GM rocked the media with its August 09 announcement that the Volt would get a 230 MPG EPA rating in highway driving. It got people talking, and created a heated controversy.
GM had based that determination on a draft methodology that heavily weighed the utility factor of driving. The value represented how many miles the average driver would get from a gallon of gas during typical repeated daily use over time, while charging nightly.
The public backlash, and complaints from other automakers led the EPA to reconsider and eventually revise the method.
An expert close to the EPA determination process told GM-Volt “if anything, the 230 MPG made EPA realize that very-high MPG results are pointless.”
“GM assumed what EPA was going to do,” said the source. “This is why the 230 MPG blew up in the first place.”
“EPA has some really smart people working on this stuff,” the source said. “GM made some really bad mistakes all throughout the Volt project.”
Be that as it may, the final extended range electric car methodology remains secret for now. The final announcement will be made this summer, in time to make sure the Volt has its sticker when it arrives.
Former GM vice chairman Bob Lutz told GM-Volt about the rating, “the EPA is still working in it.”
“Within the administration and various producers, (there is) a great difference of opinion on how electric range should be treated, how electric drive should be treated, how the petroleum equivalent of an electric mile should be calculated, and nobody knows,” added Lutz.
Lutz did seemed fairly certain about how things would turn out.
“The one thing we are reasonably sure about it whatever label we get will be triple digits,” he said.
+16
May 10th, 2010 (6:06 am)I realize that EPA is motivated to establish some measure of comparison between a gas only vehicle and plug in vehicles, but I strongly feel that the sticker for an extended range electric vehicle should start out by stating the kWh per 100 miles in electric mode on the city and highway cycles. It should then show the miles per gallon of gas consumed in the extended range mode on the city and highway cycles.
Even if EPA is compelled to also show some composite energy consumption assuming some mix of electric and extended range driving, this sticker format would make it possible for a driver to calculate the electricity and gas consumption (and cost) they would get with their particular mixture of electric and extended range driving in city and highway conditions and their $/gallon and cents/kWh.
+9
May 10th, 2010 (6:07 am)I’ll bet the major complainer was Ford Motor. It’s easier to complain than to get to work to compete with an EREV. It’s easier to retain the status quo of entrenched contracts that lock out new innovation. Ford can’t afford to compete with this.
Whatever the EPA number will be, I can assure you that when the Volt does get out here, media will ask each and every owner how far a gallon of gas goes in their Volt and how much electricity they used to use up that gallon. That is how it’s going to go, because the viewer does not have time to get out a calculator to do anything else nor to understand anything else in their busy lives.
The 230mpg with watts costs is easy to figure.
The 230mpg with watts costs per EPA in any case will be shattered with just light and moderate driving anyway. So, the EPA would not want to be embarrassed that way anyway, even with the “your efficiency will vary” cover statement.
Other OEM’s are in extremely deep competitive trouble, and they damn well know it.
+3
May 10th, 2010 (6:17 am)Oh boy here we go again. The sticker mileage debate is fierce since they are trying to create a unique solution to a non-uniquely solvable equation.
If the EPA chooses to move forward with a single number or pair of numbers (OK for CAFE but nearly meaningless on the car’s sticker), then there should be more info required on the sticker to give the consumer more context. Personally, I think they should leave the numbers to Cafe and the city/hwy CS mpg and city/hwy AER. Perhaps a table with average daily milage one axis and total annual miles on the other so the non-math oriented consumer can determine what the average annual gas/kwh consumption will be.
-16
May 10th, 2010 (6:21 am)(click to show comment)
+21
May 10th, 2010 (6:22 am)Miles per gallon and Miles per Kw. They are easy to learn and identify with.
You can put whatever else you want on there, such as combined driving, total Kw to draw from, total gallons, total expected miles on all electric… whatever…), but Kw and gallons to the mile should be a base to work with.
Easy
+2
May 10th, 2010 (6:23 am)As Dan Petit implied in post #2 above, competing manufacturers offering different solutions for green vehicles will be highly motivated to lobby EPA to choose a composite energy consumption formula which shows their vehicle in a more favorable light than the competition.
This is one more reason why I feel EPA should include the four consumption figures I described in post #1 above. They are logical, objective measures for any pluggable vehicle.
+15
May 10th, 2010 (6:24 am)BTW, if they are silly enough to try to distill it down to one number that best represents what the average consumer’s fuel cost will be, then 230mpge is about right.
+14
May 10th, 2010 (6:26 am)This topic has been rehashed here many times. The EPA will decide on which format to use in posting the “MPG”. There are many people who have reoccurring 100-200 mile drives that will be getting less than 100 mpg with the Volt. And others who are short haul only drivers achieving a much higher mpg equivalent. The bottom line is that the typical 20-25 mpg sport sedan is becoming obsolete before our eyes.
=D-Volt
+5
May 10th, 2010 (6:29 am)Back in the 60′s, when racers began to use an extremely superior set of tachometers and other meters which made the difference to them winning and others loosing, their competition bitterly and repeatedly complained to the racing judges that “Penske’s meters are so good, that they are unfair”.
Roger Penske named his meters “Penske’s Unfair”.
Time for the other OEM’s to wake up and smell the coffee, no matter how cheap and energy- dense that they currently believe the advancement of batteries might make a BEV go, they all still will bring about too many impracticalities compared to EREV. I think Ford really intends at this time to do nothing whatsoever at all EREV. (Nor even much production of BEV either for that matter, since they can “opt out” at any time contractually from Magna apparently).
EPA should stand firm on the 230mpg figure, and let all the other OEM’s know that the public will back the EPA number just as fiercely as a new standard. The EPA must never back down from this number, it must re-affirm it.
+1
May 10th, 2010 (6:33 am)That seems like a sensible approach, for Volt. But then when you consider the FULL hybrids like that from GM itself, Ford, and Toyota will be offering with a plug, not to mention others considering it like VW, Chrysler, and Hyundai, the situation becomes a mess… since they won’t always have a distinct switchover from EV to HV. Of course, even that would contribute to confusion and misleading hope due to Volt operation during the winter.
Real-World data will play a significant role in the determination of a new measurement system. That won’t come for a number of years, since there is virtually nothing to work with still. For that matter, there isn’t even much of a basis of comparison available yet. The effects & accuracy of the most recent EPA revision are still being determined.
Remember, consumers still have a very hard time accepting that the window sticker numbers are just a basic standardized measure for the sake of purchase decision. They do not represent an expectation.
May 10th, 2010 (6:53 am)Perhaps, but extremely misleading.
Sub-freezing temperatures throw a very big twist into that though.
EPA attempted to add that consideration into their equations, by introducing a measurement at 20°F. Unfortunately, that’s still way too warm for those of us in the north who routinely see colder daily highs and much colder lows.
+2
May 10th, 2010 (6:59 am)The EPA has to start somewhere, and it must start with Volt. Since the standard is with Volt, and, the electricity value *has* been factored into the number, there can’t be any valid complaint as to what the starting place is regarding efficiency.
Everyone and every OEM, must pay attention to what Volt does efficiency-wise. This means that Volt is the standard, no matter how they like it or fear it.
Whining to the EPA that Volt is too good and thus is unfair and so the EPA must lie to the public about what it will cost to drive it is absurd.
Cost to drive it each month is going to be known the first 30 days it is out. Most of us get a paycheck weekly to monthly, and, that is the overwhelming truth when other bills have to be paid each month.
Therefore, the EPA is not going to want to be embarrassed 30 days after the Volt comes out to be made aware that the public now knows that it had inappropriately caved in to the whining of what is and what is not “fair”, to an obsolete, entrenched, and grossly inefficient ICE thermal-waste/carbon-producing standard that even here, is being ridiculously defended as “unfair”.
The EPA must retain the 230 figure or even raise it higher with “(leaking) well to pump” carbon dioxide production factors (and carbon cleanup costs as well as direct damages to fishermen and coastal properties still yet to be vastly calculated from the Gulf spill while we are at it), (which, I think now is the law for them to do anyway), if anyone wants even “more details”.
The 230 figure stays.
+1
May 10th, 2010 (6:59 am)How the petroleum equivelent of an electric mile should be calculated is straight-forward. The more difficult task is determining the value of an “average utility rate”. Some areas of the country use dirty coal or clean coal, others use natural gas, nuclear, and most common is a blend of all, some locallly obtained and some from out-of-the-country. There needs to be a blended rate. The initial formula should not include a carbon-factor. To many variables. I still think whatever formula is decided, it will look appealing for Volt.
+17
May 10th, 2010 (7:07 am)I always thought that measuring an electric-drive car using MPG is just dumb. Just look at what LEAF did with it the next day (360 something MPG). And LEAF never uses any gas whatsoever.
+6
May 10th, 2010 (7:09 am)For this first round, I think the EPA should just use the same test procedure they use on all cars. How else will we know the real difference between Volt and ICE only cars? If it results in a 230 mpg, so be it. I’ve heard rumors that the engineers (that are hogging all the fun), are getting over 400 mpg on weekends, using opportunity charging etc. GM expended the money and effort to come up with a car like the Volt, and from what I know about it, 230 mpg may be very conservative, for people who use charging to best advantage. There’s no reason GM should not be able to benefit from a high EPA estimate. The car types that will need a special EPA test procedure IMO are the BEVs, because just saying they get infinite mpg, doesn’t take into account a person needing a second car, to go to the cabin for the weekend, or to go visit Aunt Gilda. These second cars might burn more fuel than the average Volt over a year’s time. Ford has spent a lot of money lately on ICE improvements, and hybrids. Let them suffer the consequences of that investment by getting EPA stickers that say 40 or 50 mpg. Hardball anyone?
+5
May 10th, 2010 (7:12 am)Deja vu all over again…
*Whatever* the descriptor they come up with really needs to minimize the learning curve of the consumer. The “normal” math-challenged, car buyer *won’t* warm up to some exotic formula that isn’t easily grasped within 30 seconds. KWh’s will have people’s head spinning. I know that that may not be fair, but I do think that it’s (uncharacteristically) accurate (pre-coffee, here). It’d also be nice if the numbers couldn’t be used by mfg’s to beat each other up. I definitely don’t think 2-axis charts qualify. Maybe the energy Star bar would be a good fit though. There may be a mathematical weight that could be built into the scale that would be “behind the scenes” – invisible to the buyer – that would weight the bar to help reflect the benefit of that initial 40 mile AER though. *Maybe* a couple for comparison of daily driving styles: “If you drive 50 miles/day, this is where the star goes”, “If you drive 100/day, THIS is where the star goes…” That would give a fair view for those high mileage commute buyers who may NOT be a good fit for the Volt.
CS mode mileage is, of course easy enough, but it’s imperative that that AER gets substantial daylight. In the end, “average # of gallons/ year” might be the number that is most easily grasped for comparison (as long as that initial AER gets the weighting it deserves), plus average cost for electric assuming a daily charge.
COFFEE.
BBS.
Be well,
Tagamet
+1
May 10th, 2010 (7:14 am)I saw the 100+ MPG Volt on I-696 this morning; really cool, but critics are correct in comparing the size and styling to the Honda Civic.
+2
May 10th, 2010 (7:17 am)If the EPA demands a single number for all vehicles, then make it cost per year to operate.
If you drive 12,000 miles per year, this vehicle will cost you approximately $XXX to operate. This is based on electricity costs of $0.12 per KW and gasoline prices of $3.00 per gallon.
They could do it on a scale like when you buy a refrigerator that would show where this car it situated against similar cars.
For me personally, that would work out to $1,500 per year for my Crossfire, and I estimate it would be $600 per year for the Volt.
But actually, I have always said that I like what Rashiid posted in #4 above.
Have Outlet – Ready For EREV
NPNS
+7
May 10th, 2010 (7:17 am)I don’t think the Leaf number of 360 is at all dumb. It has to be said in such a way so as to “segway” our understandings from one source of energy for motoring to another, which, although *unusual*, it’s just a way of helping us to change the ways we have been thinking for the last 105 years of motoring.
Undoubtedly, when describing things *not usual* there will certainly come a more compact, comprehensive, and standard way of describing efficiencies.
The next generations will be excited to talk about “Kilowatts per mile”, and, it will not be unusual or weird for them to do that at all.
May 10th, 2010 (7:29 am)#19 Dan, don’t you mean “Miles per Kilowatt”?
+9
May 10th, 2010 (7:30 am)Having been acquainted with the EPA from the radiation protection focus, I can tell you they always believe that they have really smart people that always know better than you do. So it’s no surprise that they believe, “GM made some really bad mistakes all throughout the Volt project.” It might be interesting to hear what they think some of these really bad mistakes are (other than the 230mpg estimate), and were they really “all through the Volt project?”
+2
May 10th, 2010 (7:30 am)IMHO it’s time for a European style system. Fill up the Battery and Tank. Drive 100 Miles city, do it again on the Highway. And publish those numbers.
May 10th, 2010 (7:39 am)Actually, “watts per mile” for achievement of lower and lower usages (by design as well as by driver usage patterns), kind of like “zero to sixty” times in racing.
It’s good you pointed that out for clarification.
That’s easier to say and understand at “200 watts a mile”, for example. That way, you can compare far more easily how efficient all electrics and EREV’s have been made in addition to, and in combination with, how you drive.
/…off to work. have a great day everyone.
-1
May 10th, 2010 (7:40 am)I think that would yield about 65-67 MPG.
+2
May 10th, 2010 (7:51 am)People will figure out real quickly how much less expensive it will be to drive the Volt compared to their ICE. Its not hard to see the beauty of paying one dollar to drive forty miles rather than the five to ten you’ll spend driving around your gas guzzler.
+9
May 10th, 2010 (7:53 am)When I drove the Volt, all the last 5 decades of my experience told me instantly that it is an astonishing and profound winner.
It will come down to what it costs to drive the Volt each month, both electricity and gas if any, and, how far off or how close the EPA is to the actual practical real world monthly driving cost figures for what the first five dozen Volt owners get.
We, and they, will just find out in six more months anyway. The EPA might as well get it right the first time. We’ll all see soon enough who is going to be right. Likely, they just need to hold back until 30 days before the first sales. 30 days thereafter, they will prove themselves accurate and valid and new-era descriptive, or, not so much, then need to revise quickly. The results will still be the same. Volt wins.
Then, the other OEM’s will have all their worst fears completely confirmed.
/…running late.
May 10th, 2010 (7:55 am)But my comment was more about “really smart guys,” and “really bad mistakes.”
Have a good day at work. See you at the Autoshow Sunday maybe.
+1
May 10th, 2010 (7:56 am)YES! Absolutely! Why be obsessed with gasoline fuel efficiency but not care at all about our electric (i.e. coal) efficiency? Until the day arrives that our grid is powered by nuclear, wind, and solar, the electric efficiency also matters from an environmental perspective. And those who don’t care about the environmental angle should still want this info available since it directly affects cost of ownership.
+6
May 10th, 2010 (7:57 am)Unfortunately, most of this is meaningless. One methodology could put the Volt’s mileage at 500 mpg, while another could put at 60 mpg. It’s all political at this stage of the game.
I agree that the consumer needs a guideline for fuel consumption, like Rashiid mentions in #4, however, the complicating factor is the CAFE standards.
GM will want to use a high number for the Volt to use in its Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE). This will allow them to sell more trucks and SUV’s, yet still meet the government standards. Based upon the preliminary test standards proposed by the government, 230 mpg could be a real number.
But all this will not be left to the engineers in National Laboratories, but will be shaped by congressional delegates, lobbyists, manufacturers, and a host of others with special interests.
So let’s just give it some BS number and move on. There are many more important issues to deal with than what some government agency wants to assign for a mileage rating.
+15
May 10th, 2010 (8:08 am)STICKER: 40 miles electric drive, Xmpg after that.
Done.
It’s the salesman’s job to explain the benefits of this setup.
A big MPG # will only cause confusion.
+1
May 10th, 2010 (8:11 am)Yup. And the beauty of it is that while 65 mpg is the WORST a Volt will do, it’s the BEST that a Prius will ever do. Toyota fanboyz will of course react to this common overlap point with the disingenuous “these things get the same gas mileage” argument, but when you phrase it in the best/worst perspective, it deflates their balloon fairly quickly.
+8
May 10th, 2010 (8:20 am)Disagree. Need three data points on the sticker:
– MPG in gas mode
– Miles of all electric driving
– Miles/Watt in electric mode
+14
May 10th, 2010 (8:23 am)230 mpg is not at all a meaningless comparison when I now pay $270 a month for gasoline at 19,500 miles a year (20.5 mpg) (the math is perfectly valid), and, Volt can cut that down to $25 a month (maintenance savings offsetting most of the electricity compared to what maintenance I now have to perform on my current vehicle). It is my economy that matters in my decision, not the EPA, or what CAFE demands.
Plus, as someone mentioned what the Europeans do to calculate it, well, that’s just the most dishonest and absurd thing when 100% of the buyers of Volt intend to be plugging in each night and never do 340 miles of driving each day. That’s the most dishonest “test” I’ve ever seen represented that the Europeans did to represent that that would be the way we would use it every day. Abject dishonesty you European “testers”, abject dishonesty!!
Where the EPA says GM made Voltec design mistakes, well let the EPA try to design anything from scratch with no previously existing technologies in place. Dishonest technical grandstanding is what that would be if they did in fact do that.
Hindsight isn’t 20/20 if technical dishonesty projects “you shoulda done it this way”, “OK, well where were your butts with any suggestions if you thought you knew??”
In any case, the EPA will prove themselves accurate or not when it comes down to how much it will cost to drive the Volt each month. That’s all that really matters to me, the buyer.
Volt monthly energy usage and its practicalities win against anything else I’ve driven, and, I diagnostically drive and deeply-scan everything out here in the mainstream.
The 230mpg figure stays.
(/..now I’m *really* late. lol. )
+3
May 10th, 2010 (8:27 am)The whole point of MPG is to measure efficiency. While the EREV is an exciting new combination, MPC isn’t a measure of efficiency because it’s dependent on the battery size. It’s would be like comparing the the miles per tank of a Prius and a Hummer. They may get the same range, but there will be a huge difference in efficiency.
It needs to be:
MPkWh & Range
MPG & Range
For the Volt:
5MPkWh, 40 Miles
50MPG, 300 Miles (or there about)
The real comparison for the Volt will be the Leaf and the dozens of other electric vehicles that will be arriving in the next decade. We need a future-proof way of comparing electrics.
+6
May 10th, 2010 (8:41 am)These numbers have been debated and crunched quite a bit here over the past year. My numbers are simple: Instead of $150 per month in gas, my family will spend $30 on electricity. American electricity. I think it will take at least 2 months to burn through 6 gallons of gas. That is what should be important.
(insert sound of oil sheiks sobbing like little girls)
-26
May 10th, 2010 (8:43 am)(click to show comment)
May 10th, 2010 (8:46 am)OT: here is a link to airplanes that are electric – http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/exclusivevids/Kitplanes_CAFE_Symposium2010_ElectricAircraft_202519-1.html
May 10th, 2010 (8:55 am)Seems a shame that the Volt is not entered into the Automotive X-prize. The goal of that prize is to have a car achieve 100 MPG. Seems like the Volt should be a shoo-in.
+2
May 10th, 2010 (9:04 am)I know one thing- there are a lot of people in academia pushing to get the MPGe number on the car (one prof in particular I had will definitely be pushing hard). This will account for powerplant to wheels efficiency and for the Volt will almost certainly be under triple digits. I don’t think it is a fair number to use to compare with gas cars for a variety of reasons, will be very confusing to consumers, and will vary wildly from region to region. Basically, they will take the Volt mpg and hit it with a ton of fractions less than one and MPGe will go way down compared to MPG. I doubt it will be the most prominently displayed number, however the EPA will likely calculate it since that is the most important number to many environmentalist types. I hope the calculation is well explained after the fact.
In other news- my soon-to-be 89 year old Grandpa (who was going to buy a Volt), got impatient and now is going to buy a Leaf. To be honest, I think it is the better car for him since he mostly drives < 30 miles and still has a gas car for long distances. I can't wait to drive it, although I can't help but be disappointed that I'm not going to get to try out a Volt.
-1
May 10th, 2010 (9:08 am)I agree completely, make the mpg number the average amount of gasoline used by the average driver.. either in a day, a week or a month.. take your pick. Just post clearly on the sticker that it is an AVERAGE otherwise the morons will get confused. If you want to add a mishmash of numbers below it then thats ok, use small print. Statistics is well defined science, use it. Of course a LEAF would get infinite mileage, as is proper.. none of this nonsense about gasoline equivalence and so on.
The point of the Volt is to reduce oil usage and importation.. display that number.
+19
May 10th, 2010 (9:10 am)LOL. You magnificent moron. Of course you were never in the Tech Center, since you just admitted being refused entry. Please work on your lying skills and come back to visit us soon.
PS – Just for fun, try the “Let me in, I’m a tax payer!” line at other government-owned facilities such as the US Mint, The Pentagon, or the back room of a Post Office. They won’t taser you… I promise!
+3
May 10th, 2010 (9:12 am)No. Watts (and by extension killowatts) are a unit of rate. A kWh (killowatt hour) is a unit of energy.
The meter on your house measures kWh.
So the choice is kWh per mile or miles per kWh depending on which style of fuel efficiency you wish to emulate.
+3
May 10th, 2010 (9:12 am)I agree that a new standard is needed. Even with a hybrid vehicle.. the mileage is all over the board…
As said above… temperature, speed, driver attitude, and battery charge level all must be taken into account,
Some personal examples with my 2010 Fusion Hybrid.
December 2009 … Temperature in the minus 20 C range…. Icy road conditions and a cautious driver attitude… Average MPG for a week 37 MPG (Canadian) 31 MPG (US)
One day in late April 2010 Temperature + 16C .. Ideal road conditions, major traffic jam with traffic moving at about 35 KPH (about 20-22 MPH US). Average mileage for that trip was 104 MPG (Canadian).. 87 MPG US.
For Canada. the EPA temperature standard should be closer to + 12 – 15 Degrees C for starters and the other standards should be made in relation to this….
just my 3 Cents
+1
May 10th, 2010 (9:12 am)You have a right to your opinion of what the salesman’s job is. But every new car salesman I have ever worked with has fulfilled only two job functions:
1. Find out what model and color I want, and locate the keys to a car that matches.
2. When asked why car A costs more than car B, explain that car A is a “better all round car”.
These guys always want the simplest path to a sale. They have a whole line of ICE cars to sell. They are not going to get caught up in explaining “5MPkWh, 40 Miles, 50MPG, 300 Miles”. If you do not already know what you want, they are going to try to sell you a Malibu.
If the Volt had a sticker that said 230 mpg, people would pay attention.
+7
May 10th, 2010 (9:13 am)Sir or madam,
I don’t know what your problem is, but I suggest that you need more than a few sessions with Tagamet. Have a nice day.
+1
May 10th, 2010 (9:27 am)Maybe the EPA should just drop the “MPG”, “MPC”, “MPK” or whatever they come up with and just give cars a score with nothing after the number. After all the “Sticker” does not tell you how many miles you will get. It is meant to only give you a way of comparing one car’s efficientcy with another.
May 10th, 2010 (9:33 am)#2
I do not know if it is Ford behind it but a big +1 anyway for you (all those minuses ? why?)
The EPA should relabel the mpg for the Volt and call it gas phobia index,which is the ratio between electric and gas use. The less gas used the higher the ratio.
Seriously they need to incentiviss getting off gas. A high value does just that. Opposition from BEV circles not withstanding.
+1
May 10th, 2010 (9:35 am)Welcome to Marketing:
“You cannot lie, but hiding key elements are admitted”
When I read stuff like:
“The one thing we are reasonably sure about it whatever label we get will be triple digits[...]”
It sound to me like “success of marketing our Volt is function of how many idiots makes part of the audience”
/Kicks the cat
+6
May 10th, 2010 (9:41 am)Oh! You left out the ‘pandering to emotions’…!
People research potential car purchases with logic, but they ‘buy with emotion’. So, there will probably be questions like:
“Do you enjoy spending XXX.XX per month on gas?”
“Wouldn’t you enjoy driving the most technologically advanced car in the USA?”
“What will you do with all the money you save on gas?”
“Would you like to make at least 1 oil sheik cry like a little girl?”
Selling the VOLT is going to be lots of fun!
May 10th, 2010 (9:41 am)+1
May 10th, 2010 (9:48 am)This is not different for the Volt than ICE cars, HEVs, or will be for PHEVs. Mileage vaires. Always has and always will. Drive an ICE 2 miles starting from cold in -5C, what do ya get? Drive the Prius in the same conditions, what do ya get? Mileage varies greatly just like it will for the Volt.
The only value comes in establishing a MEANINGFULL baseline that the consumer can use to compare on vehicle to another. Of course, the consumer needs to be able to make heads or tales of the information as well.
+2
May 10th, 2010 (10:00 am)I’ve never met a car salesman (and I’ve bought 20+ cars over the years) that knew a damn thing about anything. Especially cars. They ask me stupid crap like ‘How ’bout them Cowboys?’. I always do my homework and know way more about their product than they do.
If I could get away with it, I’d never deal with a car salesman. Ya can’t do that, however. The distribution system is set up so that you have to deal with these people.
/rant off
(I don’t know ‘VetteGuy, so, maybe there’s hope.)
May 10th, 2010 (10:02 am)Clearly, electric cars “break the model” of comparing vehicles on a single MPG number
** EPA should change to “Annual Operating Cost” like Energy Star appliances do now. People are already familiar with that format. They can include an annual equivalent MPG footnote for CAFE purposes only.**
Not only would electric vehicles like the Volt get low annual operating costs because electricity is cheaper than gasoline, but people will more easily see how expensive a low-MPG vehicle really is – even if the sticker price is lower.
+4
May 10th, 2010 (10:05 am)All of this will remain academic unless GM builds these cars in something resembling production volumes. I’m more interested in the production numbers than in the MPG number.
I get the 230 MPG number. FWIW I’ll get whatever number they want to use. It all boils down to the fact that at the end of the day you get about 40 miles EV range and then you start using gas. But in order to matter you have to be able to drive the thing, and you can’t drive it unless GM makes it.
May 10th, 2010 (10:06 am)EPA should use “Average Annual Operating Cost” as the primary value rating a vehicle’s ‘fuel efficiency’.
They should also publish Miles/Gallon(average, steady-state), Gas Range, Miles/KWhr, Electric Range in addition so people can estimate their own operating cost.
+2
May 10th, 2010 (10:08 am)Here’s my suggestion for an accurate & comprehensive, yet easily understood & fair window sticker (please study it carefully before lighting up your flamethrowers)
…
EPA FUEL ECONOMY ESTIMATES (reflect new EV methods beginning with 2011 models):
For those driving 40 miles/day or less (between charges): 125 MPG*
For more than 40 miles/day (between charges): 55MPG City/45 MPG Highway**
*This represents the equivalent mpg for 78% of all drivers (i.e., those driving 40 miles or less/day between charges) at a cost for a full battery charge using $0.12/KWH = $0.96 and a gasoline cost of $3.00/gallon.
**This represents driving in the “Extended Range” mode (i.e., operating as an EV, but electricity is supplied by the car’s electric generator instead of its battery) beyond the first 40 miles.
===================================================================
PS: The “hidden” math not shown on the window sticker— At $0.12/KWH, a full charge costs 8KWH x $0.12 = $0.96. In terms of equivalent gasoline cost using $3.00/gal as the national average, the equivalent gasoline useage for this 40 miles would be 0.96/3.00 = 0.32 gals, therefore the equivalent mpg is 40mi/0.32gals = 125MPG*.
+1
May 10th, 2010 (10:12 am)Wouldn’t it be something if the Volt couldn’t be sold because the EPA couldn’t classify it?
Seriously, the EPA should simply classify the Volt as 40 electric miles, and 50 MPG after that. That is accurate, not the least bit misleading, but it doesn’t fit the 100 year old MPG rating mentality of the rank and file EPA management.
For example, drive 42 miles and you get some obscenely high combined MPG. Drive 360 miles and your combined MPG will be much lower. The farther you drive, the lower your combined battery / gas MPG. Therefore, the EPA needs a new rating system to classify EREVS. Let people know the true MPG AFTER the battery has been depleted, and let the customer do the math.
+1
May 10th, 2010 (10:17 am)You can negotiate the car price on the phone, usually with someone who is selected by the dealership to handle this type of deal. That’s pretty easy at this point.
But you usually end up having to do the financing face to face. Even if you can pay cash the financing deals can make sense. But you have to be paying attention or what you saved during the first part of the negotiation will be lost during the financing negotiation. It’s generally straightforward if you know what financing options are on the table and which ones would suit you best.
Having said all that, unless you’re constantly buying vehicles things are always changing, so as a car buyer you’re always at something of a disadvantage. You’re an amateur and the car dealership is the pro. That’s just the nature of the transaction.
+1
May 10th, 2010 (10:24 am)
May 10th, 2010 (10:24 am)The easiest to understand, but probably hardest to implement, comparison between all these types of vehicles is cost per mile. Since that’s probably not going to happen for many good reasons I think an Energy Star kind of system might work OK. Where there is a continuum from most efficient to least efficient and a paragraph explaining why the vehicle rates the number it does.
+4
May 10th, 2010 (10:35 am)I think they should eliminate ‘cost equivalents’ and everything altogether.
Instead of trying to base MPG on comparing average cost of electricity to average cost of gasoline, perhaps they should go by efficiency of the energy source?
kWh per mile/km [electric source]: _______
kWh per mile/km [fuel source]: ________
As they can test the efficiency of the engine, they can find out exactly how much of the 36 kWh per gallon of gas were used.
It’s all about efficiency of the process, no? Not about how much gas you’re going to use (though that is ultimately what people take out of it)
Having one set value that isn’t tied to fluctuating prices and the like makes for a future-proof system that will not need to change when the costs of gas vs. electricity do for the calculations people are talking about above.
This also allows for comparisons between all vehicle types alike.
Be it conventional gas, diesel, parallel hybrid, serial hybrid, or full EV.
E.g. if 250Wh/mile and 50 MPG
Fuel source 1 (Electricity): 0.25 kWh/mile
Fuel source 2 (Gasoline): 1.44 kWh/mile*
*assumes 36 kwh per gallon, 50 mpg, and a generous 50% efficiency
These two numbers allow for an instant comparison between two vehicles as you see right away that vehicle A is less efficient than vehicle B in fuel source B.
Or if you’re comparing a gas car valued at 3.6 kWh/mile and a serial EV rated 0.25 and 1.44, you know right away which one is more efficient on any manner of driving.
May 10th, 2010 (10:41 am)#4
I agree. +1
+3
May 10th, 2010 (10:48 am)Whatever independent motors are under the hood need to have independent ratings.
Common sense!!
That’s the reality of buying more and more complex drive trains.
Not too long ago we had just one phone bill for communications. Now we have the house phone, cell phone, data lines, cable, satellite, whatever more you want to pay for. All with separate methods to get your dollar. We all know how to budget them independent of the other.
The Volt has to get power from two separate sources. Two separate bills. Two separate ratings are needed to figure out our efficiencies and our budgets.
Put the marketing crap on the side, get real.
Here’s a few suggestions:
mpg-p for petroleum, mpg-e85 for ethanol, mpkw for kilowatts, mpg-h for hydrogen, mpg-lbt for pound of trash in the flux capacitor and so on.
You’re buying the car, you need an unbiased rating to know what you’re getting. That’s the EPA’s job.
May 10th, 2010 (10:53 am)I’ve got it!
WEEKEND DRIVING 400+mpg (if you’re smart)
WEEKDAY COMMUTING LESS THAN 40 MI 0 MPG
LONG DISTANCE DRIVING 50 MPG
May 10th, 2010 (10:54 am)Ha ha. Take two identical Volts. One has a one gallon tank for gas. One has a ten gallon tank. Under your idea of “fair” these two identical vehicles would get wildly different MPG numbers since the EV miles on the car with the smaller tank will represent a larger percent of the total miles. Or how about a one gallon tank and a nine gallon “reserve” tank? Now you have essentially the identical setup but different MPG numbers because reserve tanks aren’t included in the MPG calculation.
Personally I don’t think the 230 MPG number is “fair” because I think it underestimates the number of times someone will use opportunity charging. But that’s just me.
+1
May 10th, 2010 (10:54 am)#4
Well, I got you back “on the island” for the moment, LOL. Enjoy it while it lasts! And I still agree, but I can’t give you another +1, alas.
+4
May 10th, 2010 (10:55 am)Wow, a -9.
I had no idea my opinion could be that wrong
I hope everyone is reading the whole thing.
It must be consumer friendly and easily understood.
Giving a three digit MPG is very misleading to the general public as this car is simply not capable of that without fudging the formula.
+2
May 10th, 2010 (10:56 am)You can put this in the same catagory as Toyota sueing GM stating that GM would have a unfair advantage if advertised that they build vehicles with galvanized bodies and stainless steel exhausts.
Seems if you do too good of a job it’s a bad thing and it has to be suppressed.
I have a 9 mile commute each way to work… as does most people in my area… my gas milage will be over 230 miles per gallon…. I think 230 is a good number.
+4
May 10th, 2010 (11:00 am)#45
Aw, I think it’s just because it’s so cold and wet under the bridge today.
PDNFTT
+1
May 10th, 2010 (11:00 am)Thanks Noel.
+1
May 10th, 2010 (11:00 am)EPA should read like this..
PHV PRIUS:
EV Range: Up to 13 Miles Per Full Charge
EV MPH: Up to 60mph
Hybrid Mode: 48/50 MPG
Chevy Volt:
EV Range: Up to 40 Miles Per Full Charge
EV MPH: Up to 90mph
Hybrid Mode: 48/50 MPG
All depending on driver and driving conditions. The EV MPH probably doesn’t need to be there, the mfgr should be posting that, but I think it’s a little more easy to read or understand.
May 10th, 2010 (11:03 am)There is no issue here.
The one gallon tank will get approximately the same MPG as the nine gallon tank.
I say approximately because the extra weight of eight more gallons of gas would hurt a little.
May 10th, 2010 (11:04 am)#65
Huh?
I’m talking about “x” number of miles of AER, and then “y” mpg after the “range extender” deploys. That’s it. What does the size of the tank have to do with that? Rashiid suggests city and highway ratings for both, but I wouldn’t even care about that. I find the highway ratings to be misleading and mostly used for marketing spin. The city ratings are a lot closer to what people actually get in the real world.
+1
May 10th, 2010 (11:06 am)I disagree. Your “gas milage” is irrelevant because you will not be using gas for your 9 mile commute. Mine would be the same cuz I drive 9.5 miles. No Gas for ME!!!!
May 10th, 2010 (11:07 am)#72
That’s what I’m talkin’ about. Right! +1
May 10th, 2010 (11:10 am)Assume the MPG in CS Mode is 40 MPG. Car one goes 40 miles in EV Mode and then 40 miles in CS Mode. Total mileage is 80. Gas used is 1 gallon. MPG would be 80. Car two goes 40 miles in EV mode. Then it goes 400 miles in CS Mode. Total mileage is 440 miles. Gas used is 10 gallons. MPG would be 44. So car one has an MPG rating of 80 and car two has an MPG rating of 44. But the two cars are really the same.
Basically your approach decreases or decreases the EV miles as a percentage of the total miles based on the size of the gas tank, and that percentage is the major factor in MPG.
+4
May 10th, 2010 (11:13 am)It’s okay. Salespeople don’t give a rats what you think about them. They just want to assist you with your purchase. What is offensive are the ones who believe that if they do enough research, and know what the Invoice is; What the Holdback is; What the Specs are even better than the Salesperson; that somehow the Dealer is REQUIRED to sell it to them at ZERO profit. Ha!
There is no other industry I know of where you walk into the showroom and demand a discount, even if the product us already on sale. Yet, in car sales, we have to deal with it every day. So, if you want a fair deal; be treated respectfully by a professional; and drive away happy; come see me.
But if all you want to do is be an ___-hole, please go elsewhere. You don’t work for free and neither do I. You’ll just have to trust me: Car salespeople do not make a lot of money any more.
May 10th, 2010 (11:17 am)He says one charge and ONE TANK. You go X miles on the charge. And you go Y miles on the tank. If you want a single number to represent both you have to average the two together, and I’d assume you’d use the number of miles driven in each mode as the common denominator. (Note that the EPA never runs the tests until the tank is exhausted. It just runs through the drive cycles.)
If what you’re saying is that you want two numbers, one showing the EV range and one showing the MPG in CS Mode, that’s fine but that’s not what he’s saying, at least as I interpret it. If you want one number then the proportion of EV miles to total miles is the single biggest factor affecting MPG.
May 10th, 2010 (11:20 am)lol…
That’s what I tried tellin someone the other day on here. He/she was rambling…..”I never pay MSRP or sticker, blah blah blah….”.
May 10th, 2010 (11:24 am)Lets not get the EPA involved. I wonder how much it costs (us) to have the EPA generate its MPG numbers. Give those guys mops and put them to work mopping oil, cleaning up toxic waste.
EnergyStar!
Consumers need to be informed. Why won’t anyone do the math? ack!
May 10th, 2010 (11:26 am)This is a great discussion today. A lot of opinions that have merit. If a unit for energy use is important for every vehicle then it appears there are many options presented where one should emerge that is realistic.
As Tagamet’s reference “”*Whatever* the descriptor they come up with really needs to minimize the learning curve of the consumer. The “normal” math-challenged, car buyer *won’t* warm up to some exotic formula that isn’t easily grasped within 30 seconds.”"
What ever is decided the KISS technique needs to be applied for most to make a comfortable comparison.
I would recommend find the most common measure of energy / efficiency …. convert everything to it and use it as the measure. –my two cents–
+3
May 10th, 2010 (11:30 am)Let’s not forget that the real deal with the EPA sticker number is CAFE. Anything actually useful for the poor old consumer will be strictly a coincidence. By acting in haste, GM shot itself in the foot; “230 mpg” gave the EPA a stink bomb which must now be dealt with. As a result, the Volt’s CAFE value for GM’s other makes will suffer. Before we here at gm-volt start wringing our hands, lets also remember that a lower CAFE value means that GM is now motivated to make more Volts. Whatever the front office thinks, more Volts will be a victory all the way around.
May 10th, 2010 (11:33 am)You’re right on the purpose of the CAFE number and I hope, but highly doubt, you’re right on the incentive for production.
May 10th, 2010 (11:36 am)This same procedure will be used on the Toyota Prius since it has an all electric portion of it’s milage?????? Won’t it????? Won’t it?????????????
+1
May 10th, 2010 (11:37 am)I tend to favor the AER and the CS-mode mpg for consumer usefulness (both combined figures for city/hwy; broken-out figures “in the fine print”); but I +1′d Rashid only because he has been a constructive, polite stalwart here forever, and I don’t think he deserves as -9.
To get the all-important CAFE-relevant number? Don’t know. Good luck with that one, EPA.
+1
May 10th, 2010 (11:38 am)No because the Prius can’t make it through a complete cycle without firing the ICE.
May 10th, 2010 (11:39 am)No DonC, they are both the same.
Car one get 40 MPC and 40 MPG
Car two gets 40 MPC 40 MPG.
MPC = Miles per Charge
MPG = Miles per Gallon.
There aren’t any gallons in the MPC, so it doesn’t factor in.
May 10th, 2010 (11:43 am)Currently no. The PHV model, whenever it comes out will.
May 10th, 2010 (11:44 am)Regarding salespeople, “give me a deal”, “I have done research” when buying a car.etc….
My experience of buying cars has been most sales persons do not know much about the product they are selling. They want to give you a price. When the price is broken down one tends to find A LOT of extras that are not really needed. Like the extra “clear coat”, the “dealer prep” or my favorite “this car is very popular so we are charging a PREMIUM over the sticker”. These little games tend to kill dealer and brand loyalty
So one finds they have to do research if they are interested in getting the kind of car they want.
Otherwise if you can find a salesperson you can believe and get good recommendations for them and great dealer… then the buying experience is very rewarding and price you pay will the proper value for you and the dealer.
May 10th, 2010 (11:45 am)Well, I definitely agree with that! (lol).
I still think that something easily compared *visually* – like the Energy Star bar graph, would be a good way to go.
Question: Is the EPA rating currently arrived at by taking an average of a vehicle’s performance on the courses? If it is, then isn’t it by default, what they think an “average” driver will get? So what will the average driver of the Volt get in real life? See, we’re right back to that Functional Factor that the EPA proposed – and a very confusing 200+ mpg.
Just use the bar graph and a point that reflects XXXX miles per year will cost $XXX.XX to drive.
Be well and believe,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The VOLTS ‘ Wheels On The Road!!****NPNS
May 10th, 2010 (11:48 am)OK, I understand. You want two numbers (or three), with separate numbers for range and MPG in CS Mode. I thought you wanted one number. That’s OK but for CAFE you need one number for the required calculations. So at some point you have to have one MPG number.
Even if the presentation was done as you suggest for consumers, I’d still like the one number just because it would make comparisons easier. You know, say you couldn’t decide between the Volt and the Fisker Karma and all those other EREV vehicles out there! LOL
May 10th, 2010 (11:50 am)I think what he’s looking for is something measurable and/or achievable from a Volt with just one gallon of gas and full charge and one with a full tank one full charge.
A Volt with a full tank driven to empty will have a less mpg rating than one with 1 gallon in the tank. So I guess if you took the worst case, Full charge and full tank driven to empty, measurement, that can also be applied to full charge and 1 gallon of tank for a “up to xx MPG”?
/ok, I may have jumped into the koolaid without knowing the flava.
May 10th, 2010 (11:52 am)OT: Here’s a funny one. Fox News is refusing to run an ad about decreasing dependency on foreign oil. The reason is not clear. One reason which has been advanced is that the Saudi’s own a chunk of Fox and they are opposed to running the ad. My guess is that the ad just doesn’t fit the preconceived narrative. In any event, I guess no “End Dependence Day” ads for the Volt on Fox:
http://green.autoblog.com/2010/05/10/video-fox-news-refuses-to-air-votevets-commercial-denouncing-de/#continued
+1
May 10th, 2010 (12:01 pm)Well, I went to the Chevy dealer last Friday so I could color shop 5 of the 6 colors the Volt Gen I is supposed to come in(Viridian Joule won’t be out until the Volt comes out). I found Cyber Grey Metallic, Crystal Red Metallic Tintcoat, Silver Ice Metallic, and, of course, Black. While I was doing this, a salesman came up and asked if he could help. I explained what I was doing and asked if he could find a car on his lot in White Diamond Tri-coat. He found one for me, but then proceeded to tell me that they weren’t making any Volts yet, and what he thought I could get sooner was a Cruze. Go figure. I politely told him NO THANK YOU! I want my Volt!
So I guess that fits with, “These guys always want the simplest path to a sale.”
May 10th, 2010 (12:05 pm)MPG is fundamentally flawed; carrying over that to the new system would be unwise.
That’s why fueleconomy.gov now also lists efficiency in units of Liters/100 km
EV consumption listed in terms of quantity/distance falls into that same logic.
May 10th, 2010 (12:08 pm)Oh. And I finally get your point. There has to be one number.
Well then, the MPC and MPG combined makes all the difference in your example.
I would like to see both, however.
May 10th, 2010 (12:11 pm)http://avt.inl.gov/
Why did the Feds spend millions. billions, jillions to develop the draft plan shown in the link above for the specific purpose to develop a test for plug-in vehicles and now drop it???????????
One more example of the right hand not knowing what the left is doing in our Federal Government.
May 10th, 2010 (12:14 pm)Eventually that’s what we will get to. A (unit of measurement) / (distance) has yet to be determined. AH? Watts? or Coulombs?
+1
May 10th, 2010 (12:16 pm)As was discussed previously, it’s energy, so Watts X time, e.g. kWh, or better yet, Joules.
Unless you treat your cart like a person, with a name and all. In that case, I guess you’d use Calories.
(CJS might want to use ergs, because it sounds like ARGHHH.
+1
May 10th, 2010 (12:23 pm)I expect to pay a reasonable price with a reasonable profit margin for the dealer. I know I gotta go back sometime in the future and I want the dealer to stay in business. I research statistically what the pricing should be, but, I don’t go to the detail of getting actual invoice and all that. It’s all fluff anyway until you get to the bottom line.
The rub is the dang add-ons.
The last car I bought (Certified used 2009 Impala LT at a Chevrolet dealership) was advertised on the internet for 14k. When I went to look at it, the price had gone up 3k with an “internet customer” discount back down to 15,500. Then, they added on $700 for window tint that “we install on all used and new cars”. BS! I mean, if you advertise a used car on the Internet (specific VIN, specific price) why do I gotta do anything other than come in the door to get that price?!?
First, you negotiate a deal with the sales guy (with their inevitable trips back to ‘the manager’) and get it in writing. But, that doesn’t really matter because you then have the F&I guy to deal with. These guys try to add on everything from window tint (the new undercoating) to high-priced service and extended warranty plans. If you happen to qualify for a higher loan amount, look out! They will try every trick in the book and some I haven’t seen before to get more profit.
And the little tricky automated paperwork thinger is a real problem. They can change any number on any page ‘on the fly’. Yeah, it eliminates reprinting everything over and over, but, still you can get extras added on real easy if you don’t pay very close and detailed attention.
I finally ended up with a reasonable deal ($16k out the door) and a pretty good interest rate. But I had to go through hell to get there. It basically took me an entire day to make it happen.
May 10th, 2010 (12:27 pm)AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA!!!!
I gots plenty calories to burn!….ARGHHH.
+1
May 10th, 2010 (12:47 pm)Cost components between Electric and Gasoline distribution simply do not have a common denominator. Electric power is delivered under thousands of varying PUC policies-its a monumental challenge– particularly with tax and subsidy arraignments between municipalities and state agencies– just to make comparisons between power utilities. So DOE (or whomever) must first determine an emotionally satisfying number in valuing electric power as it applies to VOLT. To date the Nat’l Labs (Argonne and Idaho) dance around this by setting categories. VOLT fits none. Because now (wonderful of all wonders) Mountain Mode makes an impact.
Establishing a common electric power denominator that can be understood by the public is #1 on the MPG critical path. Then and only then can we even start to reduce VOLT’s unique DC-ICE power needs to a credible mpg number.
On another score, somewhere in the back of DOE’s mind should be how the foregoing mpg approach fits fuel cells. True. Only a few hundred EV’s are running. By 2015, I think before, fuel cell cars will appear. Right now (my guess) only Mercedes will have a 2011 fuel cell powered EV.
FYI: A 2010 Fuel Cell Update “State of the States: Fuel Cells in America” finds California the most fuel cell minded state.
+2
May 10th, 2010 (12:48 pm)But for 40-mile trips, or 200-mile trips?? Is (typical total yearly mileage)/365 a reasonable value or not?
It’s like trying to come up with an Energy Star rating for a refrigerator whose energy use varies wildly based upon how much food is in it. So family A, family B and family C will use totally different amounts of energy over the same time period. Which family’s value gets put onto the sticker?
Personally, the only number I care about is the CS-mode highway mileage. When I’m going the 250 miles to Mom’s house (several times a year), the first 40 electric will go by pretty quickly. Other than those trips, my traveling would be almost all electric.
May 10th, 2010 (12:57 pm)+1
also, depending on which fam has teenagers that stand in front of the fridge looking for something to eat for about 10 minutes will affect energy consumption.
+1
May 10th, 2010 (12:59 pm)I understand. I am not a big fan of having to ‘sell’ all of the extras, but we have to offer them. For all of the “I’ve done my research so I’m gonna stick it to that dealer” types, all I ask is, “Did you also research the fixed costs of operating a dealership? The cost of office staff, building leases, electricity for signage, insurance, salaries of managers, service technicians, advertising…???”
I like to compare what we do to what a movie theater does. I’ve read they make almost zero from ticket sales. Their profit is in the $7.00 popcorn and $5.50 for medium sized drinks. But I have yet to see someone demand a discount on that! Most car dealers today are really struggling to get by. We know you don’t care, but that is the reason for all of the upsells.
May 10th, 2010 (1:08 pm)No debate there, sir. Most are trained to “sell what you have” by their managers. GM DealerWorld will be posting the ordering info for dealers this summer. When they do, I’m sure the specs on colors and option pricing will make it’s way here.
Like GM spokespeople say: “Stay Tuned”!
May 10th, 2010 (1:29 pm)I’m sure it will. And it will probably be misleading.
The Prius will use gasoline from mile 0 if the driver pushes the gas down far enough. Toyota will undoubtedly make the Prius capable of following the test profile using only electric power. But in the real world, it will burn gasoline even is driven only inside the “electric only” range.
May 10th, 2010 (1:33 pm)Are you talking about the current 2010 model or the PHV model they will be coming out with?
Also, I don’t think Toy claims an “All Electric Mode” at all. So theoretically your correct.
If you think that’s bad, dude take a look at Honda’s IMA. The ICE has to always be on, no matter what.
May 10th, 2010 (1:38 pm)Thanks for the inside look, Corvette guy. I appreciate it.
I am still concerned about price gouging, though.
I do look at KBB and Edmunds before I shop for a new car.
At least I have an idea what to expect. Funny thing, I did all my research, went into the dealer to look at a car. He beat the price I was expecting to hear, and he did that without me saying a word. I bought the car.
May 10th, 2010 (1:38 pm)I agree totally. I like the following hypothetical EPA rating for the Gen 1 Volt:
“All-electric range (AER): 40 miles; Charging-mode fuel-efficiency: 50 mpg.” Simple.
[Meanwhile, for the Leaf, the rating might be "All-electric range (AER): 100 miles"]
I think both the U.S. consumer as well as the brains at the EPA can handle that. I always felt that the 230 mpg figure was confusing, if not almost totally meaningless for most consumers.
Regards, George, Sudbury, Canada…go Volt!!
May 10th, 2010 (1:43 pm)There are some galvanized parts, and that is good but sometimes you find the paint does not stick well to that, it would be good if the whole car was rustproof.
What actual GM cars get SS exhausts?.. I tried looking thru their web site with no luck.. I do find lots of aftermarket SS exhaust parts for GM vehicles.
+1
May 10th, 2010 (1:44 pm)#78
That’s what I want. It’s what I thought he was saying as well, as his subsequent comments would seem to bear out. I guess we’re just getting lost in the semantics.
If there has to be one composite number to apply to CAFE, I really don’t care what they all come up with. I think that “Your mileage may vary” will be the understatement of the century in that case.
I personally don’t think that some huge equivalent mpg number is going to help GM all that much anyway. First, they aren’t going to make enough Volts to give them all that much credit anyway, if you believe the production numbers they are floating. Second, and more important, I believe that, in the future, the market itself is going to deal with the issues CAFE is designed to address. Low mileage vehicles are not going to sell, CAFE or no CAFE.
Somebody posted a highly informative graph of Suburban sales the other day. Enough said.
+2
May 10th, 2010 (1:45 pm)Boy, I hope that they didn’t spend a lot of money on *that* survey! (g).
Be well and believe,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The VOLTS ‘ Wheels On The Road!!****NPNS
May 10th, 2010 (1:47 pm)OT: A year and a half ago Nocera from MIT revealed a way of separating oxygen from water using relatively small amounts of electricity, which was quite a feat. That remaining big problem for using sunlight to convert water into hydrogen was that separating the hydrogen required very expensive catalysts. It looks like this hurdle may be surmounted, opening the possibility that rooftops could cost effectively produce hydrogen which could be used at any time to produce electricity. Very cool. Very very cool.
http://www.popsci.com/node/45492/?cmpid=enews050610
May 10th, 2010 (1:50 pm)#77
Oh I dunno, people do it to us every day, LOL. I used to ask them, “Hey, do you carry a gallon of milk up to the register at Ralph’s and try to negotiate a discount off the price?” But now I just shrug and get on with it.
We bought our last 2 Chevy trucks through Chevy’s internet shopping site. The prices we were quoted were so good that we just drove over there and paid them. There was a salesperson at the point of sale who facilitated the paperwork. I hope that they made something out of the deal.
May 10th, 2010 (1:51 pm)Yes, I understand that this is flawed (too). I’d posted earlier about the same kind of approach, but using either a weighted scale, or several comparative scales based on number of miles driven. Maybe one for your average *daily* drive? LOL, beats me.
Be well and believe,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The VOLTS ‘ Wheels On The Road!!****NPNS
May 10th, 2010 (1:54 pm)Words of wisdom…
- Do your homework
- Never buy a vehicle when you need one (sometimes difficult to accomplish).
- Be prepared to walk away from a negotiation.
- Leave your emotions at home.
- Never believe the classic car salesman line…”I’m losing money on this deal!”
- If you have not talked with the sales manager, you have not done enough negotiating.
- And always be nice…
One experience of mine…after negotiating for 2 hours, the salesman said…”You could have bought this vehicle 2 hours ago, and been gone enjoying your new vehicle. You have only gotten a thousand dollars off our offered price.” My reply…”Nice…I’ve saved $500 an hour so far. Much better than job’s rate of pay. I wonder if can improve my rate this next hour.”
Negotiating a car deal is “grueling” work…but it can “pay” well.
May 10th, 2010 (1:56 pm)Then the customer would have to multiply that # by the # of teenagers, (lol). Actually, I remember my teens having a conversation *in front of the open door!* ARRRrrrgh
Be well and believe,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The VOLTS ‘ Wheels On The Road!!****NPNS
May 10th, 2010 (2:03 pm)(sound of single gunshot)
May 10th, 2010 (2:10 pm)On-Star Chevy Volt App for iPhone
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rda2bVwb8Mo
=D-Volt
May 10th, 2010 (2:14 pm)#111
They all do AFAIK. The exhaust system is classified as part of the emissions system. As such, it has to be warrantied for 100K miles. They use a grade of stainless that will take on a slight surface rust, as opposed to the shiny stuff most of us are used to seeing, so it isn’t always obvious.
Except for the top line Corvettes of course, which use titanium.
May 10th, 2010 (2:17 pm)#113
LOL +1 Yeah, I bet we must have 8 or 10 of them here in CA. Alas, Ahhnold is about to be termed out, and the “Hydrogen Highway” never happened. I’m shocked and dismayed.
May 10th, 2010 (2:34 pm)TIP #1: If you walk into a dealership with a printed offering from their website (with stk# and/or VIN#) and the salesperson tells you the price is different, turn around and use the same door you walked in to walk out. There are PLENTY of reputable dealers out there … if every consumer simply stopped doing business with the clowns that still pull this stuff then the industry would get cleaned up real fast.
I will bet that CorvetteGuy will honor the posted internet price on any of his cars.
There is always another Certified 2009 Impala … move on and find an honest dealer to give your money to. I know the salesperson gets the rap when things go wrong on the showroom floor; but it starts at the top. If the dealership owners and managers have integrity and honesty, it will filter down to the salespeople.
May 10th, 2010 (2:44 pm)To Quote: CaptJackSparrow
“lol…
That’s what I tried tellin someone the other day on here. He/she was rambling…..”I never pay MSRP or sticker, blah blah blah….”.
I’m thinking that was me you are referring to, as per our discussions on my 2-mode pickups? So you pay MSRP when you buy a vehicle then Jack? Seriously? I’m not sure what YOU are referring to as “sticker” but that is usually Manufacturer’s SuggestedRetail Price.
(I figure the word “suggested” is in there for a reason)
Seriously when was the last time you bought a new vehicle Jack? As I’m certain CorvetteGuy will attest, right or wrong, very few people (if any) purchase a vehicle at MSRP these days.
I’m not against the dealer making a profit either when I buy a vehicle- but I don’t want to be raped over either (reportedly it HAS happened once or twice). So I’m an idiot for doing some pricing research prior to hitting the showroom? Excuse me!
But actually I have forged a great relationship with my local GM dealer (I’ve bought no fewer than 6 vehicles from him over the past 10 years) When I visit inquiring about a unit he shows me the MSRP window sticker and then we go to his office and he shows me his invoice (knowing that I could get that information off the web anyways) we then commence to find common ground in the middle somewhere. He cant afford to sell himself short on certain “hot” products, but is willing to do quite a bit better on product that isn’t moving so quickly.
(like for instance the excellent 2-mode products)
I’ll make no apologies for GM not being able to get the word out on just how AMAZING their 2-mode hybrid trucks are. Instead, I’ll just continue to buy them up in order to make more net profit in my family business (I’m an architect and landscaper) and yet my dealer is STILL smilin’ when I drive away making about 5% above his invoice (but much much less than the 10-15% he would have inked at MSRP)
Is this so wrong? (I just assumed this was how everyone with a little vehicle savvy gets treated these days) Certainly a keen salesperson can sniff out someone that “has a clue” as opposed to someone that doesn’t. But I certainly don’t blame them for offering a vehicle for sale at MSRP – and if accepted GREAT but you cant compare negotiating the purchase of a $50,000 piece of equipment to “dickering” over the price of a $1 quart of milk can you??
.LB
May 10th, 2010 (2:45 pm)Great analogy… and as if Dealers don’t get enough grief, many State AG’s have levied penalties on dealers who don’t present the SAME options to each customer.
Did you know that in many states a dealership F&I representative must present multiple payment options including extended warranties, life insurance, accident/health insurance. Why? Because some consumer in that state sued a dealer after their engine siezed at 80k under the pretense that the dealer never offered them the option of buying an extended warranty. Because another consumer sued a dealer after their husband died suddenly leaving the wife with car payments and she sued claiming the husband was never offered life insurance on the car loan. No… you can’t make this stuff up.
It is easy to complain …. but harder to keep up with the mountain of rules, regulations and laws governing all those trying to make an honest living. Just remember there are always 2 sides to every story.
Again, I say …. do your research on the car you want to buy …. and then do your research on the area dealers near you. Selecting the right dealer is almost as important as selecting the right vehicle.
+2
May 10th, 2010 (2:52 pm)http://gm-volt.com/forum/showthread.php?p=39165#post39165
The excellent National Geographics Ultimate Factories does the Volt, finally see how the Volt is put together from the ground up.
Watch this video..
+1
May 10th, 2010 (2:56 pm)Excellent video. I’m on my 5th or 6th viewing – but then again, I’m easily amused.
Be well and believe,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The VOLTS ‘ Wheels On The Road!!****NPNS
+1
May 10th, 2010 (3:00 pm)The National Geographic “Man-Made” episode on the pre-production (technically early integration units) Volt assembly will air in it’s entirety on Sat May 22 at 12pm EST
WopOnTour
+1
May 10th, 2010 (3:05 pm)…”Yawn”….
RECHARGE! James
IF YOU BUILD IT THEY WILL COME
May 10th, 2010 (3:13 pm)This is exactly the nail that needs to be hit.
With a possible mpg number somewhere between 50mpg and infinity, the scale is so huge you can fall on the 75mpg, 230mpg, or 600mpg rung without changing much. How is the EPA going to pick a number? Dart board?
Once you go above 100mpg the slightest variation in how much gas is measured into the tank can make a largish swing in the resulting overall mpg but is insignificant in the dollars you spend on gas. Per month, if you used 6 gallons (166mpg) or 4 gallons (250mpg) or 1/2 gallon (2000mpg), it’s a very small difference in your overall cost ($18 vs $1.50 using $3/gal and 1000 mi/month)
Ignoring the electricity used is somewhat silly imho. But, it’s also insignificant (80-cents per charge or $20 per month?) so that maybe it can be safely ignored in the grand scheme. Who’s gonna notice $20 on a $400 electric bill? Heck, my grandkids can make my bill swing that much just by leaving the doors open!
No matter how you slice and dice the numbers for the EPA sticker, 40 bucks per month for *all* energy to get to work and back just doesn’t matter to me.
May 10th, 2010 (3:16 pm)OT: neuroscience breakthrough announced today:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20100510/sc_livescience/hangovermoleculeinbrainfound
Be well and believe,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The VOLTS ‘ Wheels On The Road!!****NPNS
+1
May 10th, 2010 (3:19 pm)~13years ago. I keep my cars longer than the norm.
As for the sticker or MSRP, take a look at how much you paid in the “End” and let me know if it is below MSRP. So in that respect I paid MSRP.
Ya know, they tell peeps not to bother looking at that number…..but DAMN! That a boatload of $$$
Still waiting for a pic of your dashboard showing you got 29MPG when your vehicle was fully loaded with payload. Don’t recall the vehicle type you said but the Yukon seems to ring a bell with me. I could be wrong so if I am, don’t waste your time on me replying….lol
Anyway per these folks http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/suvs/112_0803_2009_gmc_yukon_2_mode_hybrid_first_test/index.html they get the following and most likely not loaded with payload…..
Our comparably equipped long-term 5.3-liter V-8 GMC Yukon averaged 13.9 mpg combined (around 12 mpg city/ 18 highway). The same city routes in our Yukon 2-Mode Hybrid yielded 17.7 mpg with a combined average of 18.2 mpg over three tankfuls.
Awesome for you there bro!! Hope the rest of the year yields better for you in these economic times.
May 10th, 2010 (3:21 pm)The EPA testing procedures were finally revised in 2008. I’m a fan of the 2008 methods. While not perfect, I think they do a pretty good job in showing what most people will get in terms of city/hwy mpg. I also think they are quite a bit more realistic than any of the other countries testing standards I’ve seen.
I would hope that they will keep the same kinds of tests going to measure wh/mile (or miles/kwh) city/hwy so that we can fairly determine and compare the efficiency of electric drives in the coming electric cars and plug -in hybrids.
It took forever to get the 2008 standards as good as they are.
Let’s not throw the baby out with the bath water just to help a company advertise their product or “game” the CAFE system.
May 10th, 2010 (3:24 pm)Yeah but they have Hot Dogs and “Movie Butter” Popcorn…
May 10th, 2010 (3:24 pm)Of course, charging time is part of the equation, if not part of the mileage number. Ultra Quick Battery Charge System Developed: Half Full in 3 Minutes
http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/alternative-fuel/electric/ultra-quick-battery-charge-system
May 10th, 2010 (3:27 pm)I agree.
-1 for you.
/jk….
+2
May 10th, 2010 (3:28 pm)After 135 posts to this thread here’s the count (per ID, not post count).
Separate gas and electric ratings vs. some form of composite number:
21/13
Just make the darned thing vs. confusing alternative ratings using obscure measurements, external references, local costs, subcategories and qualifiers:
3/2
“Isn’t that Volt a nice car, honey? I like the color, let’s get one!” vs. Micheal Moore is God.
10/1
Only 5 went WOT.
An awful lot is being said about, well, nothing really. We still have to wait for next year to actually buy one. We still have to plug’em in before we go to bed at night. General Motors will still be in business to sell us one or two.
I would like to know how much the Volt will cost me separately for gas and electric right up front before I buy one. What will I be able to compare my Volt to when I go shopping for another one in 8 years?
Hopefully the ratings of new cars in the future will give me enough info to make a comparative decision without having to wade through any marketing bs.
Yup, this Volt sure is a game changer.
May 10th, 2010 (3:34 pm)This was the point carcus. Using the “revised” 2008 EPA testing methodologies, the Volt garnered 230 mpg. I’d be surprised to hear that’s fine with you, or would you prefer to hear the baby hit the ground after all?
WOT
May 10th, 2010 (3:36 pm)I couldn’t find the batt pack capacity they tested the 50% 3min charge on. Or did I miss it? If I missed it some point me to it. I was just curious if the 50% is for a 16KWh pack or 24KWh pack or whatever….
I think many here have thrown around that idea of “cache” power at the station in other Li storage. Good idea.
+2
May 10th, 2010 (3:36 pm)Thanks man.
I’ve started giving myself a -1 every time I finish posting, . . . . just to get the ball rolling and to help solidify my “troll status”.
May 10th, 2010 (3:36 pm)You’re right! It’s like hitting a *moving* nail on the head, when a stationary one is hard enough to hit!
Going *TOTALLY* against everything I’ve posted today, we could abandon the KISS method for a statistically accurate/sensitive one, by using a logarithmic scale, where the numbers are exponentially larger from left to right on the scale. It’d still look like an Energy Star scale and yet reflect the effect of driving more miles per day. I’m sure some of the engineers here can explain it far better than I can. The bottom line is that it’s a very statistically obtuse method that almost no one would understand, so it probably fits. I’ve used logarithmic charts that accurately allow dropping dots to reflect RATES of behaviors. Maybe it needs to go that way here, too.
Naw. Never-mind. Just do AER and CS/mpg. YMMV (anyway).
Be well and believe,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The VOLTS ‘ Wheels On The Road!!****NPNS
May 10th, 2010 (3:39 pm)lol……
/ready to call CPS now……
May 10th, 2010 (3:49 pm)Thanks for the summary! +1 The Volt IS a game changer, but this thread’s response is pretty “normal” for these parts (lol),
Be well and believe,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The VOLTS ‘ Wheels On The Road!!****NPNS
+2
May 10th, 2010 (3:57 pm)Obviously somebody’s just trying to get a dig in. But I’ll elaborate.
On plug in hybrids:
Same (2008) standards should be used to show what a plug in hybrids mpg is city/hwy “while the ICE is propelling the vehicle.
Same (2008) standards should be used to show what a plug in hybrids wh/mile is city/hwy while the battery power is used to propel the vehicle.
Attempting to establish some typical user number for mpg over a course of a day/year/whatever is going to be impossible (i.e. the 230 mpg rating) because there is no typical scenario for this. People will drive different distances, recharge different amounts . . . there’s just nothing standard about this, so the combined number is essentially meaningless. If the manufacturer wants to put some kind of a combined number in the sales brochure that’s fine, but the mandated numbers (from the EPA) need to measure efficiency in each mode separately so that the consumer has a measurement/comparison he can apply to his own individual driving scenario.
May 10th, 2010 (3:58 pm)Hey Tags, you’re right, I really don’t need to use the words “crazy” or “nuts” on this thread. This one’s is pretty tame. I guess the subject matter doesn’t bring out anyone’s angst about GM and the rest of the world.
How can you really raise a stick against the EPA, huh. It’d be like yelling at a precious moments statuette.
+1
May 10th, 2010 (4:04 pm)From Lyle’s Post:
“GM had based that determination on a draft methodology”
“..the final extended range electric car methodology remains secret for now. The final announcement will be made this summer, in time to make sure the Volt has its sticker when it arrives.”
/try to pay attention please
May 10th, 2010 (4:10 pm)Yeah, I still hold firm on my post #71. Although john1701a sez mpg is flawed (probably right), it is at least something everyone understands and the EV range is basically even easier. Trying to achieve one number to sum it up just won’t work for many peeps. And we’re not the many peeps. We’re just a small sample.
May 10th, 2010 (4:10 pm)LOL, Amen.
Be well and believe,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The VOLTS ‘ Wheels On The Road!!****NPNS
May 10th, 2010 (4:11 pm)should read:
Same (2008) test procedures ….
Same (2008) test procedures …
May 10th, 2010 (4:16 pm)Quoting carcus2 quoting Lyle…
So we’ll hear something in June…..ish? CS mode and Price? Cool!
But if they have not adopted a testing methodology by then will the number mean anything? Or have they made it oficially official?
May 10th, 2010 (4:17 pm)LOL, a small skewed sample, at that.
Be well and believe,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The VOLTS ‘ Wheels On The Road!!****NPNS
May 10th, 2010 (4:22 pm)I don’t know how the reality will actually play out, but when I got the ride in NYC the GM person riding shotgun sounded VERY stressed about how they needed those mileage numbers “yesterday”.
Be well and believe,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The VOLTS ‘ Wheels On The Road!!****NPNS
May 10th, 2010 (4:23 pm)What you’ve got at #71 is sort of the same thing I’m asking for, except you didn’t separate out the city/hwy numbers. The specific efficiency on the electric side (wh/mile) is going to be important going forward because I think the BEV’s and plug in hybrids will be offered with different options on the battery pack size. There may also be options to upgrade to a bigger battery later on. All that’s going to make a whole lot more sense if you know the wh/mile. The consumer’s just going to have to get a little smarter. imo
/most people can grasp the concept of how big their hard drive is, I think they’ll catch on with this.
// maybe the epa numbers on a plug in hybrid will require a bigger sticker
+1
May 10th, 2010 (4:30 pm)The 230 mpg is just a dumb number. It doesn’t mean anything because there’s NO such thing as a “standard scenario” to make this kind of determination.
If an individual can’t grasp wh/mile and we try to give him a dumb number to make up for his inability, then nobody’s gotten any smarter. We’re all just a little dumber.
+1
May 10th, 2010 (4:35 pm)Gonna just have a few beers and wait it out.
/i’m here for the show. Can’t afford one till Gen II
May 10th, 2010 (4:40 pm)No Kahlua and now CAN’T AFFORD BEER??? Holy crap….. BANG!
May 10th, 2010 (4:41 pm)Hey, here’s a question….
If the EPA does not adopt a method to test, will GM have to hold off on the “Reveal” of the price of the Volt?
/Hmmmm……..
May 10th, 2010 (4:46 pm)lol…..
“Skewed” I think is an understatement for us.
May 10th, 2010 (4:47 pm)OT
Nice little one page in the money section of USAToday on AC Propulsion.
May 10th, 2010 (4:52 pm)Our dealership owner always honors the Internet price unless is it such an obvious typo error (like $4,000 instead of $40,000 on a Cadillac XLR Convertible) — and if the pricing error is my fault, he will spend about 20 minutes in my office ripping me a new one. Therefor, I am very careful with my online updates to be sure.
May 10th, 2010 (4:53 pm)I think some measure of average fuel used per year per miles driven would also be useful. Think along the same lines of the energy star labels that show average electricity used per year.
May 10th, 2010 (4:59 pm)Somehow, that made sense when I typed it.
/I’ll try to pay attention now.
May 10th, 2010 (5:12 pm)Just a side note. A lot of people have assumed they know their jobs better than I do. And they are probably right. It’s when they extend that conclusion into a universal assumption that applies to much more than just knowing their jobs, that problems begin to show up.
May 10th, 2010 (5:13 pm)I’m just one click better off. I’m waiting to hear what the price will be to find out if it’s in the ballpark. If it’s anywhere close to doable, then it comes down to availability – which what my crystal balls tell me it will. PLEASE GM, make enough of these puppies to make a difference!
Be well and believe,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The VOLTS ‘ Wheels On The Road!!****NPNS
+2
May 10th, 2010 (5:51 pm)I’ve tried to avoid letting my balls influence important decisions. So far, I’ve been unsuccessful.
May 10th, 2010 (5:55 pm)lol…..
Mine are Acrylic.
May 10th, 2010 (5:57 pm)BLUE BALLED!!!!
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!
/try some craigs list women.
//they always claim of a “happy ending”……BLAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!
May 10th, 2010 (5:59 pm)Dooood! You must be in the IT field?
May 10th, 2010 (6:03 pm)Hey, it looks like Th!nk is alive…
http://bit.ly/8Z36WE
….for now.
That was my first pic for an EV commuter.
May 10th, 2010 (6:07 pm)Honey, have you seen my other crystal ball?
http://images.icanhascheezburger.com/completestore/2008/8/20/weseecanopene128637131881766431.jpg
- ball jokes are fun for the whole family
May 10th, 2010 (6:13 pm)#158
Well the Brits say “bent”, LOL. But I think that leans a little more toward what we might call “crooked”, which surely wouldn’t fit any of us.
May 10th, 2010 (6:14 pm)My daily commute is 40 miles round trip.
230 divided by 40 equals 5.75
So if I always keep the volt fully charged it will still use a gallon of gas every 6 days to condition the battery.
May 10th, 2010 (6:18 pm)Lot’s of player’s popping up with more funding/bigger plans lately. I think the story about Stronach letting go of Magna and focusing on electric cars is a big deal. (Magna is huge, one of the largest parts suppliers in the world).
I think we’re going to have Lots of BEV options after 2013. There seems to be quite a bit of momentum building now. The mini EV (I guess it’ll be under the mini label) is the one I’m most interested in at the moment.
add..
It may be wishful thinking, but I keep getting the idea that Ford is going to run a lot harder at the plug in market than they’ve let on. Some of the comments from the execs sure sound this way, even though no sizeable production numbers have been announced. (looks like they’re doing a plug in 5 seat MPV hybrid (for europe, anyway))
May 10th, 2010 (6:18 pm)#169
Not for long, IMHO. The LEAF has consigned all of these guys to the ash heap of history. Again, JMHO.
May 10th, 2010 (6:23 pm)Coda seems to be chugging away as well.
http://bit.ly/cAK9Px
They use the UQM motors.
Not much info from them on their batt pack though.
May 10th, 2010 (6:26 pm)I doubt it. The power control will still most likely be the same as the HEV model and much more than breathing on the gas pedal will fire the ICE.
May 10th, 2010 (6:31 pm)They already licensed the HSD, why not do the same like the PHV Prius. Last I read all it did was switch from one bank of traction batteries to the next and finally after depleting both traction batt pack it reverts back to the HSD. Technically all Ford would have to do is add a little more AH to each traction batt pack and claim a 30AER or PHEV-30, or some sh|t like that.
/dunno how Toyota would feel if the technology they licensed get’s a higher AER.
May 10th, 2010 (6:33 pm)Huh?
May 10th, 2010 (6:35 pm)I have an admissions ticket to the show with your name on it if you can make it.
Also, an admissions ticket for LRGProVolt too if he can make it.
I’ll also be there Saturday all day from 11:00 am on, and stay until Sunday
afternoon about 5pm (with the Winnebago Brave).
I’ll post more details later in the week.
If anyone else is going to make it to Austin, let me know, and I’ll supply more
admissions tickets when you get here to be my guests into the show.
I’ll let you know where I’ll be parking.
May 10th, 2010 (6:39 pm)I know what you’re saying, but I think there’s a possibility that the BEV will change auto manufacturing as we know it. (get ready, here comes some goofy dreaming)
Once you’ve eliminated the traditional drive train, the dynamics of manufacturing have shifted around. The car just became much simpler, I’d say 50% or maybe even more of the complication of getting a car together just got eliminated, especially when the batteries and the control electronics are likely going to come from an outside supplier anyway.
This could open the door to all sorts of different options as far as who can compete. 10 years from now you might just end up going down to a new section of wal-mart to pick out your little BEV commuter car.
/my mind keeps going back to the pictures ABG published of the imiev in pieces: there’s just not much there.
May 10th, 2010 (6:42 pm)I think the official stance from both companies is that Ford and Toyota developed and licensed separately, they ended up in patent court, and Ford gave Toyota some fuel injection technology to settle — I doubt that we’ll ever really know the full story on that one.
May 10th, 2010 (6:47 pm)I highly doubt they will be “the same”. The power characteristics of using 2 additional batt packs in the config they will use in a PHV Prius will be so different they will HAVE to change it.
well, currently that’s how they are now, (OK pre 2010 model). But of course they (Toy) have never claimed or advertised an “All Electric Mode” so never marketing it means it’s not an issue? I guess…
According to john1701a, the 2010 model year is a little more allowing to run in EV mode. But don’t take my word for it, I don’t own one, there are other Prius drivers here than may concur.
May 10th, 2010 (6:58 pm)lol…..
ROTFLMAO…..
+1
May 10th, 2010 (7:13 pm)I share your hope about Ford’s offerings, but I have to wonder why you won’t cut GM the same kind of “happy thoughts”?
Be well and believe,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The VOLTS ‘ Wheels On The Road!!****NPNS
May 10th, 2010 (7:15 pm)/ I don’t think there’s any doubt Lutz would have built a BEV, and would like to see the volt in higher numbers, I’ll give him credit for that. But he also related his story with “the board” on that. I think there’s still a lot of that old board mentality with GM.
GM will have to come out with more electrics, I think the market will force this on them even if it’s not the board’s desire.
May 10th, 2010 (7:25 pm)#175
Same answer.
May 10th, 2010 (7:36 pm)Add,
Also, (as always) follow the money.
GM has a vested interest in biofuels (i.e. Coskata).
Exxon mobile (i.e. Whitacre) has a vested interest in biofuels, not to mention the obvious — petroleum.
If a substitute liquid fuel will hurry up and pan out, then Exxon and GM get to carry on with business as usual and it’s back to the good old days. Hardly any “pain of change” to go through.
– one more add: Bill Ford still has some influence. Bill Ford is no doubt an environmentalist and a supporter of the electric car, (as is Stronach, as is Ghosn)
May 10th, 2010 (7:37 pm)It’s not really “EV” mode. We call it “stealth” and the tolerance has indeed been increased. But it’s the PHV currently being test driven now that is the real awakener, since none of the propulsion system has changed… only the battery & voltage …the EV button is removed too. You can accelerate all the way to 100 km/h without the engine starting… which will definitely complicate MPG estimates.
May 10th, 2010 (8:22 pm)Between this, and making fuel from landfill waste, it sounds like a win/win.
Be well and believe,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The VOLTS ‘ Wheels On The Road!!****NPNS
May 10th, 2010 (8:28 pm)A tantalizing hint of a promised peek at the Holy Grail of the Volt fan. The Sticker!
Que up the music “The Stripper” as we stay tuned for another hoped for peek.
+1
May 10th, 2010 (9:17 pm)I did not read all the post, but the EPA/GM needs to keep it simple so you can compare.
Miles per kilowatt –
Miles per Gallon
This way one would know that a .5 mpk is better than a .45 mpk in addition to knowing the mileage when in pure electric mode and the milesage in pure gas mode.
A MPG only rating will only anger people when their actual MPG is way lower than posted because they use the ICE 80 % of the time verses a person who uses the ICE 10 % of the time.
May 10th, 2010 (10:08 pm)Night all
Be well and believe,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The VOLTS ‘ Wheels On The Road!!****NPNS
+1
May 10th, 2010 (11:12 pm)For some perspective on the importance of a clear message about Volt’s purpose…
Just announced moments ago were the sales results in Japan for April. 26,482 purchases makes it official. Prius achieved the top spot for an entire year, best-selling vehicle in Japan for 12 months in a row.
What does a “triple digit mpg” rating mean for an expensive vehicle available in limited quantity?
May 10th, 2010 (11:12 pm)That was captured on one of the videos. I think it may have been Jackson’s… not sure though. It probably was the same person repeating the same line to another carload of test drivers.
But it came loud and clear though the video that GM really wanted that number to release to the public ASAP.
May 10th, 2010 (11:30 pm)The problem with a miles per kw rating is that most cars (in their class) will have the same or close rating.. everyone will use similar motor and battery tech, the only difference will be the aerodynamic drag of each car and they will all look like melted soap bars pretty soon.
So since most cars will have a similar rating it will be a useless tool for people to base their decisions on.
Also you will need to use decimals, a car that gets 5.10 miles per kw is very different from one that gets 5.72.. the consumer will not understand decimal points and it will not recompense companies that go to the extra mile to perfect their engineering.
How does miles per kw account for improvements in regenerative braking?.
May 10th, 2010 (11:42 pm)Hardly. The methodology used, as one example, a plug-in Prius. No problem.
A lot of very whacked off potential customers who don’t want to buy a Prius.
May 11th, 2010 (12:07 am)OT My idea of how the world will transit to BEVs
May 11th, 2010 (12:15 am)OT My idea of how the world will transit to BEVs
May 11th, 2010 (12:16 am)There are two people in that Avatar so there will be two of us as far as I know. I’m leaving for Dallas starting Wednesday morning and taking two days. I don’t know when I will have internet access, so I may not get the details. I’ll call the phone number listed for you in Austin when I get to Dallas, either Thursday or Friday. I’ll leave a message if you’re not there and give you my cell Phone number.
May 11th, 2010 (12:39 am)I just wonder: does it really matter?
The cost of the electricity is such a small part of the cost equation, any difference like that is swamped by the cost differences between models.
When it comes to comparing pollution, any electric car beats the pants off a gasoline or diesel fueled car.
May 11th, 2010 (4:00 am)Matthew B said:
When it comes to comparing pollution, any electric car beats the pants off a gasoline or diesel fueled car.
So why wouldn’t the best way to show this to consumers be with an MPG number that beats the pants of of a gas or diesel fueled car?
May 11th, 2010 (5:13 am)OT
Your next Mini-E may not be made by BMW.
May 11th, 2010 (6:03 am)I want one. The model that is.
May 11th, 2010 (6:13 am)I agree! And after spending a LOT of time considering this whole thing again, and concluding that the best way to segue the industry and buyers from gasoline (or diesel) to electric vehicles is to present accurate equivalent MPG numbers on an EV’s or EREV’s window sticker. So here it is again:
===================================================================
EPA FUEL ECONOMY ESTIMATES (reflect new EV methods beginning with 2011 models):
For those driving 40 miles/day or less (between charges): 125 MPG*
For more than 40 miles/day (between charges): 55MPG City/45 MPG Highway**
*This represents the equivalent mpg for 78% of all drivers (i.e., those driving 40 miles or less/day between charges) at a cost for a full battery charge using $0.12/KWH = $0.96 and a gasoline cost of $3.00/gallon.
**This represents driving in the “Extended Range” mode (i.e., operating as an EV, but electricity is supplied by the car’s electric generator instead of its battery) beyond the first 40 miles.
===================================================================
PS: The “hidden” math not shown on the proposed window sticker above is— At $0.12/KWH, a full charge costs 8KWH x $0.12 = $0.96. In terms of equivalent gasoline cost using $3.00/gal as the national average, the equivalent gasoline useage for this 40 miles would be 0.96/3.00 = 0.32 gals, therefore the equivalent mpg is 40mi/0.32gals = 125MPG*.
May 11th, 2010 (6:42 am)I would just like to point out that Chevy’s 230 MPG for the Volt is not all their fault. Look at the number EPA gave to Tesla 244 MPG
“Tesla Motors of San Carlos, California — best known for their electric roadster — received a corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) rating of 244 mpg. ”
Chevy had some history on their side. It is the EPA that is off the rails on this one.
May 11th, 2010 (7:06 am)I should have been a little more discription by referring to motive power control. I doubt they re-engineer HSD to blend the motors’ and ICE power differently for PHEV than they do for HEV. Naturally they will have to control the power draw from the batteries somewhat different but that, by itself, doesn’t have to affect the motive power use.
May 11th, 2010 (7:25 am)230 mpg is specifically the estimate for CITY.
How come after all this time (9 months) we still haven’t heard anything at all about the estimate for HIGHWAY driving?
We know that value will be considerably lower. And since we are constantly reminded that Prius has a top EV speed of 100 km/h (62.1 mpg), higher speed travel is apparently very important. Yet, it’s never discussed.
Either HIGHWAY driving is important or it isn’t. Sending mixed messages isn’t constructive. Choose.
May 11th, 2010 (8:46 am)The average person drives 33 miles per day (365 x 33 = 12,045). The average person would never drive the Volt for 300 miles without charging it. He may do this on a trip but not in everyday use. He’s going to drive his route which may be 33 miles, maybe 60 miles, then he’s going to charge it at night. He may run the engine daily, depending on his distance but he will not run a daily 300 or 400 miles. Get real.
May 11th, 2010 (10:32 am)That’s not how it actually works. Averaging doesn’t tell the whole story.
In reality, some days many more miles are driven and other many less. The total may be more or less too, which average does not reflect.
Also, once you exceed the 15,000 miles threshold the efficiency numbers really take a hit. That’s true for colder climates with fewer miles as well.
May 11th, 2010 (5:21 pm)Let’s hope Google helps them with their interface design. Every time I see it, it makes me cringe.