P.A. Stickers
I do not think it is doable with one sticker.
We need 4 maybe 5 different stickers, one for each type of car. examples below.
BEV=so many miles per charge, cost per charge@ average KW cost.
HYBRED=mpg, and cost to be calulated time of sale. based on current price of fuel.
GAS/DIESEL= mpg, and cost calulated at time of sale. based on current price of fuel.
E-REV= miles on full charge [40 miles for Volt], cost per charge @ average KW cost.
E-REV during charge sustaining mode= mpg. [50mpg for the Volt] And cost to be caculated at time of sale. based on current price of fuel.
-1
Aug 28th, 2009 (12:22 pm)PIAXP Guidelines read plain. BEV’s & EREV’s are going to be at a disadvantage. A 4% grade at 65 mph for 30 minutes is an EV barrier. PIAXP at p.33. Maybe Tesla could. EREV depends of course on where its gen set enables. I would lobby the PIAX folks to reset the schedule – which might be able to be redone without being unfair to already registered entries. There are very strong indications of a game-changing development in late ‘09-Q1′10. Whatever … today’s discussion deals with reducing gas consumption performance to a number. Its not so much that GM threw the dice first, many wannabees have made outrageous claims – its that GM’s claim is by GM. OK. So now GM has our attention. Take 10 Volts. Driver by random selection, SOC & fuel 100%. Drive a fixed course of combined city-road 500 miles with no stops obeying all traffic signs and then fuel 100%. The amount of fuel to re-fuel determines the mileage.
+1
Aug 28th, 2009 (12:26 pm)I think that question is:
“Will this vehicle get me laid?”
But the answer is complicated and dependent on nearly every aspect of the reader’s life, so I guess they just leave that off of the sticker….
Since I’m married, the question now takes the form: “would my wife stop sleeping with me if I were to buy this car and, if so, for how many years?”
+4
Aug 28th, 2009 (12:34 pm)LauraM,
What “go it alone” venture did we get badly burned doing? I know what you are going to say, but I want you to actually “put your thoughts into words” so they can be placed into the “light”. So to speak.
I am sorry, but I do not agree that we as taxpayers should sit quietly and see our hard earned tax money being spent willy-nilly to fund foreign auto companies. I see nothing wrong with international trade where consumers are free to purchase domestic or foreign products. That is not anything like what the congress and the president did with the C4C bill. Our tax money should have been spent to aid domestically owned auto companies, not foreign owned auto companies. Using your logic we should export larger and larger chunks of taxpayer money (real or borrowed) to prop up foreign companies and governments in the name of international trade. Get a grip, lady! We have to look after our own interest first before we go trying to solve the rest of the world’s problems.
I would also like to see our local, state and national governments stop buying foreign owned autos for use. I see more and more Toyota, Nissan and other foreign vehicles being purchased for government use. Our tax money should be used to support our own companies’ products. I know that you and others will say that the purchase of the Toyotas, Nissans and other foreign owned vehicles support American workers. Sure, it does, but not as much as purchasing from Ford or GM, for instance. Most of the income from purchasing a Toyota, Nissan or other foreign owned vehicle goes to the foreign company in its home country. Some of it is re-invested here, yes, but not as much as if the purchase was a Ford or GM vehicle. I rest my case. Let the cross arguments begin. Our internationalist friends should have a field day with me today. But you know what? I don’t give a darn either way. I have an opinion and I will use it. If you don’t speak up for what you believe you will live the life fashioned by someone else’s beliefs. Enough said?
+2
Aug 28th, 2009 (12:40 pm)Now, those of you who took part in the C4C program hopefully you realize that the IRS will collect taxes from you for the amount you received off on your clunker trade-in.
Uh-oh. Don’t go getting people upset unnecessarily. I think you’re confusing buyers with dealers. The kerfuffle was that the dealers didn’t realize that the check they get from the government was taxable. Duh! They get $25K from the buyer and $4.5K from the government and they obviously realize $29.5K of income. Hard to imagine they couldn’t figure that one out.
There is no income to the buyer. They just got a lower price. If it were otherwise you’d have to declare income everytime you bought something “on sale”.
Aug 28th, 2009 (12:40 pm)Interesting article on Fisker. Looks like they will claim the prize as first to market with an EREV. Deliveries are set to begin June 2010.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2009-08-26-plug-in-hybrid-car-fisker-karma_N.htm
+1
Aug 28th, 2009 (12:41 pm)It makes one wonder, just how often that actually happens. Not nuclearboy specifically, mind you, but in general.
I confess, I have voted +1 to my own posts a time or two… but only when I thought I was really onto something that deserved attention from the “skimmers” who only read +x posts.
Kind of like jumping up and down and yelling, “ooo! ooOO!! Mr Kotter!!”
Aug 28th, 2009 (12:43 pm)I think we should be moving toward gallons/100miles and KWH/100miles — or Liters/100km and KWH/100km.
That would more accurately reflect the fuel saved by large vehicles, and also show the asymptotic nature of fuel saved by small vehicles.
It’s way too easy to keep score just for the sake of points with a number whose upper bound is infinite, when the real game is to save fuel. The real game is to get as close to zero fuel usage — which is probably going to happen asymptoticly in real life. It’s way too easy to claim to get a bajillion miles per gallon.
The 230MPG claim is a perfect example of this — wouldn’t it be better to say “we put the car on a test-stand, drove it for 51 miles, and it only used a pint of fuel”? It’s the same as what I think the 230mpg claim means, but there’s nothing particularly controversial about it.
I’m as guilty as anyone of not looking at the reciprocal of MPG. I’m trying to get used to thinking of the Prius as 2gal/100miles. When comparing a 50mpg Prius to, say, a 31mpg Lexus 450h, it’s really easy to be nonplussed. OTOH, that 31mpg Lexus 450h that I was so nonplussed by uses about 3.23 gallons/100 miles. That’s the beginnings of a mathematically-credible sales-pitch right there: “you get this massive luxury vehicle, and it only costs an extra 5 quarts of fuel per 100 miles! That and $50k, of course.” It seems that car companies who make money from big vehicles would be jumping all over this… Even though there are many reasons why I don’t want a Lexus 450h, I’d have to agree that it’s much easier for most people to wrap their head around the actual fuel savings tradeoff between these two vehicles using gal/100miles.
Aug 28th, 2009 (12:45 pm)http://www.keloland.com/NewsDetail6162.cfm?Id=0,89084
Some are getting a tax bill
Aug 28th, 2009 (12:46 pm)Most consumers will be concerned about two figures. First, how far will it travel in EV mode. Secondly, what MPG will it get in charge sustaining mode. When trying to calculate a dollar amount for annual usage, the numbers will not mean a lot. Fuel prices will vary a lot during the year and during the period used to determine the cost per gallon. Plus, what I pay per gallon does not come close to what someone in California might pay per gallon.
No, I think a simple figure of range in EV mode city/highway and a MPG in city/highway would tell most people all they need to know. Most of us are pretty simple minded when it comes to comparing vehicles. We really decide well in advance what we want to purchase then we go and look around to self-justify our decision.
+1
Aug 28th, 2009 (12:47 pm)“I agree it is going to be confusing for most buyers until a new standard is determined and published. The MPGe, your example above and the EPA’s calculation for the Volt are the beginnings of determining just what that new methodology will be. ”
SAE J1711 lays a good foundation for comparion of many different types of cars. MPGe is great for people who want the most efficient car, but I think we can all agree there is a significant difference between 1 gallon of Gasoline Energy and 8 kWh of Solar from your Solar array. MPGe Well to Wheels is a little better (in my mind) since it will allow some of the benifits of electricity over Gasoline (Pumped, Shipped, Refined, Shipped again before it gets into your tank).
I agree with the fundamental though of SAE J1711
Create a Pattern and asses each fuel’s use over this pattern. I think it should be taken further. Since the Volt’s Gen-set is E85 capable I would like
230 MPG 87 Octance Gasoline
OR
180 MPG E85
AND
25 kWh/100 miles
Aug 28th, 2009 (12:53 pm)That’s just a relic of you refusing to switch to metric :p
The rest of the world uses kW in place of HP.
Except us to the north. We still have HP on car spec sheets as they either come from the US or are sold to the US.
+1
Aug 28th, 2009 (12:54 pm)In the scheme of things CARS wasn’t the big of a deal. Obviously its popularity was underestimated. It did improve fleet mileage and it did provide a stimulus. Both good things.
The issue would be on the cost side. In addition to questions relating to the fuel efficiency or stimulus return on the dollar, the money for CARS was pulled from a loan pool which would have required matching private capital. Taxpayers would have gotten more bang for the buck from the loans — perhaps 10X — than from CARS.
But let’s keep this in perspective. Every year Congress spends billions on defense projects that we don’t need and the Pentagon doesn’t want, all because some representative wants to save jobs in their districts. At least Americans WANT and CAN USE the vehicles purchased under CARS. I’d have been 100% in favor of CARS if the spending had been pulled from one or more of those programs. As a side benefit, had this happened, CARS would have had a whole lot more funding.
Aug 28th, 2009 (12:55 pm)I agee with you about the MPGe. And as Jim I says about using an average cost of electricity. That makes sense. What ever form the final results are given, it must be very clear to the average buyer as well as to the less educated buyer. It needs to be easily understood. Not an easy proposition, as we have seen here lately, with a lot of opinions being voiced about how best to achieve this. Good luck to all and I hope we can achieve our goal.
+1
Aug 28th, 2009 (12:56 pm)More like battery vs fuel cell.
Deep down, they’re both electric cars.
There won’t be a need to choose between the two.
-1
Aug 28th, 2009 (12:56 pm)Are the writers at WSJ really dumb enough to create this ridiculous chart, or are they just hoping that Americans are dumb enough to believe it? Their bias against the Volt is already well known.
Either way, they are doing a great dis-service to public perception of electric and E-REV cars.
+1
Aug 28th, 2009 (12:58 pm)::Blink::
1.) Rebates will not run out before Gen II. 250,000 is alot of electric plug-ins.
2.) Sound Financial planning would say you should consider the entire cost of the car, not just a purchase cost
3.) Since roughly 75% of US tax filers file with a Household income less than 80,000…. the 20% rule would suggest that most people can’t even afford a Civic, let alone 2 cars.
I think its much more reasonable to say
Around 10% of your gross income should be the target to spend Transportation. Car, Insurance, Fuel, etc.
Using this number, a Single Car household should make around 65,000 to afford a no rebate Volt. A Dual Car household should be more in than 115,000 range. A Volt + SUV type should be more like 140,000 range.
Remember, a no rebate Volt is roughly the same 10 year price as a V6 Accord/Camry
Aug 28th, 2009 (1:00 pm)Ted,
Maybe if you used a flat rate for calculating the cost per mile it would help to value each vehicle that way. When trying to use an average cost per gallon for gas it gets a little more complicated when using a number like $3.25 per gallon versus a number like $1.00 per gallon. Then a person could extrapolate from that base cost of one dollar a gallon to today’s actual price at the pump. So, if today’s price was $2.50 per gallon a simple calculation of 2.5 times the annual cost would give the buyer what the vehicle would cost per year at the time of purchase. I don’t know if this makes any sense to any of you. It has got to be simple, yet clear.
Aug 28th, 2009 (1:00 pm)Why is the number 100? Why is that more useful to people? The larger the number you use, the more accurate you will be from a scientific perspective. The Article asks for 1000. I think 10,000 would be better. I believe 12000 or something like that is average miles/year.
I don’t mean to pick on you Luke. I agree that miles/gallon is the wrong way to look at the problem. Some sort of variant on gallons/mile. But even this is really not terribly useful, especially with dual mode vehicles to consider. People really want other numbers as well.
Lots of people would like to know something like “Tons of CO2/year” produced.
Most people are only going to care about the bottom line. How much am I going to spend per year in fuels costs. Of course, this is much more complicated, because fuel prices vary greatly.
This is a hard problem. that is why no one has solved it yet.
Aug 28th, 2009 (1:01 pm)In Ontario, you can sell your power back to the grid and recoup the cost of solar panels within 5 years. After that you could choose to cut the grid tie and just pump the power into your car and drive for free. Or continue to sell power at one rate and drive on the power that costs you 1/10 as much
Aug 28th, 2009 (1:01 pm)Off topic, Leaf prediction:
Here’s my guess on what Nissan could do with the Leaf.
Leaf purchase price: $17,950.00
Battery lease: $149.00/mo
/Personally, I hate the idea of a battery lease. But if I were on the other side (i.e. Nissan accounts receivable) . . . .
//I’m thinking the Leaf sans battery break even point for Nissan is around $12,000, the battery . .. something less than $10,000.
-2
Aug 28th, 2009 (1:02 pm)The Volt looks good in white.
Aug 28th, 2009 (1:05 pm)8 kWHr Battery Capacity.
5 miles / kWHr : Ellectric Efficiency
10 kWHr / Gallon: Generator Efficiency.
or
40 miles AER
8kWHr Battery Capacity (okay its 16 but only half capacity is used on any one charge.)
50 miles / gallon : Generator Efficiency.
Either one is much clearer than the deceptive 230MPG number.
+1
Aug 28th, 2009 (1:05 pm)Carcus1,
I make far less than $200,000 a year and I will pay cash for a Volt. What does the rule of thumb say to that?
Aug 28th, 2009 (1:05 pm)It looks to me like the people at “Progressive Automotive X Prize” should come up with a SUITE of MPGe benchmarks like you see on computer hardware analysis websites like Tom’s Hardware:
http://www.tomshardware.com/us/
Maybe they can have have MPGe benchmarks that vary according to the number of miles traveled. You could have separate benchmarks on the sticker in dealerships like MPGe – 50 (for 50 miles), MPGe – 100 (for 100 miles) …. then MPGe – 200, MPG – 300, etc.
Another suite of benchmarks could throw in other variables to account for different driving conditions such as cold weather, hot weather, warm weather, mountain driving, etc.
There’s all sorts of benchmarks that people could come up with. All sorts of benchmarks for EACH component of the car too … such as battery only benchmarks, IC engine benchmarks, etc.
Not ALL of these benchmarks will go onto the dealership sticker, but I’m sure the dealer could get a brochure full of benchmarks of the car a customer is looking at vs. the main competitors in the same market segment. GM could put detailed ones on their website for everyone to see for each car.
Computer processor companies like Intel and AMD do this now. Sometimes they “tweak” the numbers (or the hardware setup or whatever) in order to make their products look better though. Sometimes it is difficult to have true “apples to apples” kinds of comparisons of different products by different competitors. That’s why you need INDEPENDENT analysis & review websites like Tom’s Hardware and Anandtech to try to make logical sense of it all.
Aug 28th, 2009 (1:10 pm)No.
25 KWh per 100 miles is the best case for a 100 mile trip without recharging, which is what the 167 MPGe calculation was supposedly based on. 20 KWh per 100 miles for the Volt would require three charges – one before and two during the 100 mile trip (at 40 and 80 miles). In this case (100 mile trip without recharging), 8 KWh for 40 miles (a best case) does not equal 20 KWh per 100 miles.
You are correct when you wrote “The Leaf range is probably not based on using all 24 kWh in its battery”. If the heavier Volt can get 40 miles on 8KWh, then the Leaf should be able to do at least as well. Since the Leaf is lighter and is expected to go 100 miles between charges, it would not surprise me if it could get 100 miles on less than 20 KWh. That way the battery would not be fully discharged at the end of 100 miles. All of that 100 miles would be on the initial charge and at a rate equal to or better than 20 KWh per 100 miles.
The Volt is a great vehicle and has a number of advantages over a BEV like the Leaf, but MPGe cannot be one of them. It doesn’t make sense to claim that it does. Doing so is detrimental to the Volt cause in my opinion, because doing so will be used as a justification to discount the real Vot message.
Aug 28th, 2009 (1:11 pm)Given that the running costs on an EV are so low, who cares what the rate per kWh is? Double it. Doesn’t matter. Triple it. It still doesn’t really matter. Ten cents a kWh is a good guess. That means you use $.025 per mile to power the car. Double would be $.05 and triple would be all of $.075. At best, gas costs more like $.15.
At the very high rate of $.20 you’re paying a little more than $40/month. Big deal. You’d spend that taking a few taxi rides where you live.Basically the cost of running an EV just aren’t high enough to worry about.
Moreover, from personal experience, I’d be willing to bet that most US household could save almost all the kWh they’d need to power an EV by taking a few steps to conserve. Replace a few incandescent bulbs with compact florescent bulbs, turn the AC down a couple of degrees, get rid of a few of those orphan power bricks, turn off the computer at night, and viola, you’re there.
-5
Aug 28th, 2009 (1:12 pm)Forget all this Volt Fuzzy Math. It’s like soooooo simple even a caveman can figure this one out.
Volt Maximum Mileage: 40
LEAF Minimum Mileage: 100
The Nissan LEAF cost half the price of a Volt but get more than twice the mileage. woot.
I will now retreat to my Man Cave. No charge for this lesson. I consider it a public service.
Aug 28th, 2009 (1:12 pm)That’s what I was thinking… in fact, I was going to use that as an example, but I’m not that clear on how the energy star rating is calculated, so I figured it would be better not to reference it.
+2
Aug 28th, 2009 (1:13 pm)If you’re asking me, I’d say, “Hey, it’s a free . . ., er ah, it used to be a free country. . smoke ‘em if you got ‘em!”
If you’re asking a financial planner, I think the response would be quite different.
Aug 28th, 2009 (1:23 pm)I mentioned this yesterday but in case you didn’t see it, welcome back! You’ve been missed.
Not trying to be a PITA, but I think you are missing a couple of somethings. First would be that the methodology that GM used to come up with the 230 MPG number is really for comparing PHEVs. It’s not really designed to compare PHEVs to BEVs or conventionally powered vehicles. it works well for what it’s intended for. Not so well for other comparisons.
Second would be that the comparison between BEVs, PHEVs, and conventional ICE cars would ultimately have to be done using dollars. IOW Car 1 costs $2420 per year to drive 15K miles, Car 2 $634, Car 2 $375, etc. etc. All methodologies will make this easy. Just like you can compare E85 with gasoline now, you’ll be able to compare PHEVs, BEVs, ICEs, and any number of derivatives on the basis of running costs.
As an economist you should appreciate the beauty of this!
Aug 28th, 2009 (1:23 pm)If you mean hurt us by holding us in a stalemate situation while the Asia based automakers move forward, because so many of the cars were made in the US with profits along with knowledge and capabilities retained by the home countries, I agree.
Aug 28th, 2009 (1:25 pm)Since I’m married, the question now takes the form: “would my wife stop sleeping with me if I were to buy this car and, if so, for how many years?”
Many things depends on price! This might be one of those things …
-3
Aug 28th, 2009 (1:29 pm)You conveniently left out the word “gas” in your description. The proper phrase would be “Volt has LOTS of gas range and ZERO anxiety”. I would say 200+ million other gas cars have ZERO anxiety as well. Hardly unique. And the most important point of all that you alway forget to mention is the Volt is NOT a zero-emissions vehicle. In fact it will be the most polluting EV in history. Just goes to show that anyone can twist the facts to support their agenda. I am beginning to smell that pungent GM sheep odor once again.
+1
Aug 28th, 2009 (1:32 pm)N. Riley,
The clunkers program rightly or wrong was put out in a nation-of-origin neutral way. It’s your countrymen who decided to use it to buy foreign cars. And it’s our industrial and union leaders who created an auto industry loaded with great trucks and SUV’s that gave buyers the impression that the only way clunkers would work for them would be to get a foreign car.
Perhaps the restructured US auto companies won’t make the same mistakes in terms of product mix and inventory in the future, and we won’t have to participate in all out trade wars just to get US cars sold in the US.
Aug 28th, 2009 (1:32 pm)You will have to wait until November 2010 and prolly 2012 before someone of your stature will be able to get their hands on one.
-4
Aug 28th, 2009 (1:32 pm)Posted in error
Aug 28th, 2009 (1:33 pm)Drive a fixed course of combined city-road 500 miles with no stops obeying all traffic signs and then fuel 100%.
This illustrates the issue. The City Cycle has an average MPH of 21.2 (or something like that). At that speed you’d just make 500 miles driving for 24 hours without stopping to eat or pee. Now that might happen if you were an astronaut stalking a rival but its not normal driving behavior.
More than likely the MPG numbers for PHEVs will overstate the amount of gas used because people will use opportunities to recharge during the day. A real actual MPG number for city driving might be closer to 350 MPG or 500 MPG. Many unknown factors …
-6
Aug 28th, 2009 (1:36 pm)Combining MPG with Electric Range is just a marketing ploy dreamed up by Government Motors and their government brothers. It is a sorry (and rather obvious) attempt to keep the Volt relevant against the tidal wave of serious competition that will spank this failed corporation silly. Get ready we are coming…
-6
Aug 28th, 2009 (1:39 pm)Drop your racist attitude. It has no place on this blog or anywher else in the blogosphere for that matter.
reported
Aug 28th, 2009 (1:40 pm)To continue. . .
Nissan would be making $5,950 on the car itself (no battery), this is quite a bit better than the typical $2,000 to $4,000 numbers that I’ve seen tossed around on a car in this price range.
But the real long term money is likely in the battery lease. In order to maintain the lease on your leaf battery, you would likely have to come in for scheduled checks (not free) to check the health of the battery and the car’s systems. If there’s a problem they’ll be able to swap packs/repair cells at their discretion. Some repair fees may be required . . .unless of course you opt for the extra $29.95 per month advanced warranty program. etc… etc…. (the battery contract will specify that only offical Nissan service centers will be able to work on the car)
You get the point.
If this type of program were to catch on, the car manufacturers that were directly tied to or owned their own battery manufacturing would have quite an advantage (i.e. all the Japanese, none of the U.S.).
-2
Aug 28th, 2009 (1:44 pm)One thing the highly successful Cash for Clunkers program has show is the huge appetite for Quality Cars from the Americans. Witness the top sellers are Toyota, Honda,Nissan and Hyundai. Yes, Hyundai. Even Hyundai Quality now far exceeds that of GM. I am embarrassed for the once proud American makers. How could you have fallen so far so fast ?
Aug 28th, 2009 (1:50 pm)I do not find anything where I can disagree with your comments. I agree that it really doesn’t matter what the annual cost of operating a BEV is. The same is somewhat true for an ER-EV like the Volt, in my thinking. What does matter with a BEV or an ER-REV is the miles per charge. If you are purchasing a BEV or an ER-EV you want as many miles per charge as you can get. After that nothing else matters with the BEV. And, if you really think about it, it doesn’t matter what MPG you get with an ER-REV on charge sustaining mode. What most of us are really after is the EV mode of the ER-EV. We know the MPG on charge sustaining mode will be at least equal to what the average ICE only car delivers today, what else matters. Not much except what do I have to pay for the vehicle at the dealership. To me those are the two most important factors: What is the price of the vehicle and how far does it go on a charge. I guess you could add one other. How long does it take to recharge at 110V. What else do we need to know? Really.
+1
Aug 28th, 2009 (1:51 pm)The 230MPG number is nearly useless in informing any given driver what they can expect. The ‘average american’ does’t know what is ‘average’, or how the deviate from average. Even if they did know, they have no way of determining how that deviation would affect their MPG.
I’m pretty sure I would get 2000+ MPG out of a Volt, but I can only calculate that because I have an idea of the electric range and the MPG on the generator. Neither of those are apparent in the 230MPG number.
Aug 28th, 2009 (1:57 pm)But like I said in a reply to DonC: Annual cost to drive a vehicle means absolutely nothing to me. I don’t care one bit what they stick on the window. I ignore it. What I want to know is how far will it go in EV mode. City and highway miles per charge. After that each person can decide what suits his or her needs best. A BEV with whatever the MPC or an ER-EV with whatever MPC with a generator to continue until you can plug-in to recharge. The MPG the ER-EV gets means nothing to me. Unless of course some company stuck a generator in the vehicle that causes you to get less than 20 MPG or something like that. It would need to be a reasonable MPG when compared to ICE only vehicles in its same class.
Personally, I would be looking at MPC only. That is what I want to see. All else is necessary only if you are interested in those sorts of numbers. I don’t see where I would be. But that’s me.
Aug 28th, 2009 (1:59 pm)Alas, too true. 2012 if we’re lucky, IMHO. I just like to give them a little encouragement every chance I get, LOL.
So tell me, are you from Boston or vicinity? I am a big fan of the great George V. Higgins. Do your remember his bestseller, “The Friends of Eddie Coyle”, which became a famous film with Robert Mitchum as Eddie Coyle?
Anyway, his cops and robbers characters would very often say “prolly”. I think of him and smile every time I see you use the word.
Aug 28th, 2009 (2:01 pm)LOL. +1
+1
Aug 28th, 2009 (2:02 pm)We only stock size 32 pants. We looked at everyone… size 40s, size 24s… and found the average size to be 32. It is good that we stock only size 32 because it is easy for us and for the consumer. It is consistent.
You weigh 120 lbs? Here are your size 32s.
You weigh 300 lbs? Here are your size 32s.
Will they fit? They are size 32s and that is all I am saying.
No need to thank us for making your life so easy.
+5
Aug 28th, 2009 (2:02 pm)??
-3
Aug 28th, 2009 (2:03 pm)If Volt yields 21-22 mpg city – there’s no hope. This issue was discussed here a few days ago and my feeling was Volt’s ER yield city 30 mpg min. with full air and power assists. An example of what I have in mind is like a test run 550 miles San Francisco to San Diego. Routinely made in less than a day.
It isn’t a rally. Start to finish time is secondary. You pine for every rest stop on US 5 – fine. The first 40 miles (or so) are EV with ER carrying the rest of the way. Naturally to be assured of reaching San Diego the fuel tank needs to be sufficient. Let’s say 30 mpg is applied to size factor a tank – 22 galoons should do it. Want to really really impress … get to SD and drive back without refueling!
+1
Aug 28th, 2009 (2:03 pm)If they are in the top 2% of wage earners then by definition they are not average.
Aug 28th, 2009 (2:06 pm)fredevad:
Reminds me of the old Johnny Carson skit where they would hand him the answer on a card and he would dream up the question, LOL
What was it, Karnak the Great? Karnak the Magnificent? Remember, he had a turban with a great big jewel on the front and a flowing robe?
Where’s Karnak, now that we need him, hehehe.
+1
Aug 28th, 2009 (2:09 pm)We are all saying the same thing. That “thing” is that the Volt will be a game changer if GM delivers what they have been telling us they would deliver. If the Volt is what GM has led us to believe the information printed on the window sticker will have very little bearing on us as individuals. But the Volt and the way we use it could change our lives so much for the better. Game changer and game over.
Chevrolet Volt! Get one and experience the difference! Your life begins a new chapter the moment you take it home. (GM, you are free to use any or all of what I just said in your advertisements for the Volt.)
Aug 28th, 2009 (2:12 pm)Oops, they woke up.
I hit + instead of -, aarrgghhhh!!!
Aug 28th, 2009 (2:13 pm)New thread:
The graphic Driving Range|Number of gallons required to drive 1000 miles points out how well converting over to EV technology will get us off of foreign oil. If we hold to the premise that the rating system is valid, the graphic shows how much better EV technology is over hybrid like the Prius.
Aug 28th, 2009 (2:18 pm)Cute, but not really applicable in this case. You are talking size, but any measure like mpg is talking about averaged usage because it’s a moving target.
ANY automotive economy rating is subject to operator induced variations.
Lets say my wifes Subaru is rated at 8 litres/100km. This is just a reference point to compare with other cars on an imaginary drive.
When my wife drives the car does more like 7 litres/100km, (she is lighter on the pedal) but when I drive (heavier foot) it’s closer to 10 litres/100km…
You don’t really think that whatever car you have gets exactly the advertised to the decimal point fuel economy do you?
It almost certainly does not!
+5
Aug 28th, 2009 (2:18 pm)Great math … EXCEPT after work your Wife calls and tells you to go to store across town and pick up her order and then pick up your sick kid from daycare. On your way home the battery runs out and you sit there with your brilliant math while I drive past on charge sustaining mode.
No Charge for this lesson you pay enough sitting on the side of the road wishing you had bought a VOLT.