Its hard to forget the intense buzz that GM’s 230 mpg announcement brought with it on that warm August day last summer. It was GM-Volt.com’s highest traffic day of all time with over 100,000 visitors hitting the site, and this author actually flew out to Detroit for the press conference.
230 MPG is what then-CEO Fritz Henderson said the Volt would achieve in highway driving.
The announcement brought a lot of controversy and some vitriolic complaints but in fact its calculation was simple and practical.
If the average driver used the Volt over a fixed period of time, say a week, and drove less then 40 miles per day most but not all days, recharging at night, he would use a certain amount of gas. That number is then divided into the miles driven over the same time period. In that scenario, 230 is what the average driver according to national statistics would achieve.
That approach is different than how MPG is conventionally calculated, and hence the controversy. However, considering the unique operational behavior of the Volt, the method, which was under preliminary consideration by the EPA at the time, seemed reasonable.
However, according to a report by the Wall Street Journal, the public backlash has caused the EPA to reconsider.
Citing anonymous sources, WSJ writes “the agency is in the midst of finalizing that formula in a way that will deliver more down-to-earth mileage ratings.” GM-Volt high level sources also confirm the 230 MPG rating is expected to change.
“We’re working with EPA staff on testing of labels that will provide meaningful information to the consumer,” GM spokesman Greg Martin said this told the WSJ. “What we’re finding is that the Volt and electric vehicles defy conventional mileage labels.”
An EPA spokesperson said a final decision on how electric vehicles will be rated has not yet been made.
So what will the final number be? We’ll have to wait and see, but somehow I don’t think this post will receive 100,000 readers.
Source (WSJ)
+14
Apr 19th, 2010 (5:53 am)I liked that number, it was the mpg that the average driver would have gotten in the long run.
+5
Apr 19th, 2010 (5:56 am)You had to know this was coming! In a class by itself, the voltec platform is a whole new animal to the EPA, so you have to expect some bickering about how to determine an MPG since it does burn fuel. The question will be, how to present the electric performance and the fuel performance to the general public in a way that you can compare the Volt against the energy consumption of other ICE vehicles?
+45
Apr 19th, 2010 (6:07 am)I am happy about this.
I thought the 230 MPG was really misleading.
I would like to see the following.
40 mpc
50 mpg
+4
Apr 19th, 2010 (6:12 am)The headline says “reduced” — how do we know we’re going to just get a sticker with a lower number on it? For all we know, they’ll bite the bullet and create a different system for EREVs with the gas MPG on one side and the battery range on the other.
+10
Apr 19th, 2010 (6:13 am)Calculating MPG on a vehicle which rarely uses liquid fuel is a difficult task. A pure EV can use an Energy Guide electricity based “average cost per year” label. A vehicle which can use either gasoline or electricity or a mix of the two requires two ratings. One being a simple city/highway MPG (liquid fuel). The second being a cost per year for 12,000 miles on electricity, based on a constant cost per kw (perhaps $.09).
Latest news is that the Volt will achieve 40 miles per charge in normal conditions. With extended range on liquid fuel at about 50 MPG under moderate operation. My week of driving totals about 300 miles. This will cost $8 at the most. My workplace has usable 110v outlets in the garages. Which lowers my actual cost per mile.
$8 / $3 per gallon = 2.6 gallons @ 300 miles = 115 MPG (minimum)
Actual MPG will be closer to 200 with workplace opportunity charging factored in.
A solid ride, comfort, brisk acceleration, and looks. With fuel efficiency equal to a small scooter.
=D-Volt
+8
Apr 19th, 2010 (6:29 am)Well I think we need those little LED displays above the bumper that state the number of gas free miles achieved.* Additionally, the same number in a corner of the center LCD screen.
This would define the driver, and provide cheap advertising for the Volt.
*Credits to Tag for this idea.
To be perfectly, honest, I am more interested in the Volt price at this point.
Apr 19th, 2010 (6:33 am)Run a rolling monthly average mpg, yes for many people it will be capped a 999mpg.
Tomorrow will be an interesting day, Nissan opens up the reservations list for the LEAF.. hopefully they sell out in the first our and then a system crash for the rest of the day… that should give GM a hint.
+10
Apr 19th, 2010 (6:48 am)I agree, Herm! …and I agreed last August!!!
However, I did NOT agree last year when the 230 mpg figure was first announced. Until I had carefully studied the matter to understand exactly how GM had arrived at the number, which I found they had based on the best available EPA testing protocol planning available back then …published EPA testing methodology that I independently located in the literature, carefully critiqued and only then concluded was in fact completely both plausible and accurate.
Importantly (to me) this proposed EPA testing methodology last August yielded numbers that easily collaborated GM’s number —in fact, I calculated 231 mpg using the EPA approach.
So 230 mpg is plausible to me and I’ll await with interest to hear what GM and the EPA arrive at in response to the unjustified firestorm of protests that 230mpg is misleading.
-9
Apr 19th, 2010 (6:52 am)? 230 mpg. My question for anyone is: When in the ICE mode is in use why is the ICE not recharging the batteries???
+14
Apr 19th, 2010 (6:54 am)Just another example of how government takes the simplest of things and messes it up.
40 miles per charge and 50 miles per gallon.
Why make a statement in one sentence that everyone can understand, when you could write 10,000 pages and confuse everyone? You certainly are not a government worker.
+5
Apr 19th, 2010 (6:55 am)Maybe I’m being obtuse, but I don’t understand how it’s difficult to post a milage rating for the Volt.
Why not be forthright and simply say
“Battery-Electric Mode: 40 MPFC (Miles Per Full Charge) / Generator-Electric Mode: 50 MPG (Miles Per Gallon)”
rather than come up with some potentially confusing hybrid number that is easily attacked by the anti-American car press?
Also, describing the modes as “Battery-Electric” and “Generator-Electric” makes it clear that the Volt is always an electric car, regardless of whether the electricity is coming from the battery or from the ICE.
+12
Apr 19th, 2010 (7:01 am)The simple answer is: Because recharge via gasoline engine cost more than plugging into a 110V outlet. The vehicle can run on gasoline for as long as need be. Recharge at home base when you’re able to at a lower cost.
=D-Volt
+1
Apr 19th, 2010 (7:01 am)I have been one of the supporters of the 230 mpgg (gasoline mileage) for the Volt. I still think that number is quite reasonable for the Volt. (Provided that it is coupled with some daily, yes, daily usage numbers and overnight recharge.) I know this definition is nut used elsewhere but this is where the most justifiable use for the Volt would be for the currently existing infra structure. This number is achievable within one recharge cycle (40-60 miles daily usage.) By this definition the greatest variable in mileage is daily usage. This is where the Volt is superior to all ICEs-.!!!
+11
Apr 19th, 2010 (7:02 am)In later years when different charges give different performance, the 40 MPC is not going to be very meaningful, it would have to take into account the amount of electricity to go the 40 miles.
such as:
8kw for 40miles total
(5miles per Kw)
or something to that effect. Whatever the rating, it will have to display in very simple terms how far a KW will get you, or you can’t easily compare.
It is arguable the label should also tell you how long you can expect that rate of charge to last, but that may be going beyond the intention of the label so I will leave that for another debate.
+3
Apr 19th, 2010 (7:03 am)I’m trying not to follow the Leaf too closely because I’m impulsive and I might get on the waiting list. But out of curiousity, I thought the Leaf was not being rolled out in all states in first year or so, so if you live in Ohio can you get on their order list?
I am going to try and wait at least till end of 2010 where it hopefully will be more clear what will be available and when and where.
Maybe GM will surprise us and put some more ambitious production schedules out there and I can wait till they come to Ohio.
+4
Apr 19th, 2010 (7:09 am)btw I am moving in the next month and I’ll be 20 miles from work (40 mile round trip), but still most days will drive 60-70 miles so a charge at work would be beneficial with the Volt but not needed.
Also where I’m moving I’m going to put in Wind and Solar, though probably not till summer 2011. So it would be nice to have an electric car to charge in my garage by then.
+1
Apr 19th, 2010 (7:09 am)Maybe cost per day (localized ofcourse)?
+3
Apr 19th, 2010 (7:13 am)Thank you Rashiid. Those are my thoughts too. I was one of the people who hated the 230 mpg rating. If the consumer needs to take a college course just to be able to wrap their head around the complex formula that explains the 230 rating, then just maybe it is a little bit too difficult. Sheez.
-1
Apr 19th, 2010 (7:14 am)The backlash from the public is based solely on the level of under-educated understandings about plugging in each night for the Electric miles subtracted from all miles toward the usage of those two (if that) gallons in the gas tank in the average week of driving.
GM and EPA must keep or even increase the number. Why?
Let the competitors scream. But let them compete with it as they scream, because they all have a lot of catching up to do.
*******************************************************************
It is all about intellectual laziness on the competitors parts, and nothing more.
*******************************************************************
They all know that EREV is the “pot of gold” where the customer can save 8,000 bucks over the life of the loan, which increases the retail value of the EREV.
The EPA keeping that number will do more to inform about simple practicalities of the first three lines at the top of this post. They, in turn ought to turn up the heat to their favorite OEM’s and get them to begin to compete here, which all of them, I repeat,
*********************************************************
have been too lazy to do. LAZY, LAZY LAZY!!!!!
*********************************************************
Gone are the days when any ol’ techno-bs can be thrown out here to skate by an issue to remain able to continuously feed the hard-working public conceptual technobabble TO DELIBERATELY CONFUSE AND PUT OFF THIS TREMENDOUS EFFICIENCY.
OEM’s that choose not to compete with 230 miles per gallon EREV’s, adjusted for the grid efficiencies,
as opposed to
ICE-only 85% thermal energy loss calculated via a CO2 co-variable now requisite by law,
******************************************************
*in addition to wellhead pump to tire-on-the-road efficiencies*
******************************************************
then, you might end up with a Volt total composite efficiency of an adjusted 275 mpg if total carbon accounting is truly utilized.
Crude shipped from halfway around the world adds to these factors *as we all know*. (Same equation as energy security as you certainly are correct to also define this from that direction).
The President ought to direct the EPA to go all the way as regards to total carbon accounting from Middle Eastern wellhead extraction energy CO2 (as a National Percentage of sourced mixed “crude pool”), transportation, refining, delivery, gas pump electricity costs (if The President has not already done so), then equated to what final efficiencies are or are not there in the ICE or BEV or EREV. After all, we are asking the
**ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY*** to run these numbers. (As in: to basically “protect environment”)
CO2 is a hazard as ruled. EPA must not back down here!
So, I say,
*****************************
*GO ALL THE WAY, EPA! * with total carbon accounting.
*****************************
If by comparison, as a result, Volt gets something like 275 mpg CO2/Total Driving Energy Comparative-Equivalent (I want to know this) for a car of this size and weight (which is only fair), there are very simple ways to explain this on a sticker. Also, the EPA ought to be empowered to send out brochures to any likely buyer regarding what this means both in US mail and email to all automotive-related recipients for both carbon reduction, which is also exactly the same equation as energy security.
If Volt mpg is clearly suppressed artificially, then I would be concerned that there is undue pressure both on the EPA as well as OEM’s to produce EREV’s. If that were to be the case, then the President ought to direct all appropriate other security agencies to aggressively intervene with incredibly-strong countermeasures AND swift penalties threatened back if that is the only way to protect the growth of EREV tech developments at OEM’s.
Apr 19th, 2010 (7:20 am)I believe the government also would not allow the gasoline to be used to charge the battery (if it wanted to qualify for the tax credits).
+31
Apr 19th, 2010 (7:24 am)I think this issue would make a great ad campaign once VOLT is being driven by actual owners.
Announcer: “CHEVY VOLT: What’s YOUR mileage?”
Then have various smiling owners standing in front of their VOLTS holding signs displaying their actual mileage.
One might say “233 MPG”.
Another might say “126 MPG”.
One might say just “56 MPG”. (300 gas + 40 electric / six gallons)
Another might say “507 MPG”.
Announcer: “When your first 40 miles per day uses no gas at all, it can be surprising how good your gas mileage can be.” “Chevy VOLT: It’s new. It’s different. Its better.”
Fade to scene of owners plugging in their VOLT, turning to camera, smiling and waving.
Screen graphic says:
“Actual owners and their average monthly gas mileage during their normal driving.”
+1
Apr 19th, 2010 (7:27 am)The only gas concern I’ll have is from that bean and cheese burrito I had for lunch —- As me and my Volt cruise past gas station after gas station after gas station….after gas station!
RECHARGE! James
IF YOU BUILD THEM THEY WILL COME.
230 grins per mile.
Apr 19th, 2010 (7:27 am)I have a question. After you buy a car, how many of you actually pay attention to what the gas mileage of your car is? I will guess that the number is below 20% of the U.S. population. Its probably higher here on this site. But Lets face it the MPG is a selling point for the vehicle, not a real world this is what I am going to get when I drive the vehicle.
+2
Apr 19th, 2010 (7:29 am)Probably rehashing old territory, but here it goes anyway. While I agree the EVmpc and CSmpg information needs to be there (and I would add EVmpkwh for completeness), it does not make for quick comparisons between the fuel costs between EREV and normal vehicles. I know cost per mile will depend on many factors, but generally speaking, with the current vehicles available to most consumers you really only need to look at MPG to decide which car is going to give the lowest fuel costs (to a very good approximation). I think the idea of trying to give consumers one or two numbers to get a first approximation for comparison between different vehicles types (EV, EREV, and non-plugin) is a good idea. Maybe what will really be needed is a smart window sticker that allows you to enter your daily commute and miles driven per year so it can compute the fuel cost for your driving style compared to other vehicles of interest.
+10
Apr 19th, 2010 (7:31 am)We have discussed this so many times over the last three years………………..
As I recall, what most people agreed with was a variant of Rashiid’s idea, except that it added city and highway breakdowns.
MPC – 40-City / 35 Highway
MPG – 40-City / 50 Highway
Those are made up numbers, of course…..
That way, it works for all vehicles, ICE, BEV, or EREV. A BEV would have 0/0 for MPG and an ICE would have 0/0 for MPC. Simple and easy………..
The only other thing I would like to see is an average cost for fuel for the car for a year, like they do with appliances. Take a fixed amount of miles, say 12,000 and list what it costs for the fuel, both electric and gasoline.
JMHO
+4
Apr 19th, 2010 (7:32 am)Hardly any gasoline credit card bill at the end of the month.
I spend $250 a month on gas at 19,000 miles a year at 20.5 mpg. I would save ***at least** $225 a month with the nightly plug-in-40 miles electric range and 50 mpg charge-sustain mode.
Twelve months in the year times $225 a month, and you can tell why I am relentlessly insistent on these calculations for EPA.
+2
Apr 19th, 2010 (7:32 am)Maybe, but fuel costs over a vehicle lifetime can be as much as the price of the vehicle. People will need to change how they think about vehicle costs when plugins arrive. More people will need to think about the total cost of ownership.
Apr 19th, 2010 (7:39 am)Amen Daniel. To me using the 230 rating is just a sad play at grabbing a headline on GM’s behalf. I support the idea of this car as much as anybody here, and feel strongly that the wisest move would be to stand honest, and present the simple facts. State the AER. State the mpg in charge sustaining mode. Done.
The Volt needs to be able to stand alone on its own merits, not be helped along by a confusing, difficult to interpret, difficult to explain, wishy washy, loosey goosey kind of number like 230.
Apr 19th, 2010 (7:43 am)230MPG wasn’t that unheard of. If you look back at the EV’s in the late 90′s, fueleconomy.gov had rated them in the hundreds of MPG equivalent. I think some might have even been over 20)MPG, though I know the RAV4 for example was at least over 100MPG.
+5
Apr 19th, 2010 (7:45 am)I think I’ll just wait until December and see what the lucky owners have to say about their first month of real driving.
+1
Apr 19th, 2010 (7:53 am)It seems plain the EPA will have to adopt separate formulas for EREVS and BEVS alike.
Unfortunately, the culture of the automotive marketplace has revolved around infernal combustion for so long, this has become the yardstick for which cars are compared.
EREVs and BEVs need their own standards – clearly laid out on the window stickers of each one at the dealer. For EREVs the numbers clearly have to show AT LEAST three different scenarios of usage. CITY and HWY mileage won’t do. It’s just too incredibly vague and hypothetical.
“All Electric Range”in kwhs, and “Mixed Electric and Gasoline”and “All Gasoline Mileage” need to be posted. Ratings for these cars needs to be STRAIGHT FORWARD and SPECIFIC to their type. For the first two, the specific average electric number should be listed FIRST in large numbers – then a small gasoline equivalant number.
The “MPG” rating can’t be waved about as GM did with the 230 number. It’s not fair for the consumer. It’s confusing for them, and it’s fodder for lots of issues with dealer sales staff. Too many headaches as they have too much ‘splainin’ to do and too much room for misinformation to harm the reputation of the vehicle to the masses as people fail to see the huge numbers they’ve been sold.
K.I.S.S. – Keep It Simple, Salesmen!
RECHARGE! James
IF YOU BUILD THEM THEY WILL COME.
Apr 19th, 2010 (8:01 am)/ran out of edit time.
$2700. a year in gasoline (a savings from my current 20.5 mpg), is also a comparative
*************************************************************
*$13,500 5-year, “life of the loan” savings even at just $2.65 a gallon. *
*************************************************************
and, the cost of gas is only going to go up, so, the EREV technologies and resulting
savings
****************************************************************
*will block the future debilitating gasoline financial damages. *
****************************************************************
Have we not learned this lesson yet from the previous high cost of gas, which higher cost is coming back again and again and again, yet ever so gradually higher and higher and higher?
+13
Apr 19th, 2010 (8:02 am)A real world look at how much it will cost to operate a Volt: I use my car for both business and private use, so I document every mile I drive every day. I average 12,500 miles a year over the past 14 years, which is pretty close to average for American drivers. Last year, I drove over 35 miles in a single day 44 times, for a total of 1,681 miles that would have been using the ICE. (I figured I would have 35 mile AER since I will be using AC or heat most days, obviously my mileage would be rather better now that the 40 mile AER and the 50 mpg figures have been confirmed.) 12,600 miles total, 1681 on gas, 10,919 using electricity leaves me with a bill for 35 gallons of gasoline per year and around 2200 kWh, which is about $100 and $220 each, respectively, or $26.50 a month. My mileage would have been about 360 miles per gallon. (With 40 mile AER, and 50 mpg I will get more than 400 mpg)
As it is, my RAV4 gets around 20 mpg, so I actually bought 640 gallons of gas last year, and it cost me $1664. So the Volt will save me around $1400 a year, as it will for most people that drive an average amount. Plus, I can put a PV array on the roof of my home, or install a wind generator on the roof of my garage. I can’t drill my own oil well.
+3
Apr 19th, 2010 (8:06 am)I liked the 230 number. A single number that tells me how this car does on some type of standard test. Its perfect for the consumer. The all electric and gas mpg can be given somewhere on the sticker if needed but car nerds will find this stuff on their own anyway and already know the answer before they see the sticker. The general poluation is not going to sit down with a spread sheet and figure out what 40 electric + 50 mpg ICE the way I drive = WTF??? They want a quicky number that some govt guy at DOE thinks is reasonable. This one is 230, that one is 120. I see the difference and I did not have to find a calculator.
When I buy a refrigerator, it has an energy usage number on it. I don’t know how they got the number and frankly don’t give a crap. But, I can look at two units on the showroom floor and quickly see that one will probably take more energy. I think many car buyers are about that deep into this.
Car nerds, who lurk around at gm-volt.com (like me) are not a good sampling of what the general population wants. When I buy a car, I usually can explain things about the car to the dealer when I arrive. I will know what the numbers mean but thats just not normal. Too much information leads to a shutdown for many people and they will end up knowing nothing.
There is merit to a single number or a simple range. I don’t know if the formula that spits out 230 is the right one but it is the right idea IMO.
+4
Apr 19th, 2010 (8:06 am)I have to disagree about the mpc it has to be miles per kwh in order to gauge the cars efficiency. We need a simply mpg and mpkh. then under the mpkh say it has a battery this big meaning 40 mile to charge city 35 highway.
otherwise 40 mpc seems horrible compared to 100 mpc leaf, but we all know (here anyway) these are not comparable at all
Apr 19th, 2010 (8:06 am)Why don’t they just state the possible ranges, instead of just a fixed number. For erev style cars state from 45mpg-230mpg based on driving behavior and conditions. Basically letting you know what it could be capable of, if tried.
Basically state approximate ranges of mpg instead of one fixed number for the inconventional vehicles. Why adhere them to conventional vehicle standards?
+2
Apr 19th, 2010 (8:10 am)GM doesn’t have a problem with your proposed methods. It is the EPA that wants a universal number that can be used to compare one car to another.
From the preliminary EPA methodology, if the average person drives 15,000 miles per year, he/she will use 65 gallons of gas (230 mpg).
+3
Apr 19th, 2010 (8:22 am)One MPG number for the Volt is not a good indicator as it would vary massively depending on your daily number of miles driven. For the person who never drives over 40 miles in a day the MPG is astronomical as the only gas used would be to stir the engine once in a while. For the guy that drives a 100 miles a day the number would be under a 100 MPG. Actual MPG would be different for just about every Volt owner as we all have unique daily driving requirements.
+2
Apr 19th, 2010 (8:24 am)Right, Bill! Why not say it just that way on the sticker…
“If the average person drives 15,000 miles per year, he/she will use 65 gallons of gas (230 mpg).”
What’s so hard to understand when stating it that way?????
+2
Apr 19th, 2010 (8:26 am)Bottom line is consumers will have to do their own calculations. For an EREV like the volt there are many variables. People can figure it out their savings based on their own driving patterns and their own overnight electric rate. All that is needed to post is MPKH and MPG (Highway and city).
But the consumer is going to have to do some homework that only they can do because fuel costs will be different for every driver.
Folks will have to determine their overnight charging rate, whether they can charge at work or not, their driving patterns.
It is totally misleading to try and come up with a single number for an EREV because everyone is different.
Some folks rarely drive over 40 miles a day and will rarely use any gas.
Some folks will drive more miles at the 50pmg then on the batteries mpkh.
Some folks it will depend on the price of gas. At $3 a gallon they’ll just used the extended range feature and not worry about it. At $6 a gallon they’ll find a way to charge at work and on the road.
Some folks will buy a Volt or BEV even if they drive only 7 or 8 thousand miles a year and never use gas, though they also won’t be justifying the cost of the GEN 1 batteries either.
+2
Apr 19th, 2010 (8:32 am)‘Public outcry’? Really?
I had no idea that Ford, Toyota, Nissan, et al were considered ‘the public’.
-2
Apr 19th, 2010 (8:33 am)I agree with all of you who are trying to say that VOLT should have two tier system to describe its range; one for electric range (e.g. X miles per Kwh) & good ol’ MPG for range extended mode.
I really don’t understand why GM cannot keep its own act together. They keep on insisting that the VOLT is not simply a hybrid but an EV with range extender & hence the moniker: EREV. If you are selling an EV, why not distinguish it & come up with NEW ways of showing efficiency? GM, I know you keep on saying that you want people to feel that VOLT is not another city car but a FULL car, but if your selling point is that it is an EV, flaunt that a little bit, will ya? If Fred buys a VOLT & Bob (his neighbor) comes along asking “Fred, what the MPG on that thing?” I think Fred wants to say “Well, Bob, since my VOLT is an EV with a gas generator for extending the overall range, it has a new way of noting its efficiency: x miles per kwh in all EV mode, with gas generator mode giving me about 50 MPG both in city & highway.”
If this is a game changer, a revolutionary vehicle, an iCar like you envisioned in the first place, don’t stick with the old method of MPG which is gasoline or diesel based. It’s an EV. Treat it like EV first.
+1
Apr 19th, 2010 (8:42 am)You obviously aren’t a government worker to have said such a thing. And looks like your not a mathematician either since if you studied inductive logic you would know that it does not follow that the formula having come from EPA does not follow that all government employees agree with the formula.
I have supported the same mpg rating system that Rashiid Amul supports.
Happy trails to you ’til we meet again.
Apr 19th, 2010 (8:53 am)You will be able to avail yourself of the 30% tax credit on wind and solar installations up to 2016. Your decision to buy a Volt and combine it with Wind and Solar electricity generation is a good one.
Happy trails to you ’til we meet again.
+1
Apr 19th, 2010 (8:57 am)I think it should simply be this: electric range + charge sustainning mode. Therfore 40 + 50 = 90mfg. I call it MFG – Miles for First Gallon (implying when the first gallon would be used up).
Otherwise how do you get the balance right?
+1
Apr 19th, 2010 (8:58 am)If the EPA is going to change the way it rates cars, it might as well get rid of the MPG. The real measure is Gallons per Mile, or KWH per Mile. These are more accurate measures of efficiency.
Apr 19th, 2010 (9:00 am)Since when do consumers ‘believe’ what a car salesman says? Customers tend to buy when the salesperson agrees with the wild assertions that they spew out. Since the invention of the Internet, car buyers love to feel they know more than the salespeople. More power to them. Just as long as they sign on the dotted line.
Apr 19th, 2010 (9:04 am)Don’t worry, the government doesn’t need to do so or would they find it necessary to do so,
Anyone who buys a Volt will soon realize what the battery is for; GETTING OFF FOREIGN OIL!
Happy trails to you ’til we meet again.
Apr 19th, 2010 (9:06 am)I would like to add to my post #13.
The 230 number’s beauty is (controversy not withstanding) is that this number is related to how best the Volt is utilized around a best practice ~50 miles per day usage and charge. Very large percentage of drivers fit this profile. Drive less than that the number goes much higher than that. Drive more this value drops. What is not appreciated is that this large number (230) helps position the Volt between ICE and BEV. Your daily driving profile could determine which car to buy.
It should be relatively easy to determine driving cost from this as a starting value.
+15
Apr 19th, 2010 (9:09 am)Unless you’re a plant. Humans exhale CO2 as a basic biological function. If you declare CO2 as ‘bad’ then you ultimately need to reduce the number of humans producing it!
Apr 19th, 2010 (9:13 am)Since it is a “energy use” sticker from the EPA, I’d expect the MPG on one side and a kWh/mi number on the other.
Apr 19th, 2010 (9:15 am)With all the problems facing Congress, we do not need them to change the law regarding a vehicle mpg rating label. The current system of mpg rating is not even well understood by the average car buyer! And it is even as meaningless unless one knows how it will be effected by their own driving practices. The average driver accepts the rating and knows that the way he drives will probably reduce his actual mpg results. After buying the car, some drivers keep gasoline consumption and mileage records to calculate their real mpg. When the major problems of the country are under control, Congress can repeal the current law, and replace it with something that is more indicative of actual driving results. EPA is just trying to find an adjustment and apply the current law.
On the other hand, just keeping a complex rating system, may stimulate the American public to use their brain.
Happy trails to you ’til we meet again.
Apr 19th, 2010 (9:19 am)This is incorrect, from what I’ve read. The Leaf will start deliveries at the end of this year (2010), like the Volt, with rollout throughout the country by 2012 – the inference being that they’ll roll it out throughout the country over 2011 since they’ll be producing alot in 2011. The reservations supposedly put you on a waiting list for your geographic area (in relation to the rollout of the Leaf).
Apr 19th, 2010 (9:19 am)LOL!
Happy trails to you ’til we meet again.
Apr 19th, 2010 (9:19 am)Only a govt agency with time on their hands would consider the problem. The country is being run by morons. Wonder what they would calculate the MPG of a bicycle as? Or the Leaf? Must be a conversion factor for a slice of pizza to gasoline. 18 miles per slice= 253mpg?
Apr 19th, 2010 (9:20 am)What is not appreciated, is that this large number (230) gets people’s attention and causes them to look into the Volt and Voltec that have not heard of it before.
IMHO,
does not have that kind of effect. JMHO
+2
Apr 19th, 2010 (9:22 am)I agree with you but what about..?
40 mpc @ 5 miles / Kw
48 mpg city / 50 mpg highway
Assuming the city mpg is close to the highway which I suspect it will be with the Voltec Setup.
Go Volt
Apr 19th, 2010 (9:26 am)+1 for correctness, but if this car were only about saving a dollar or two at the pump it wouldn’t make sense, just yet. Add in to that environmental impact (which is highly valued by some) and energy independence (also highly valued by some) either on the national or individual scale, and also the geek-factor of new technology, and you have a winner. (I happen to value all of these things.)
After I move all of my household’s non-discretionary driving to electric, then I’ll upgrade the HVAC system in my house, and then the next step is solar panels. (I’d love to use wind power, but I live on a small lot in a suburban area underneath the traffic pattern of an airport.) Since solar panels are expensive, I need to really know what my household’s electrical demand will be long-term before spending big-money on the panels — so it makes sense to do that part last.
(Yes, I can calculate what my electrical load should be with these changes to the house — and I’ve made a lt of excellent guesstimates. But, I’ve gotten deep enough into the weeds on this topic to realize that small things can make a big difference. Also, I’ve got time, and photovoltaics get cheaper every year, so I’ll save the novel part of this project for later.)
+4
Apr 19th, 2010 (9:27 am)I’m completely with nasaman and Dan Petit. Let the science dictate the number, not some idiot TV commentator who thinks the number means they’ll get 230 MPG going from NY to Chicago and who, upon finding out that’s not the case, suggests there’s some nefarious conspiracy afoot rather than concluding they need to educate themselves so that they understand the issues. Time to stop dumbing down the country. The number — or whatever number comes out of the process — is perfectly valid and makes perfect sense IF YOU UNDERSTAND THE METHODOLOGY. If you don’t understand it then do some homework.
You can’t directly compare MPG numbers for cars that use only an ICE with cars that use EREV, much less cars that don’t use any gas at all. Accept the reality and move on. Next we’ll have people demanding that the sticker shows how many bales of hay the horse would eat should the horse pulling the wagon go X number of miles.
+1
Apr 19th, 2010 (9:39 am)Good analysis, ziv. Thanks for the real life account of your driving experience.
Happy trails to you ’til we meet again.
Apr 19th, 2010 (9:49 am)So it sounds like the EPA should combine both methods of expressing fuel economy and apply them across all vehicles; e.g.:
The ballpark average number:
EPA Estimated Average Fuel Consumption @ 15,000 miles per year: 65 GPY*
EPA Estimated Average Fuel Economy @ 15,000 miles per year: 230 MPG*
* These estimates assume the vehicle’s battery is fully charged before driving.
The specifics:
EPA Estimated Battery-Electric Mode Range: 40 MPFC (Miles Per Full Charge)
EPA Estimated Generator-Electric Mode Fuel Economy: 50 MPG (Miles Per Gallon)
+1
Apr 19th, 2010 (9:51 am)I concur with this idea.
Happy trails to you ’til we meet again.
Apr 19th, 2010 (9:52 am)The last two cars I bought, I was more interested in color, comfort and initial cost than MPG. MPG is not that big a factor (to me) other than comparison of one vehicle to another. I know by experience that a 4,000lb V-8 sedan will get worse mileage than a 2,500lb 4-banger.
I happen to like the 230 mpg number and think it is a viable number for the EPA sticker. Some consideration needs to be given to overall cost-of-ownership (factoring in electricity costs), however, that is a function left to marketing. The EPA cannot expand the scope of the EPA sticker over ‘it is what it is’ without further muddying the waters.
Showing the sticker more like a refrigerator sticker would involve showing the same sticker on ICE vehicles as well. This might be a good thing in the long run, but, it’s not ‘normal’ to car buyers. If gasoline doubles in price, it throws off the sticker. Electricity is generally more price stable.
I think the EPA needs to use the same drive cycles and show both electric and gasoline costs in energy terms (not actual cost like a refrigerator sticker). Show me the same cycle as the ICE calculation and then show me how many Kwh and how much gasoline is needed to achieve that.
The problem is the MPG rating is not a good comparison between electric and gasoline cars. Total energy used is better. Unfortunately, EPA will probably try to shove the electric (and other alternative cars) into the square hole of MPG. I anticipate that they will try to calculate MPG using gasoline equivalent numbers.
Fortunately, not too many people know (or care) how to calculate their actual fuel mileage over time. They do know how much it costs per week to fill up. Money they understand. MPG not so much.
Apr 19th, 2010 (9:54 am)Yes and no.
No offense my friend, but what if a person is an insane driver such as myself.
If I put on the 15,000 miles in 6 months, and park the car the rest of the time,
what will my MPG be then? I can only plug in once a day and use gas for at least 60 miles per day. This is why I don’t like the 230 mpg. It tells me something that is not true.
But the 40 mpc and 50 MPG is more truthful for everyone. Your thoughts?
Apr 19th, 2010 (9:55 am)Yup. This is more straight forward than mine.
Apr 19th, 2010 (9:56 am)Not sure why all the -1s. Fact is – the EPA’s current preliminary methodology is insufficient at best, and GM hopping on the big-banner “230mpg” marketing spree is bad PR in the long run.
RECHARGE! James
IF YOU BUILD THEM THEY WILL COME.
Apr 19th, 2010 (9:58 am)The problem is that no driver is the average driver. OK, maybe 1 person out of 1000 will get the mystical 230 mpg over a given timeframe, the other 999 will get anything from 50 to near infinity. So it’s kind of like trying to predict the weather for one day a year from now, it’s a crapshoot.
And let’s face it, most people out there don’t “get it”, they think the Volt will achieve 230 (I’ve even seen people claim 500) mpg on gasoline-only. The “230″ PR stunt did a nice job of confusing the unwashed masses (i.e. non-GM-Volt readers).
The only thing dumber is assigning a mpg value to a pure electric vehicle. Yes I understand the rationale, but it is still dumb IMO. As I believe someone said above, what next, mpg ratings for bicycles? There must be a better way.
I don’t think a 200+ number will ever make it to the window sticker of the Volt, the resulting consumer confusion and backlash would be too great.
+19
Apr 19th, 2010 (9:58 am)On the positive side, VP Joe Biden recently took a look at the upcoming Chevy Volt and had some indisputable insight –
“This is a big f**cking deal!”
RECHARGE! James
IF YOU BUILD IT THEY WILL COME.
-5
Apr 19th, 2010 (10:00 am)You guys are forgetting something very important and that is , the rest of the world uses the metric system .
USA is the only nation that uses the miles traveled and the speed rate anymore .
The rest of the world changed years ago .
The metric system is much better and is much more accurate .
-9
Apr 19th, 2010 (10:01 am)I love the idea of those yellow stickers: Give the consumer something they are used to.
Miles Per Gallon is for when you are using gasoline. The Volt is not — so MPG is misleading and should be dropped.
I am saddened that the VOLT’s ice will not run at its most efficient setting and use any excess to recharge batteries on a long trip. (VEGAS BABY) So the simple answer does not work for me.
Ahh, its teh gmmt !! lawyers–lawyers,lawyers,lawyers,lawyers!!
+1
Apr 19th, 2010 (10:05 am)EREV – means efficiency in a car. No worry about running out of fuel like a BEV has; able to drive long distances like an ICE vehicle; no need to buy expensive gasoline if you drive it around 40 miles every day; a vehicle for which maintenance costs are low; an electric vehicle with a battery management system that guarantees +10 years of vehicle use but still has remaining capacity for other uses after ten years; (files in other stats that I haven’t listed); how more efficient the Volt is than other Evs.
Happy trails to you ’til we meet again.
-12
Apr 19th, 2010 (10:10 am)(click to show comment)
Apr 19th, 2010 (10:12 am)Ok well thats still vague enough (still don’t know when available in Ohio) that I wouldn’t place an order. In any case, as bad as I want an EV/EREV, and will never buy an ICE again, I still won’t buy without test driving and knowing what all my options are.
I’m sure I”ll lease something within a year or two just to get going (and install my wind turbine and solar panels), then when lease is up I’ll be able to have a lot more choices.
Sure would be nice if GM could say “Tom W, don’t be impulsive, dont run out and buy a leaf, we’ll have a Volt for you in Ohio in 2011″.
+1
Apr 19th, 2010 (10:17 am)LOL my friend!
+6
Apr 19th, 2010 (10:20 am)What about the CAFE regulations?.. GM should benefit from selling the Volt.. to do that the EPA has to calculate an MPG like number that they can use to calculate the fleet average mpg.
Last I heard GM would benefit from the Volt for a limited time, then electric cars would be taken out of the CAFE calculations. If GM can gain relief from the gov by selling Volts they should, this will make the car profitable for GM and thus produced in larger numbers.
Apr 19th, 2010 (10:33 am)Well stated like that in vague terms, it would be a crap shoot. But if you put it in context to some real driving experiences, a statement about mileage would make sense. For example, anyone who drives less than 40 miles round trip would only have to buy a very small amount of gasoline; there after anyone driving over the 40 AER, would have to buy enough gasoline each day to travel the additional mileage over 40. Any driver who knows how far they travel can get an accurate idea of what the daily operating cost would be.
So instead of being vague let us make definitive statements that help answer the question of what terms a good rating system should use. There have been a number of good suggestion so far.
I like , “If the average person drives 15,000 miles per year, he/she will use 65 gallons of gas (230 mpg).” The advantage of this statement lies in a driver can extrapolate their own yearly mileage to determine total gasoline usage for the year and calculate/guesstimate their cost for the coming year. Simply, by using what gasoline cost might be if another spike were to occur, it would let them know what impact such an event would have were it likely to happen within the year.
Such a statement is simple and concise, meets the requirement of the existing law, and eliminates the confusion about how a drivers habits will affect the outcome.
Happy trails to you ’til we meet again.
+1
Apr 19th, 2010 (10:34 am)Not to belabor this point about the 230 mpg. but if they going to use averaging they also have to include a value for the number of charges, hence I prefer daily values instead. The number of charging will have a huge influence on the mpg.
+5
Apr 19th, 2010 (10:54 am)As I’ve said all along, a better number for plug-ins would be “Gallons Per Year”.
If you go to but a refrigerator, they will tell you how many kWh per year it will use for a typical consumer, like this:
If you live in a warm climate, don’t use air conditioning, and open the refrigerator frequently, then it could use 2-3 times as much. Or if you put the refrigerator in a cool basement and don’t open it much, you could use half as much. So your actual kWh per year usage can vary a lot.
But still, the number on the yellow sticker is a really good yardstick of what a typical consumer would use.
There’s no reason they can’t do the same with a “Gallons Per Year” rating on cars.
For example, with a typical driving pattern, assuming you only charge overnight:
Vehicle ……………… Gallons per year
Volt ……………………… 37
Prius …………………… 228
30 MPG car ………… 380
20 MPG car ………… 570
+1
Apr 19th, 2010 (10:54 am)I personally don’t care about the EPA rating for the Volt. At least not in term of my buying decision. However, it’s really important in terms of how it helps GM with cafe standards. I just hope that this decision doesn’t hurt the Volt’s overall profitability.
+4
Apr 19th, 2010 (10:55 am)MPG is an efficiency rating. “Range-to-empty”, whether for battery or liquid fuel, is a capability or capacity rating. There seems to be a lot of confusion trying to use one as an equivalent for the other.
The nice thing about MPG is that it’s independent of the cost of gasoline. A car with a higher MPG will cost less to fuel for the same daily drive as one with a lower MPG. The single MPG number of 30 years ago was split into City and Highway ratings shortly after the phrase “your mileage may vary” was invented.
The nice thing about KWH/mile is that it’s also an efficiency rating, independent of the cost of electricity, and allows direct comparison between various electric vehicles.
Having said that, the range to empty was a convience factor for gasoline vehicles — how often you have to head to the filling station — but is crucial for electric vehicles — how far until you’re stranded. So, the window sticker for EVs really should include the range to empty in addition to the KWH/mile efficiency metric noted above.
For EREVs like the Volt, it would be a good synthesis to give the range to empty as including the gasoline-fueled range. That would distinguish it from the battery-only vehicles.
So, four metrics.
Two for efficiency:
— MPG when using gasoline (n/a for battery-only vehicles),
— KWH/mile when using electricity (n/a for purely liquid-fueled vehicles).
Two for capability:
— Range on electricity only (n/a for purely liquid-fueled vehicles, pitiful for non-plug-in hybrids),
— Total range to empty (Volt is on par with many liquid-fueled vehicles, compares very well with most battery-only vehicles).
Caveats: Yes, you might need to split into city and highway. Yes, some liquid fueled cars use diesel, not gas. Yes, you could use liquid hydrogen as a liquid fuel for a fuel cell and be “electric”. Yes, “capability” is an ambiguous term that might refer to other concepts. Sigh.
-3
Apr 19th, 2010 (10:57 am)Argonne National Laboratory’s Transportation Technology R&D Center (TTRDC) disclaims GM’s attempts to grandstand VOLT’s mph. See TransForum Vol. 10, No. 1. (Use Google. Its more comprehensive than pasting some jillion character URL) In fact, the GM 230 mph claim is summarily debunked as it should be. Folks. When all’s said and done, what you want to know is this. How far can VOLT go via EV and how far ER. Period.
Here’s TTRDC bottom line:
[1] “Improving fuel economy (miles per gallon) does not result in a linear decrease in fuel consumption (gallons per distance driven).”
[2] “Fuel economy is misleading. Fuel consumption is a more useful representation (that is, gallons/mile, or liters/100km).” TransForum Vol. 10, No. 1. (Bottom Line)
In other words, the confusion is between fuel economy, fuel consumption and driving range.
Apr 19th, 2010 (10:58 am)#25
Don’t the mileage rating sections of the widow stickers on the windows of some new cars show a version of this? It’s just that the type is so small, and the numbers so abstract, thaat nobody pays attention. I think that you make a good point. Maybe there is a way to do a better job with this already existing information source.
Having said that, I also agree with Rashiid’s comment at #3 and your improvement upon same here. +1
+6
Apr 19th, 2010 (11:02 am)And how is that relevant to the EPA fuel efficiency ratings? Whether it’s expressed in miles per gallon or kilometers per liter, you’re still using the same amount of gas.
Apr 19th, 2010 (11:13 am)I agree. If i had more free time (so busy this year), I would find the interview w/Farah (i believe) where he said the EPA would not allow them to use the ICE to charge the batteries. He also said that it was never the intent of the ICE to charge the battery, and people should only charge by plugging in.
Apr 19th, 2010 (11:29 am)I think the best way to go in comparing the efficiency of competing electric cars is using watt-hours per mile. The volt uses 8000 watt-hours to go 40 miles. 8000/40 = 200 Wh/mi. This calculation is a measure of the car’s drive train efficiency, aerodynamics, weight and acessory load. This can be done with any EV or hybrid that has an all electric mode and SoC.
200Wh/mile and 50 miles/gallon.
+5
Apr 19th, 2010 (11:30 am)Ugh, don’t take this personally, but I hate that statement since it doesn’t capture the LENGTH of the trips adding up to 15,000 miles, and the length of the trips are *crucial* here.
If you make a histogram of a regular car’s mpg as obtained by lots of drivers over time it would be pretty narrow, say 16-25 mpg for a 20 mpg-level car. So I don’t have a problem with saying, “This car gets about 20 mpg.” For the Volt the histogram would be incredibly wide and not the standard bell shape, so it seems wrong to throw a dart and pick a number out of that funky histogram.
It’s like saying, “The average weekend visitor to Las Vegas loses $46.” Well OK, but some lose nothing, some lose around $46, some lose thousands, some win $100, some win thousands, some win millions… You get the point. It seems wrong to combine all those widely varying results into an “average” which means nothing.
OK I will shut up, this has all been beat into the ground so many times….
[elsewhere - metric system is "more accurate", huh???]
-15
Apr 19th, 2010 (11:38 am)(click to show comment)
Apr 19th, 2010 (11:41 am)I agree!
MPG (Vehicle efficiency when using gasoline)
MPKwh (Vehicle efficiency on battery)
MPC – Just so you can get an idea how far you can go on electric.
The first 2 help you compare vehicle efficiency, whether ICE, BEV or PHEV and the MPC lets you see how well it fits into your typical driving patterns.
+2
Apr 19th, 2010 (11:42 am)Here’s a better way to look at it:
My wife fills up the tank on her current car at least 3 times per month. If my calculations are correct, when we get her a VOLT it should be only 1 or possibly 2 times every two months.
Regardless of the actual miles per gallon, the savings at the pump cannot be denied!
Boo-yah!
-13
Apr 19th, 2010 (11:48 am)(click to show comment)
Apr 19th, 2010 (11:51 am)I definitely like the gallons used per year descriptor, especially when done in the list form comparing it to specific vehicles or X mpg vehicles. The element it ignores though is the KWh expense over the year’s time (~80 cents a day?).
I have to differ with Dan and Don about the issue of accuracy at all costs – including *customer* ease of understanding. Yes it’s sad that TV commercials aim at a 3rd or 4th grade level, but do we want GM to be accurate, or to sell Volts? With this new technology, I’m not sure that the two are necessarily compatible.
Reading the comments here, I’m always impressed with the level of understanding and insight, BUT I think we need a *simple* set of numbers that everyday folks will understand easily – *and* reflects relative cost of operation across vehicles. JMO.
Be well and believe,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The VOLTS ‘ Wheels On The Road!!****NPNS
Apr 19th, 2010 (11:57 am)What would be nice is for GM to put a little web-based Java app that calculates cost to operate a Volt based on 1) Miles Driven per Day 2) Gasoline Price and 3) Electricity Rates. It could then compare these costs to those for other cars.
On the other hand, there’s no reason why something like that couldn’t be done at GM-Volt. Are there any Java programmers out there?
Apr 19th, 2010 (12:01 pm)Great idea. Makes clear the number is average not instantaneous, so to speak. This would also be exactly like the numbers used for refrigerators or furnaces or hot water heaters — you get a yearly bill.
Apr 19th, 2010 (12:07 pm)I think the Gov has got their head you know where.
Why did the government commission the ” Idaho National Lab Advanced Vehicle Testing Draft Report 2007″ and use it as late as Feb. 2010 to calculate the milage on a modified Toyoto Prius?
If you click on Plug In Electric (Idaho Nat Lab) then hit Test Plan Link and then go to Page VI, you will see the chart to be used.
On that chart, the only thing the Volt can be charged on CITY DRIVING is the cost of electricity and or the environment impact.
Apr 19th, 2010 (12:10 pm)Exactly right. This is what nasaman and some others have suggested. I personally am fine with the 230 MPG number because I’m OK dividing the number of mile driven by the MPG number. This is essentially the same thing, so if people find it easier or more intuitive then terrific. I think however that you still have the conceptual problem in that an MPG number is not thought of as an average, though in fact that is what it is. This number is definitely an average.
I wonder how many people look at the sticker on appliances? Probably not many. Applied here, the lack of attention paid to efficiency suggests that the only people who will find this useful would also find the 230 MPG number useful.
Apr 19th, 2010 (12:14 pm)Not all costs. I’d just rather be remotely accurate than entirely inaccurate but intuitive! Basically there is no real way to compare apples and oranges, or in this case ICE and EREV vehicles. Seems like trying only leads to more confusion.
Have you seen the new test drive video from Plug-In America? Very cool. Interesting new info that makes you want a Volt even more. Hmmmmm…….. Given how many of these GM is making, maybe we shouldn’t look!
+2
Apr 19th, 2010 (12:15 pm)A web-based tool would be great.
It does get a little bit involved unless a person’s typical driving pattern has little variance. I put this calculator in a spreadsheet and if interested, you can get it below. You list all of your typical trips, weekly, monthly or annually and their round trip miles and it will calculate your fuel cost including electricity. It also calculates your custom EPA MPG figure (as in 230 MPG).
Try it out. It’s a good comparison tool.
http://www.4shared.com/document/JH4EIh80/Your_Mileage_May_Vary.html
Apr 19th, 2010 (12:16 pm)You guys are forgetting something. Yes, the Volt can get very economical energy usage. But it is almost impossible to achieve once you get the great feel of instantaneous quiet power. Pursuit of the Volt smile tends to cut down on efficiency! So the question to ask is “What price for that Volt smile?”
Apr 19th, 2010 (12:32 pm)As an extreme example of that, there is a mini-E driver out there who’s doing over 30,000 miles a year. He’d burn a bit of gas doing that in a Volt, but his mileage number still would be very high.
-12
Apr 19th, 2010 (12:33 pm)(click to show comment)
Apr 19th, 2010 (12:33 pm)I agree. All the discussion about different driving patterns is just a recognition that although we already have that with ICE vehicles, it is even more pronounced with EREVs.
+2
Apr 19th, 2010 (12:33 pm)EXCELLENT IDEA! I HOPE GM’s MARKETING GUYS HAVE TUNED IN TODAY.
Apr 19th, 2010 (12:42 pm)Maybe they should do something that simple, but it’s not so simple.
Currently, there’s city and highway numbers for gas powered cars because the range is quite different for each. The same is likely true for the Volt as well.
So, now there’s city and highway numbers for both gas and electric. Okay, now we’re up to 4 numbers. That’s not super horrible, but there’s more numbers than that.
What you (and most of us) think about miles per charge is actually a range, not an efficiency. It’s like saying your car has a range of 500 miles on gasoline. Doesn’t say anything about the efficiency. But the electric range is actually pretty important (which is why we all care about it). Sooo…
Now we have miles/gallon city and highway, miles per kW city and highway, and the electric range city and highway as well. It starts to get kind of unwieldy and the expectation is what most consumers really want to hear is the “bottom line” for them.
Frankly, I don’t see a great way to boil it down to one “bottom line” number for people.
But I’m more of a details person so I’m not the one to ask about simplifications.
+3
Apr 19th, 2010 (12:52 pm)Agree saying the Metric system is a more universal system. Totally disagree the metric it is a more “Accurate System” . Both are “Totally Accurate”.
+4
Apr 19th, 2010 (12:56 pm)Haven’t read all the replies, so if someone else has already said (etc etc) …
Wasn’t the 230 mpg EPA sticker really intended only to measure and control the degree to which the Volt would figure into CAFE calculations? The object certainly couldn’t have been educating the car buyer. I always figured the number would come back to bite someone in the @$$, and it looks like it’s the EPA’s that’s on the plate.
Before you vote, consider this: If GM’s production number projections for the Volt are based on it’s CAFE contributions alone, they may now be forced to increase production with a lower EPA number.
For any purpose other than CAFE calculation, the 230 MPG number was pretty useless. Yes, it’s possible to look at the Volt Advantage using a wide range of mathematical constructs but most drivers will look only at the accepted number(s). I agree with Rashiid, but I would like to apply a small correction to his numbers:
42 mpc
60 mpg
+1
Apr 19th, 2010 (1:00 pm)Basically this is a good concept, however, it does not take into account the fact that number will vary depending on the number charges applied to it. The 15000 mile/year scenario with daily charging would give you an incredible high mileage value not just 230 miles. Almost no gas usage at all would be involved. Any standards along these lines has to include how many times charge is applied. The more charge the higher that value.
+1
Apr 19th, 2010 (1:06 pm)OK Herm, I just saw your #75. +1
-14
Apr 19th, 2010 (1:08 pm)(click to show comment)
Apr 19th, 2010 (1:10 pm)Let’s get rid of the EPA and replace it with a Agency that has competent people with a good science and engineering background and not political idealogues, buffoons and nutcases! The EPA does more harm than good but that’s not a topic for this Format.
I also liked the 230mpg number and thought it appropriate. Now how are they (government) going to tax us with these EREV’s and BEV’s? You know something is coming and it has to be on a per mile driven basis.
-1
Apr 19th, 2010 (1:20 pm)The whole problem is that the range of MPG values for Volt (50mpg to infinity) is so large that finding a number that makes sense is an exercise in futility.
If you take a normal car, the range is the highest (40mpg or whatever) and numbers very near that (I know, the hypermiler guys will be different.). So the range of possible numbers for everyone is somewhere between like 35 to 45mpg. That’s a WAY different scale than to infinity.
With the 40mpg car, you pretty much know you will be around 40mpg. With a 230mpg car you could be as low as 50 (if you never charge up) or as high as 1000mpg (close to infinity) if you always charge before 40miles has elapsed.
This game-changing stuff drives you crazy!
+1
Apr 19th, 2010 (1:21 pm)Smaller unit gives you advantage unless you start using fractions.
Cars speedometers are calibrated at best up to 5 MPH here (US) and 5kmh in Europe. Obviously, km being a smaller unit than mile unit gives you a better precision with respect to car speed.
Opposite applies to household thermometers. 1 Celsius is almost twice as large unit than 1 Fahrenheit, therefore at home I use my thermostat set to F units simply because it overshoots less and gives more comfort (blame MCU programmers for use of integers).
The worst of course is inch. Inferior to cm/mm. With its binary nature, you would have to deal with power 2 based fractions of an inch. That I would get rid of in a heartbeat!
+2
Apr 19th, 2010 (1:25 pm)“However, considering the unique operational behavior of the Volt, the method, which was under preliminary consideration by the EPA at the time, seemed reasonable.”
The Chevy Volt is not unique in using two energy sources. For instance some gas cars can also run on LPG (liquified petroleum gas) which is much cheaper. On LPG they can run hundreds of miles and then if needed you can continue on normal gas hundreds of miles. These cars will easily reach more than 1000MPG if you use the miles run on LPG (for the Volt electricity) for normal gas usage.
It is very simple if more than one energy source is used you need more than one number for energy usage. For the Chevy Volt miles per kwh in EV mode and miles per gallon in CS mode.
Apr 19th, 2010 (1:49 pm)By the way Lyle…
Great job on the photoshop picture in your article! Good stuff friend.
Apr 19th, 2010 (1:52 pm)Thanks for the tip on the video.
Help me out here on this 65 gallon/year number. I tried dividing the 15K by 365 days and only get 41.09 miles per day. If *that’s* true, we’d only use a mile a day CS mode. So where does the 65 gallons come from? I’m assuming that I’m missing something like Rashiid did the other day (g). (No, Rashiid, we won’t forget that one)(lol).
Be well and believe,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The VOLTS ‘ Wheels On The Road!!****NPNS
+3
Apr 19th, 2010 (1:52 pm)A window sticker might say something like…
An average person driving 15,000 miles/year will use 65 gallons of gas (=230 mpg)*
*Estimate based on NHTSA data showing 78% of US drivers travel <40 miles/day & omits the cost of electricity (which averages approximately 1/5th that of gas); individual results will vary.
Apr 19th, 2010 (1:59 pm)Garbage in – garbage out:
15000 miles / 230 mpg = 65 gallons.
Apr 19th, 2010 (2:02 pm)That’s not Photoshopped. It was Fritz’ farewell press conference….(just kidding, kinda).
Be well and believe,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The VOLTS ‘ Wheels On The Road!!****NPNS
-1
Apr 19th, 2010 (2:07 pm)So by my math, we’d only use a little under 8 gallons per year (if it only gets 50 mpg in CS mode).
Now THAT’S cool.
Be well and believe,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The VOLTS ‘ Wheels On The Road!!****NPNS
-15
Apr 19th, 2010 (2:10 pm)(click to show comment)
Apr 19th, 2010 (2:11 pm)Nm,
Check my math at #114 and #118 and help me out.
Thanks,
Tagamet
Apr 19th, 2010 (2:27 pm)OK, yes I am an average driver and drive 15000 miles/yr. But wait, I drive 288 miles once per week. So I use 260 gallons/year and get “only” 57 mpg. I thought I was going to get 230?
Yeah I don’t really drive once per week but you get the point. You can get any number 50-infinity by fiddling with the numbers. Again I don’t think it is “statistically correct” to pull an average out of such a huge range of values. Innumeracy at its best (at it’s [sic] best, for some here).
-16
Apr 19th, 2010 (2:28 pm)(click to show comment)
-16
Apr 19th, 2010 (2:49 pm)(click to show comment)
Apr 19th, 2010 (2:56 pm)The difference between CNG and gasoline on MPG/MPGge is not significant if the engine is compromised by design to run on either. The difference between ICE (~40% efficient) vs electric motor (~90% efficient) makes the comparison much more difficult.
+1
Apr 19th, 2010 (2:57 pm)No more posts, we have a winner:
Troll of the Day Award
Apr 19th, 2010 (3:16 pm)#105
“From your lips to God’s ear” +1
Apr 19th, 2010 (3:19 pm)#125
Busy little creatures today, aren’t they. I have given out more “-1s” on this thread then ever before. Oh well, my mother always says, “Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery”. So is trolling, IMHO. +1 for your comment #125.
Apr 19th, 2010 (3:23 pm)HaHaHaHaHaHaHaHa!!!
+1
Apr 19th, 2010 (3:39 pm)I’ve always found the 230 MPG AND 25 kWh/100 miles to be fair.
Why?
A typical cars rating of X City/Y Hwy is nothing more than a combination of different speeds, acceleration, usages, etc based on driving cycles that are modeled on national data.
I repeat, its next to impossible to “drive to” any car’s current EPA rating at any one specific drive. The current EPA ratings for City and Hwy are only really accurate when looking at the year as a total. (For example, if we hook the car up to run the -exact- City cycle, over the course of the year we would get many many different MPG results for the -same- driving on the -same- car. It used to be that manufactures got to report the -best- City cycle condition. Post 2008, its now more like an average across a year to account for cold/hot/etc)
Given that the fundamental purpose of the EPA ratings (just like the Energy Ratings on Appliances) is to inform the consumer on the average cost to operate an appliance on a yearly basis in comparison to other appliances that perform a similar function…
I fully support .434 gallons per 100 miles AND 25 kWh per 100 miles.
Its time to switch to consumption…
We can throw Diesel’s that require Adblue into the same category
Apr 19th, 2010 (3:42 pm)So we’re talking precision, not accuracy. I don’t get how an inch is binary though.
9 inches is way easier to figure out than 228.6mm. Although the latter sounds like a lot more.
Apr 19th, 2010 (3:42 pm)True, and how many of them then dismiss that number as a fantasy (too high to be true) and move on? Witness all the government/EPA bashing on this forum. Government/EPA = idiots. Therefore EPA’s 230MPG rating must be wrong.
The only way to understand a rating is to know how it was produced. Most will not care. They’ll simply use the number for comparison shopping. The problem is they need to be educated more than they want to understand the number’s significance.
I’m happy with the 230 MPG with the addition of the individual MPC and ICE MPG breakdowns.
Apr 19th, 2010 (3:43 pm)The positive side of providing energy to the T battery of your Volt is that you have many supply options. Several here mention that their home power is hydro generated. Several here have a home solar system. Most here have some source of free opportunity charging available to them.
I have basic home electrical service. What I have done is convert to low use light bulbs and a new (smaller) water heater. And also have installed dual pane glass on all the windows. This was completed 2 years ago with help from the California tax credit. The monthly electric bill is noticeably lower by $20-$25 per month. A daily recharge of the Volt lifts my electric bill back to the former “normal”.
=D-Volt
Apr 19th, 2010 (3:43 pm)::Rolls eyes::
I get 26.5 MPG (Lifetime average) out of a 21.6 MPG EPA average car. Those jerks at the EPA! How can they possibly think to rate the MPG of cars if they are so far off my individual result! An statistical average! Outrageous!
-5
Apr 19th, 2010 (3:57 pm)U not smart man to put spouse photo like that. He might get angry at you.
Apr 19th, 2010 (3:58 pm)It doesn’t work this way you’re trying to do it. It’s an empirical approach not a mathematical one. Basically the driver behavior is derived from real world drive cycles. People don’t drive the same number of miles every day. Some days they might not drive the car at all. Other days they might drive it 100 miles. The 230 MPG number is derived from this typical if somewhat stochastic driving activity of drivers.
BTW nasaman said he was able to derive the 230 MPG number. I couldn’t either because I didn’t have the probability curve for the driving distances (which was what I concluded) or because I didn’t understand what I was looking at (which may have been the case). But in theory it’s pretty easy. You look at the daily number of miles driven over the course of a year (week, month, whatever) in CS Mode, and then, using the MPG in CS Mode, how much gas would be used each day. That’s where you get the 230 MPG number. If you just divide this number into the total miles driven you get the gallons used over a year (the 15,000 miles / 230 miles/gallon). But you can’t get to this number by dividing the number of miles driven in a year by the number of days in a year since that’s an average number of miles driven which understates the gas you’d use.
Opportunity charging, which is highly likely, will BTW drive the MPG number up.
+1
Apr 19th, 2010 (3:59 pm)Wonder if GM will produce enough Volts to supply Hertz, Alamo, Budget, National and Enterprise? Think the Volt will be a popular choice for car renters? Think renters will consider buying a Volt? Can GM produce enough T batteries to meet demand?
=D-Volt
Apr 19th, 2010 (4:04 pm)Actually as Jackson keeps reminding us, the MPG number is really for CAFE.
-1
Apr 19th, 2010 (4:07 pm)how about 13/64″ drill bit? and is it bigger than 3/16″? or 1/4″?
or measure 3′ 7 17/32″ with tape … just terrible …
try to measure 0.3″
+1
Apr 19th, 2010 (4:14 pm)Ziv is a good statistician and analyst. We need more of them on gm-volt.com
JC NPNS
+2
Apr 19th, 2010 (4:21 pm)I’ll lend you a fifth grader.
-13
Apr 19th, 2010 (4:24 pm)(click to show comment)
Apr 19th, 2010 (4:39 pm)Pleas help me out I am a little confused.
Let us say that Volt and Leaf (in plug in mode) get 5miles/kWh. Now a gallon is equal to 37 kWh so these cars get the equivalent of 185 miles/gallon.
So the BEV gets 185 miles/hour and the Volt between 185 miles/gallon and 50ml/gall.
Where do these higher consumption figures come from, 230m/hr, 500ml/hr, infinity etc?
Price comparisons are useless for the EPA because some people will get their energy free, some at 10c/kWh and the gentleman who drove in a Tesla down from Washington to southern California paid $47 for a 2 hour charge at a campsite and of course oil prices could fluctuate between $2 and $10 gallon.
As suggested above we have:
Prius Volt Leaf
MPC miles……..n/a…………..40……….100
MPG equiv………55…………..50………..185
The Prius, a known product, does not look bad and the Leaf looks splendid.
But this does not show up the attributes of the Volt!
The Volt is splendid with a fuel consumption of between 50 and 150 miles to the gallon.
More accurate would be:
Prius Volt Leaf
Range…miles…….550………..340……….100
MPG……equiv……..55………..50-185…..185
The energy consumption of the Volt can be extremely varied a shown by Annie and Bertha
Annie drives 7 days a week and 40 miles per day:
7 x 40 = 280 miles/week using plug-in electricity
280 / 5 miles per kWh = 56 kWh = 1.5 gallon
Bertha comutes to work letting the train take the strain and only uses her car to visit Mum every Saturday a journey of lives 140 miles.
40 miles on plug-in electricity and 240 miles using gasoline.
40 miles/ 5 mpkWh = 8 kWh = 0.2 gallon
and 240 miles / 50 mpg = 4.8 gallon
Annie uses the equiv of 1.5 gallon which is as we expect 185 miles / gallon
Bertha uses equiv 5.0 gallon about 56 miles / gallon
Suppose in two years we have
Plug-in range MPG(Engine)
Volt Gen 1…….40……………….50
Volt Gen 2a…..20……………….60
Volt gen 2b…..60……………….45
which vehicle has the best energy consumption?
I suggest therefore:
Prius Volt Leaf
Range miles…..550………….340……….100
MPG equiv……55+………….0-185*…..185**
+ all gasoline
** all plug-in
* first 40 miles plug-in then gasoline engine
Hope there is something here for you guys!
+2
Apr 19th, 2010 (5:03 pm)I think everyone has been missing a MAJOR stat , and THE MOST IMPORTANT piece of quantitive data that puts Volt high above all other competitors :
SPG
Smiles Per Gallon
RECHARGE! James
IF YOU BUILD THEM THEY WILL COME.
P.S. ~ Even Mona couldn’t wipe that Volt Drivin’ Grin off her face – I call it “Volt Afterglow”
Apr 19th, 2010 (5:05 pm)Try telling that to the EPA. According to the Leaf folks, their vehicle gets 360+ mpg using EPA proposed rules. In actuality, it doesn’t use any gasoline at all.
That’s the whole issue. You can’t judge electric cars by this old MPG yardstick.
And we have come full circle yet again.
“Your mileage may vary”.
-9
Apr 19th, 2010 (5:07 pm)That’s normal GM SOP (Standard Operating Procedures).
-12
Apr 19th, 2010 (5:09 pm)(click to show comment)
Apr 19th, 2010 (5:09 pm)Until the INSANITY of trying to use miles per GALLON to compare vehicles that use other than liquid fuels ends, excruciatingly painful (to my brain) inaccuracies will prevail. Pick some other unit of energy! Watts, joules, therms, anything but miles per gallon. It seems so obvious that MPG doesn’t work, we just seem to be stuck on dumb.(sorry about the rant, maybe we should use cubic amps per forte night)
-5
Apr 19th, 2010 (5:15 pm)That is correct. But why does anyone bother even including that EV range into and with the gas burner on the Volt? It’s a simple concept, In all EV mode don’t bother counting mpg, ever. After all, you are not burning petrol at all. Then for the Volt the ice takes over, THEN you can start counting mpg.
-2
Apr 19th, 2010 (5:16 pm)“Coulomb’s”?
lol……
I agree with you though.
+2
Apr 19th, 2010 (5:26 pm)Hello Maurice
First thing you need to understand is that the EPA/CAFE has designed a Petroleum Equivalency Factor which has been used to value all sorts of alternatives to normal gasoline.
Under these guidelines, the Nissan Leaf gets “367 MPG”. Tesla Roadster apparently measured ~220 MPG under the same guidelines. Clearly this was… not smart… since the number is more about the overall energy costs to society rather than the cost in dollars to a consumer.
The Volt’s methodology on the other hand was based on ANL developed SAE J1711.
SAE J1711 proposed that PHEV recieve consumption marks for both gasoline and electricity. Using a driving schedule derived from US survey data, a certain number a trip a year at various lengths was decided to be an “average” driving pattern.
Under this, if the driving drives a typical driving pattern at City speeds/cycle then the Volt will return 230 MPG and consumer from the wall approx. 25kWh/100 miles. (This was all clearly explained in the original press release. Unfortunately, too many media types are WAY too stupid to actually read the press release apparently)
What does this mean? Well, it means that over 100 miles the volt will consumer .434 gallons of fuel AND 25 kWh/100 miles. Since we all expect the volt to get around 50 miles per gallon in Range Extended mode, it brakes down that the EPA expects the average driver to go around 78 miles electric and 22 miles on gas every “100 miles”…. so between 75%-80% electric miles when driven like an average US driver in the city enviroments. Considering that 78% of the population has less than a 40 mile round trip commute to work, and vast majority of miles are typically in commute this pass the reasonability test.
I repeated think GM and the EPA botched this insisting on reporting things as “MPG”. Consumption is what matters.
(.434 gal + 25 kWh)/100 miles gets the idea clearly across. and I’d prefer to see 100 mile average consumptions for all cars going forward rather than MPG, so we can end the percieved fallacy of
20 MPG –> 40 MPG –> 60 MPG … second transition saves on 36% of the fuel that the first transition saves… see … 5 gal/100 –> 2.5 gal/100 –> 1.6 gal/100 miles
Apr 19th, 2010 (6:11 pm)
Apr 19th, 2010 (6:42 pm)Agreed, what kind of sticker do they put on the Leaf? Miles per Kilowatt & Useful range? Put that on the left side of the Volt sticker and then the Standard city & highway on the right. Then at the bottom the combined number 230mpg or whatever could be displayed. Whatever is displayed should be explained. After a bit I figured out (with the help of the folks on this site) what 230mpg meant. I understand that the 230mpg figure could be confusing as not everybody knows a rocket scientist.
Cheers
The Beauty of a Volt…
Electric car first, Hybrid second
Apr 19th, 2010 (6:53 pm)How do you rationalise the fact that all cars have both a metric and American Standard MPG but the metric is accurate and the American Standard is not???????????? We must be fooling those Europeans when we ship a vehicle there!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
+6
Apr 19th, 2010 (7:00 pm)Sorry, the coveted “Troll of the Day Award” has already been dispensed. Please try again later (preferably MUCH later).
Apr 19th, 2010 (7:01 pm)Autoweek Magazine came out with it’s earth day anniversary issue. They just do not get the point of the electric car. They (among others) say electric car powered by coal is dirtier than gold old ICE, so what is the point of electrics?
They did not touch on energy independence! Also because so much energy is lost to heat from gasoline coal is actually cleaner to power an electric car. So if all you cared about is CO2 the Volt would be better on coal than on gas. This does not count BTU’s
Maybe a way to illustrate this would be to put BTU’s per mile on the sticker in both electric and range extended mode. Where is my chart? Oh never mind Top Gear is on…
The Beauty of a Volt…
Cheers
-1
Apr 19th, 2010 (7:05 pm)Still konfuzed on how to get 230mpg driving in the city or highway.
How do you drive in the “cycle” tested?
Apr 19th, 2010 (7:19 pm)Thank you, I hope I have understand you correctly:
The guidelines set out for this particular car state that for each 100 miles 22 will be gasoline and 78 miles will be electricity.
As the car has a 50 mpg (or 2 gall / 100 miles) fuel consumption it will use 0.44gall and taking 3 miles/ kWh we have about 25 kWh needed for every 100 miles. Now the 230 mpg (0.44 gall/ 100 miles) is only for the gasoline required and does NOT take in to account the electricity used.
If you convert the electricity required 25 kWh divided by 37 we have an equivalent in gasoline of 0.68 gallons. thus a total energy requirement of 0.44 + 0.68 gall = 1.12gallon / 100 miles or 89 mpg which seems more in line with the laws of physics.
At present prices we have $3 x 1.12 = $3.36 + (20 kWh x 0.10c =) $2 = $5.36 /100 miles.
We all know MPG but fewer gall / 100 miles or kW or kWh or the price thereof. Keep it simple a one figure of 90 MPG is very good for a general purpose well equipped car.
Apr 19th, 2010 (7:26 pm)http://avt.inl.gov/
Go to the above link,Click on -
Plug in hybrid electric
Click on Test plan Link
Scroll down to page VI of the Accelerated Test procedure
What this does is put the electric- hybrid vehicle into the EPA’s method of getting a MPG figure so that CAFE can be utilized as directed by congress so that GM can count the Volt in its average vehicle CAFE.
-11
Apr 19th, 2010 (7:36 pm)(click to show comment)
-12
Apr 19th, 2010 (7:40 pm)(click to show comment)
+2
Apr 19th, 2010 (7:42 pm)Dave G # 78
I think you’ve nailed it in a way that is acceptable to regulatory agencies and the public alike. We expect to use these energy type number ONLY for comparison. So, the AVERAGE user will get the 37 gallons per year rating. The value of this number in educating the consumer is that it can be compared to a Prius under the same driving conditions.
We all here should be supporting verifiable numbers that demonstrate the high value of
VOLTEC technology. These are numbers in the interest of selling VOLTS to achieve energy independence.
Apr 19th, 2010 (7:45 pm)Lots of variables that can be listed–let’s get’m all out there: average cost of maintanence, traction in snow, ice, rain, dry, maximum G’s before rollover, average UVA and UVB exposure ratings of the interior with the windows up and down, percent of vehicle reasonably recyclable, onlookers’ visibility of vehicle during day, dawn/dusk and night, average expected depreciation after 1, 3, 5 years, average amount of carbon emitted per mile driven, expected theft percentage, average and maximum decibels to an onlooker from 10 and 100 feet, VOC rating of the interior when new and after 3 years, etc., etc, etc.
Apr 19th, 2010 (8:01 pm)I always figured that number was the result of running the EPA test cycle. Thought it was obvious that it didn’t tell a complete story.
-5
Apr 19th, 2010 (8:04 pm)Volt not much good for distance when plug must be long. BYD more happy EV with nice style and truth censor. BYD beat GM and falun daffa two many ways!
Apr 19th, 2010 (8:12 pm)(.434 gallons X $3/gallon) + (25 kWh X $.10/kWh) = $3.80 for every 100 miles. The 25 kWh is BTW wall to wheel.
Apr 19th, 2010 (8:21 pm)Here it is for reference (the high is Tesla at 244)
MODEL YEAR 2009
MANUFACTURER YEAR FLEET STD CAFE ADJ SOURCE
BMW 2009 09IP 27.5 29.0 A 2
BMW 2009 09LT 23.1 22.7 2
CHRYSLER 2009 09DP 27.5 28.3 1
CHRYSLER 2009 09LT 23.1 23.9 1
DAIMLER (1) 2009 09LT 23.2 20.8 2
DAIMLER 2009 09IP 27.5 26.9 A 2
FERRARI 2009 09IP 27.5 16.4 2
FORD 2009 09DP 27.5 31.1 A 2
FORD 2009 09LT 23.1 24.4 2
FORD 2009 09IP 27.5 26.8 A 2
GM 2009 09DP 27.5 31.0 A 2
GM (1) 2009 09LT 22.7 23.5 2
GM 2009 09IP 27.5 30.2 A 2
HONDA 2009 09DP 27.5 36.5 A 2
HONDA 2009 09IP 27.5 34.0 A 2
HONDA 2009 09LT 23.1 26.0 2
HYUNDAI 2009 09IP 27.5 34.1 2
HYUNDAI 2009 09LT 23.1 26.0 2
JAGUAR LAND ROVER 2009 09IP 27.5 24.0 A 2
JAGUAR LAND ROVER 2009 09LT 23.1 19.1 2
KIA 2009 09IP 27.5 35.2 2
KIA 2009 09LT 23.1 24.9 2
LOTUS 2009 09IP 27.5 30.1 A 2
MASERATI 2009 09IP 27.5 17.8 2
MAZDA 2009 09IP 27.5 32.6 A 2
MAZDA 2009 09DP 27.5 30.9 A 2
MAZDA 2009 09LT 23.1 26.6 2
MITSUBISHI 2009 09LT 23.1 26.1 2
MITSUBISHI 2009 09IP 27.5 29.5 A 2
NISSAN 2009 09IP 27.5 32.2 A 2
NISSAN 2009 09DP 27.5 33.6 A 2
NISSAN 2009 09LT 23.1 24.9 2
PORSCHE 2009 09IP 27.5 27.6 A 2
PORSCHE 2009 09LT 23.1 20.1 2
SPYKER (2) 2009 09IP 18.9 19.5 2
SUBARU 2009 09DP 27.5 29.0 A 2
SUBARU 2009 09IP 27.5 28.4 A 2
SUBARU 2009 09LT 23.1 26.2 2
SUZUKI 2009 09IP 27.5 32.7 A 2
SUZUKI 2009 09LT 23.1 25.6 2
TESLA 2009 09DP 27.5 244.0 2
TOYOTA 2009 09DP 27.5 35.8 A 2
TOYOTA 2009 09IP 27.5 39.2 A 2
TOYOTA 2009 09LT 23.1 26.1 2
VW 2009 09IP 27.5 30.7 2
VW 2009 09LT 23.1 24.5 2
+4
Apr 19th, 2010 (9:45 pm)Well, no I didn’t; but since you’ve asked:
Ain’t she a beaut? And remember fellows, she’s spoken for!!
+1
Apr 19th, 2010 (9:50 pm)Well the fact of the matter is that it’s going to be a higher MPG rating than an ICE. That’s all that counts.
Apr 19th, 2010 (10:10 pm)If you have read a lot of the comments after yours, I’m curious does it still make you go ugh that an average of Volt city mpg is not a specific thing? Yes an average is not a specific thing, it’s a composite. Like most composites I believe we would actually be looking at a bell shaped curve. Yes losing $46 dollars in Vegas doesn’t tell you anything about specifics. Unless my friend Geoorge loses $46 then it’s also a specific thing and an average.
It’s Georges loss and the average in your example. But Georges loss still doesn’t tell us much of anything. It’s just too specific. The average though, tells us that it’s in the fat part of a bell shaped curve. Or it lies in a cluster about the mean in Georges case specifically.
But we have a specific that still doesn’t give us a lot of information. Knowing that a result can be accounted for in standard deviations from the mean gives us a better idea of how any measure is related to the others in the curve. Georges loss can be stated as the mean and anyone else’s loss can be classified by it’s standard deviation from the mean, which relates the specific thing [I lost $500 in Las Vegas] which people can identify with, to the “composite” average [George lost $46 which is the average loss in Vegas]. It seems like a funny thing though, that you hate an average of city miles per gallon, because it’s not specific.
I’ve always liked the gallons per year measure myself, though it’s an average also, unless you have a spreadsheet that people can plug their actual driving into.
Apr 19th, 2010 (10:17 pm)That’s not accurate. It tells you an idealized city drivers average mpg over time, and you know that the mileage will vary. If you are a self titled insane driver you would not be average.
Apr 19th, 2010 (10:44 pm)Hey, it can’t hurt that we the people own GM currently. Whatever the EPA comes up with I think it will still be an eye popper to most folks. Hopefully drawing interest towards this wonderful car.
Apr 20th, 2010 (12:16 am)________________________________________________________
Funny top graphic in Lyle’s article…made me laugh.
Here is the answer:
40mpc
50mpg-re
Bascially same thing as above #3 Rashiid…he is on target.
________________________________________________________
Apr 20th, 2010 (12:53 am)According to the GM Rep who represented the Volt at the Jackson Barrett Auto Auction (where a Volt prototype was displayed), they stated that the Volt would get 35 MPG in the Gas Generator mode. I hope that this person is wrong, but they were reading from notes taken at the GM headquarters earlier that week.
Apr 20th, 2010 (1:00 am)Interesting indeed it will be !
GO EV !!!
Apr 20th, 2010 (1:09 am)Nope late 2012, or early 2013…
GO EV !!!
+1
Apr 20th, 2010 (1:11 am)Slightly argmented list…
There’s no reason they can’t do the same with a “Gallons Per Year” rating on cars.
For example, with a typical driving pattern, assuming you only charge overnight:
Vehicle ……………… Gallons per year
Leaf………………………..00
Volt ……………………… 37
Prius …………………… 228
30 MPG car ………… 380
20 MPG car ………… 570
GO EV !!!
Apr 20th, 2010 (1:44 am)I know I posted late, but how about this for a hypotheitical EPA rating:
“All-electric range: 40 miles; Charging-mode fuel efficiency: 50 mpg.”
It ain’t rocket science…
Go Volt…George, Sudbury, Canada
Apr 20th, 2010 (3:31 am)Yes! I believe you have nailed it here. The key is that magic number 37. Why? From nhtsa.dot.gov:
“First enacted by Congress in 1975, the purpose of CAFE is to reduce energy consumption by increasing the fuel economy of cars and light trucks.”
Energy consumption! Now we’re talking something physical that we can measure directly, and doesn’t vary over time or by where you live. And the answer is indeed 37. As you said earlier in #142, there is 37 times as much energy in a gallon of gasoline as in a kWh of electricity.
As steel pointed out at #150, the EPA/CAFE Petroleum Equivalency Factor “is more about the overall energy costs to society rather than the cost in dollars to a consumer.” I would shorten that, as I think you would, Maurice, to say it is more about costs than energy. And therein lies its fatal flaw.
I don’t know why the post I referenced got negative points (which I tried to compensate for). 89 MPG sounds pretty darn good to me. Ain’t no way a Prius+ is going to come close to that, using the same criteria, if and when it ever comes to market.
+1
Apr 20th, 2010 (3:56 am)Either you and Bruce (#9) are missing the point, or someone is confused by terminology. The Volt ICE will run at an efficient setting. It will use excess power to recharge the batteries. It is just that it will turn itself off before charging the batteries very much. The reason for that is so that it can minimize the total amount of gasoline used and your total cost of gas+electricity. The way to minimize those things, once you get into charge sustaining mode, is to (a) run the engine at an efficient speed and (b) have the battery nearly empty when you get to a place you can plug in.
-2
Apr 20th, 2010 (4:40 am)The Volt simply cannot be sold by GM, because the EPA cannot classify it.
“The EPA hereby orders General Motors to destroy all “Voltec” type cars immediately, and provide proof of their destruction to the EPA within 14 days of the date on this letter”.
“Leaf fits in a “battery only” classification. All other cars fit in an “internal combustion” classification. The “Volt” does not fit any existing or proposed classification – therefore, it cannot be sold within the United States” – EPA administrator Lisa P Jackson
The Obama administration has sent letters to all GM dealers, instructing them to immediately refund all deposits toward the “Volt”. GM dealers around the nation have been quoted as saying they will comply with the President’s instructions.
———————————————————————————-
The moral of the story is: If the EPA is crazy enough to classify C02 as a pollutant, it’s crazy enough to ban the Volt because it defies classification.
Apr 20th, 2010 (9:04 am)Did you reverse that?
Is it, it’s more about energy than costs. Or it’s more about energy consumption than financial costs?
Apr 20th, 2010 (9:09 am)It would be more forthright to simply issue a “gallons per year” number for an average 12,000-mile year, and compare that to the “GPY” of other cars. That would pull the rug out from under the trolls who demand to know why the Volt can’t drive 230 miles on a gallon of gas.
Apr 20th, 2010 (9:13 am)Actually, the government’s only firm commitment on EREVs to-date is that they will offer you a $7500 rebate for buying one…
Apr 20th, 2010 (9:18 am)I prefer an alternate comparison table:
Maximum Miles Per Day
Leaf……………80-100 (weather dependent)
Volt…………..1,800 (24 hrs @ 75 mph)
Apr 20th, 2010 (9:21 am)It shouldn’t be that difficult…. We just need to add another category, tested using the electric-only function of electric capable vehicles and simply adding another labeling.
For the Volt, it would be like 40MPC (miles per charge) in City, 40MPC in HWY, 50MPG City, 45MPG HWY (or something). It’s simply retarded to figure out some impossible method to accurately and proportionally formulate something that will accurately represent the variations and advancements that will occur or are happening right now.
I for one want hard numbers. I don’t wanna see any bull shit 165MPG, where that leaves ME… ME!! to calculate what the numbers really mean. It’s more work for everyone!
I hope one of the regulars reads this and spreads it. It’s the only method that logically makes sense! (Lyle/Statik, please read!!!)
Apr 20th, 2010 (11:19 am)I think the point is that the Volt gasoline consumption for a year, for lots of people, will NOT be a bell-shaped curve. I could be wrong but I think it will be quite heavily weighted on the low end (people using near-zero gasoline), and high end (people making long trips or too lazy to plug in at night). So it may actually be an upside-down bell, or more likely a very weird shape. Dumb example, but it’s sort of like trying to average the state of a person being “alive” with that of “dead” and saying the average is half-alive. Some things just shouldn’t be averaged.
Someone with a good statistics background could probably explain it better, I only had one probability/statistics course in college. It was more interesting than I expected though, thanks to a good prof!
Apr 20th, 2010 (8:16 pm)I look at the stickers on appliances. Like to see the Energy Star logo used for vehicles in the same manner as appliances.
I think Rashiid’s got it right (for me, anyway). My method would be to start with a full tank and full charge and run till empty. MPC, MPG and total distance. If a vehicle met the Energy Star criteria, I think it would give the manufacturer a boost to have that on the vehicle (or advertising, etc.).
Just my opinion… Hopefully the final methodology will make sense.
Apr 20th, 2010 (8:55 pm)It’s pretty easy being smarter than the EPA (or any Federal agency). Since there are statistics
that detail commuter mileages, it’s a nobrainer to show that the Volt as a commuter will, over all US commuters, average a bit over 250 MPG. Non-commute mileage is unknown but a few plausible assumptions leads one to believe that it won’t differ drastically from the commuter
figures. But the more important point is that there are average. If you think indivual gas powered mileages differ, than you would be in for a shock as to how much extended range vehicles can differ. So much so that it’s pure follly for the EPA to stupidly attempt to provide data which is clearly irreleavant (MPG). The data that should be displayed on the sticker is : miles per charge, and MPG running in extended mode. Now THAT will provide the buyer with useful information. MPGs are simply not appropriate, nor are they of any value for extended range vehicles. The EPA, as we’ve always known, is yet another braindead Federal agency.
Pay them no mind.
Apr 21st, 2010 (1:54 pm)I do. 55mpg summer and 52mpg winter. (I get sticker in summer and slightly below sticker in the winter).
Apr 22nd, 2010 (5:50 pm)Oh my lord! Really?
You carefully critiqued?
I wish there were a moderator for the comments section. I would add useful information here from time to time if I knew it would not be drowned out by messages like this. This is the 190th message, did anyone read this?
Anyone who thinks they reproduced the 230 MPG did so by coincidence. The curves used to calculate them were not public. They are based upon very esoteric analysis of data also not public. And yes I very much know what I am talking about. This is what I do for a living.
- LabRat, out
Apr 22nd, 2010 (6:00 pm)That’s funny, if I had to point a finger at “political idealogues, buffoons and nutcases,” all I have to do is troll the comments section of this blog. When I talk with the EPA people in charge of figuring out label MPG, they understand the problem and its difficulty. They are engineers, many ex-OEM engineers.
- LabRat, out
Apr 22nd, 2010 (6:08 pm)Kent, you are right about everything you said. Except the one most important thing. 230 MPG is all GM’s fault. I’m not going to get into specifics. You can read between the lines in media articles. Trust me when I say that EPA was pi**ed when 230 MPG came out. Its a GM creation. Actually, I am glad that it saw the light of day early before EPA made their ruling. “By statute, MPG must appear on the label. No statute however on the font size” – EPA quote.
- LabRat, out
Apr 24th, 2010 (5:13 am)Remember the gas engine does not drive the wheels, it helps create the battery juice kind of like a generator. That’s unique when compared to hybrids in which the gas helps drive the wheels. That’s why they can make such a big claim of 230 mpg. Realistically, it will probably drop to the low 100′s. 120 mpg sounds good to me!