Aug 30

EPA Proposes New PHEV and EV Fuel Economy Labels, Wants Your Comments

 



[ad#post_ad]The EPA has to adapt to changing times.  New vehicle types like the Chevy Volt and Nissan LEAF require new types of fuel economy testing and labels to allow consumers to compare among them.

The agency has just released two new sets of labels, and are asking the public to comment on them to decide which will be implemented.

Included among the group are the two different labels that would be specifically used for plugin hybrids and for pure EVs.

There are two design option for each.  The first gives the car a grade from A+ to D- indicating how much emissions the car releases.  It does not include the emissions created to generate the electricity.

The other label design is similar to the present day label.  For plug in hybrids it shows the MPGe (mile per gallon equivalents) on the left for the first all-electric miles of driving, how much gas and energy will be used to achieve it.

This is determined by the following formula:

MPGe = (miles driven) / [(total energy of all fuels consumed)/(energy of one gallon of gasoline)])

On the right it shows the miles per gallon when only gas is used.  There are two different labels, one for blended PHEVs and one for EREVs (the Volt).  It also includes typical fuel cost per year (electric and gas).

For pure electric cars the sticker will show MPGe in large font as well as kwh per 100 miles and annual electric cost in smaller font.

It is important to recognize the images in this post used by the EPA are only for illustration, they are not the actual Volt values.

You can download the whole brochure here which includes proposed labels for other vehicle types including conventional gas cars.

To weigh in to the EPA with your comments go here.

“We are asking the American people to tell us what they need to make the best economic and environmental decisions when buying a new car,” said EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson. “New fuel economy labels will keep pace with the new generation of fuel efficient cars and trucks rolling off the line, and provide simple, straightforward updates to inform consumers about their choices in a rapidly changing market. We want to help buyers find vehicles that meet their needs, keep the air clean and save them money at the pump.”



[ad#postbottom]

This entry was posted on Monday, August 30th, 2010 at 12:55 pm and is filed under Efficiency, Public Opinion. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

COMMENTS: 236


  1. 1
    James

    -2

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    James
     Says

     

    Aug 30th, 2010 (1:04 pm)

    Would an A+ rating be given to a vehicle that captures it’s electricity from renewable sources at home, or does it refer to a car with trees growing from it’s roof that actually manufactures oxygen and sets it free into the atmosphere? :)

    RECHARGE!

    James


  2. 2
    V=IR

    +8

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    V=IR
     Says

     

    Aug 30th, 2010 (1:09 pm)

    I like how Gas Only operation is sub-titled “Extended Range”. EPA seems to be going along with GM’s terminology.


  3. 3
    ClarksonCote

    +8

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    ClarksonCote
     Says

     

    Aug 30th, 2010 (1:18 pm)

    I like how the labels also put gallons of gas equivalent per 100miles. GPM makes a lot more sense than MPG.

    join thE REVolution


  4. 4
    Jim or Jane

    +1

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Jim or Jane
     Says

     

    Aug 30th, 2010 (1:20 pm)

    It gets kind of confusing all of a sudden. I think the EPA is on the right track, there is a lot of assumptions going on, but they have it narrowed down pretty well.

    The biggest problem I see, and it’s going to take some time to get folks used to the idea of a “dual fueled” vehicle, such as the Volt. The EPA has done well explaining how the system works, and what it does for economy in each mode. Now if we can get some official numbers…..


  5. 5
    Tagamet

    +4

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Tagamet
     Says

     

    Aug 30th, 2010 (1:22 pm)

    I’m afraid that many many people will not be able to sort through the numbers. *Maybe* they will go to the website for a personalized accounting, but with more and more choices, will they punch in *all* the vehicle’s info’s?
    I guess we have to start somewhere. The “First 50 miles” info seems good. JMO.

    Be well,
    Tagamet


  6. 6
    DonC

    +5

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    DonC
     Says

     

    Aug 30th, 2010 (1:22 pm)

    I’m much in favor of the more modern and greater revision represented by the “Letter Grade” sticker. I think people can better understand when the relative efficiency is presented by a letter grade rather than a slider graph, and the cost of operation, which is most important to many people, is displayed more prominently in that label.

    Whether you agree or not, the EPA is asking for your opinion. In addition to the web site Lyle has referenced, you can also send an email with your opinion to newlabels@epa.gov, if that’s easier.


  7. 7
    Greg Woulf

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Greg Woulf
     Says

     

    Aug 30th, 2010 (1:27 pm)

    The first one is just plain bad for PHEV’s. It doesn’t at all capture the fact that 80+% of the daily commute is less than 40miles.

    It’s going to make PHEV’s look worse on the sticker than either EV’s or ICE. If I looked at the first stickers compared to any car today I’m going to average the two in my mind when the Electric portion should be weighted 4 times the gas only. (80% vs 20% usage)

    The second sticker is kind of like what is on a water heater or refrigerator and is better than the fist, but not at all satisfying for tech types.

    I don’t see either as a win for the Volt, but of the two I’d choose the second.


  8. 8
    carcus3

    -4

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    carcus3
     Says

     

    Aug 30th, 2010 (1:28 pm)

    These labels tell me almost nothing about what I need to know.

    Hopefully the “website.here” will.


  9. 9
    Jackson

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Jackson
     Says

     

    Aug 30th, 2010 (1:29 pm)

    My only concern on the “A” label is that the “Blended Electric + Gas” doesn’t really apply to the Volt (though the pdf describes it’s mode of operation quite well). I would like some assurance that those “Plug In Hybrid Vehicles” which use electricity only in the first [x] miles say “Electric Only” in this heading, instead.

    I like the idea of the website and scanner target which allows more detailed information to be assessed, but it will really come down to what’s on the site, and who puts it there.

    Of the two formats, I found the slider (first) easier to follow.

    PS: The label equating the Prius and Gas-only vehicles together is going to infuriate He Who Must Not Be Named (and that’s a good thing!).


  10. 10
    CorvetteGuy

    +3

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    CorvetteGuy
     Says

     

    Aug 30th, 2010 (1:31 pm)

    I can’t wait to see a photo of a VOLT with an “A” sticker, and the P…US with a “B” sticker. How much fun will that be?!


  11. 11
    Frank Weber

    +5

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Frank Weber
     Says

     

    Aug 30th, 2010 (1:32 pm)

    Gas only is self defined.

    Picking any mileage as the base seems problematic.

    Since it is reported that most trips are under 30 miles, perhaps the EPA should publish three categories:
    1. fully charged, 30 mile trip: show kW used/left and MPG (infinity if no gas used)
    2. fully charged, 60 or 100 mile trip: show kW used/left and MPG as above
    3. no charge, MPG


  12. 12
    Luke

    +5

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Luke
     Says

     

    Aug 30th, 2010 (1:34 pm)

    The first one makes the most sense, except that it needs a 3rd option for “electric only” with the all-electric range specified.

    The labels shown have too much emphasis on gasoline. The whole reason I want an electric-ish vehicle is to free myself from gasoline as much as possible, within the bounds of today’s technology.


  13. 13
    DonC

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    DonC
     Says

     

    Aug 30th, 2010 (1:34 pm)

    This MPGe stuff is silly. It’s all about technical efficiency which is irrelevant when comparing electrons to gas. For example, say a car ran on air. Air is free. So does it matter that the car running on air uses a lot or a little air? Is there any reason whatsoever to translate air consumption for this car into MPGe? Why not translate gasoline consumption into some other standard, like “cords of wood”? Better to just measure apples as apples and oranges as oranges.

    Efficiency is the province of engineering wonks. It doesn’t even have any real economic significance.

    For everyone dying to know what the MPG in CS Mode is, the first as well as the second sticker will tell you right up front.


  14. 14
    Ben

    +3

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Ben
     Says

     

    Aug 30th, 2010 (1:35 pm)

    I like where they’re going with the labels. I also like that they point out the actual energy in a gallon of gas. 4.5 miles / kWh on electric makes a big difference when you compare it to .9 miles / kWh on a 30MPG gas burning car.

    Not that your average consumer will do that math though. I just wish that they’d bite the bullet and do everything in miles/kWh. Makes it simple, miles / kWh on electric, miles /kWh on gas, and the size of the two “batteries” just one happens to be a big gas tank.


  15. 15
    nasaman1

    +2

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    nasaman1
     Says

     

    Aug 30th, 2010 (1:37 pm)

    DonC, post #6: I’m much in favor of the more modern and greater revision represented by the “Letter Grade” sticker. I think people can better understand when the relative efficiency is presented by a letter grade rather than a slider graph, and the cost of operation, which is most important to many people, is displayed more prominently in that label.

    I agree, Don! Whether the “Letter Grade” sticker favors the Volt or not, it certainly provides at a glance what MOST buyers should care about (and easily understand): Overall Efficiency and Annual Cost savings. Look carefully at the example below and you’ll see that it provides BOTH the numerical details AND the overall rating.


  16. 16
    Jason M. Hendler

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Jason M. Hendler
     Says

     

    Aug 30th, 2010 (1:37 pm)

    Unfortunately, I just wasn’t sure what I was reading.

    I like including recharge time to “fill ‘er up”. They should state kWh or cost to “fill ‘er up. I also like mileage when it’s running on gas.

    The grading system should be left to the user, as only they know their needs.

    It’s better to keep it simple 40 AER / 50 MPG for plug-in hybrids. 80 MPGe for BEV’s. 50 MPG for hybrids.


  17. 17
    JohnK

    +1

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    JohnK
     Says

     

    Aug 30th, 2010 (1:37 pm)

    I’m fairly impressed. Looking at number of gallons of gasoline used is a step in the right direction.


  18. 18
    iroc

    +1

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    iroc
     Says

     

    Aug 30th, 2010 (1:37 pm)

    “GAS ONLY” mode is good … keep that.

    -

    “ELECTRIC ONLY” mode should be MPkWh (Miles Per kiloWatt-hour).

    -

    “ELECTRIC + GAS” mode is meaningless … throw it out.


  19. 19
    David

    -20

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    David
     Says

     

    Aug 30th, 2010 (1:38 pm)

    (click to show comment)


  20. 20
    VancouverJon

    +3

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    VancouverJon
     Says

     

    Aug 30th, 2010 (1:38 pm)

    ClarksonCote: I like how the labels also put gallons of gas equivalent per 100miles.GPM makes a lot more sense than MPG.join thE REVolution  

    Countries that use the metric system use litres/100km, so this is nothing new. I, however, much prefer to know how far I can drive with a gallon of gas. That makes sense to me, especially when your fuel light comes on. I assume I have a gallon left, so I know approximately how far I can drive. Why does gallons/100mi make more sense? I don’t care how many gallons I need to drive 100 miles. When do I think of 100 mile increments?


  21. 21
    Vlad Gorshkov

    +1

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Vlad Gorshkov
     Says

     

    Aug 30th, 2010 (1:39 pm)

    These are great. They very clean and show very important information. A+


  22. 22
    VancouverJon

    +23

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    VancouverJon
     Says

     

    Aug 30th, 2010 (1:40 pm)

    David: I can not help but wonder where the break even point is?With the high sticker price of the Volt and just getting 38 mpg in the gas mode I am kind of disappointed.My Civic gets that. The Leaf however getting a 100 miles per charge is in the right direction.May I remind everyone that the Prius is 10 years old.  

    Whoa, whoa, whoa! This sticker does not mean that the Volt gets 38mpg in charge sustaining mode. Please be logical about this, it is just a sample sticker and we have no indication it has anything to do with any particular car. And there is no way that the EPA has had access to a 100% build Volt when they don’t even have a standard for testing it yet…


  23. 23
    PCwik

    +8

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    PCwik
     Says

     

    Aug 30th, 2010 (1:42 pm)

    Give me the numbers not the “A” Label. Grades can be politically manipulated, but 80 = 80, always.


  24. 24
    Tagamet

    +2

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Tagamet
     Says

     

    Aug 30th, 2010 (1:43 pm)

    DonC: I’m much in favor of the more modern and greater revision represented by the “Letter Grade” sticker. I think people can better understand when the relative efficiency is presented by a letter grade rather than a slider graph, and the cost of operation, which is most important to many people, is displayed more prominently in that label.Whether you agree or not, the EPA is asking for your opinion. In addition to the web site Lyle has referenced, you can also send an email with your opinion to newlabels@epa.gov, if that’s easier.  

    Although the Letter Grade is definitely more comfortable, I’m not sure that they can “slice” the data to assign +/-’s to the letters – a C+ may be worse than a B-, but how are they different?

    Be well,
    Tagamet


  25. 25
    Luke

    +2

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Luke
     Says

     

    Aug 30th, 2010 (1:45 pm)

    James: Would an A+ rating be given to a vehicle that captures it’s electricity from renewable sources at home, or does it refer to a car with trees growing from it’s roof that actually manufactures oxygen and sets it free into the atmosphere?
    RECHARGE!James  

    It’s fairly clear from looking at the labels that the “A+” rating is given relative to the other vehicles in this class, rather than against the type of absolute measures that you suggest.


  26. 26
    Ken Grubb

    +4

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Ken Grubb
     Says

     

    Aug 30th, 2010 (1:46 pm)

    Simply put, I like the new proposed fuel economy labels. Some will complain and insist on something much more complex, and arguably accurate, while others will complain it is too complicated. The reality is that with electrics, plug-ins, CNG vehicles, and flex fuel vehicles the world of fuel economy is more complicated so people need to accept that fact and begin the learning process–if they have not already.


  27. 27
    bitguru

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    bitguru
     Says

     

    Aug 30th, 2010 (1:47 pm)

    .
    I wish they would use gallons per 235 miles instead of gallons per 100 miles.

    That way there would be no conversion factor from liters per 100 km that the rest of the world uses.


  28. 28
    Bill

    -2

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Bill
     Says

     

    Aug 30th, 2010 (1:49 pm)

    CorvetteGuy: I can’t wait to see a photo of a VOLT with an “A” sticker, and the P…US with a “B” sticker. How much fun will that be?!  (Quote)

    I can’t wait to see the A+ sticker on the LEAF. :D
    Lyle…the reason the sticker doesn’t count the emissions created to generate the electricity is because a lot of us will be using pvs (solar cells) to charge the car. I’m planning on pv charging during the day (5kw DC) at the off-peak hours. My LEAF will not only be zero emissions, but the fuel will be FREE! Volt’s and Priuses won’t be able to say that! :) And the payback on the system is only 5 short yearts!


  29. 29
    Luke

    +1

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Luke
     Says

     

    Aug 30th, 2010 (1:49 pm)

    DonC: This MPGe stuff is silly. It’s all about technical efficiency which is irrelevant when comparing electrons to gas. For example, say a car ran on air. Air is free. So does it matter that the car running on air uses a lot or a little air? Is there any reason whatsoever to translate air consumption for this car into MPGe? Why not translate gasoline consumption into some other standard, like “cords of wood”? Better to just measure apples as apples and oranges as oranges.

    Air may be free, but the energy to compress the air in an air-powered cars is not free. I’ve run the numbers, and it’s the same energy storage per kg is similar to lead-acid batteries for a backyard “hot rod” style conversion.


  30. 30
    Jackson

    +1

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Jackson
     Says

     

    Aug 30th, 2010 (1:50 pm)

    David: I can not help but wonder where the break even point is?With the high sticker price of the Volt and just getting 38 mpg in the gas mode I am kind of disappointed.My Civic gets that. The Leaf however getting a 100 miles per charge is in the right direction.May I remind everyone that the Prius is 10 years old.  

    From the pdf pamphlet’s first page:

    “Please note that the labels shown on the following pages are examples and do not represent real automobiles.”

    From the description above the “A” label:

    “Examples: There are currently no new commercial PHEVs for sale in the United States.”


  31. 31
    JohnK

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    JohnK
     Says

     

    Aug 30th, 2010 (1:51 pm)

    OK, I did my duty and left my opinion on their website (used THIS as the “organization”, hope that is OK). Yes option 1 seems better (letter grade, with more data). But letter grade seems open to eventual tampering with by beurocrats by tweaking numbers — oh, never mind that is already being done, no? It’s a darn good thing we have our own shrink here.


  32. 32
    Mark Z

    +3

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Mark Z
     Says

     

    Aug 30th, 2010 (1:56 pm)

    The larger sticker is much better as it indicates charge time and total range.


  33. 33
    Jackson

    +2

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Jackson
     Says

     

    Aug 30th, 2010 (1:56 pm)

    … and to add more to my #9 comment above, the pdf’s preface for the “A” label says:

    “Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles are considered dual fuel vehicles because they can be powered by both electricity and gasoline. Like EVs, PHEVs have a battery that you charge by plugging your vehhicle into an electric outlet. But unlike EVs, PHEVs also have a gasoline powered internal combustion engine. Some PHEVs use only electricity to power the vehicle while the battery is charged, and use gasoline once the battery is depleted. This type of PHEV is sometimes called an extended range electric vehicle. [emphasis added] Other types of PHEVs use a combination of both electricity and gasoline while the battery is charged, and then use only gasoline.”

    If they’re going to use the same label for both vehicles, the heading “Blended Electricity + Gas” needs to be edited to “Electricity Only” for extended range electric vehicles accordingly.

    I sent an email with this observation to the address DonC provided.


  34. 34
    The Grump

    +16

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    The Grump
     Says

     

    Aug 30th, 2010 (1:56 pm)

    Just tell me:

    1) how far the Volt goes on battery power only

    2) How many MPG the Volt gets, once the gasoline generator kicks in.

    “Blended” numbers are useless, as they constantly change, depending on how far you drive. I don’t need the EPA to swirl the numbers around, and come up with a “blended” MPG. I can figure it out for myself, thank you very much.


  35. 35
    ClarksonCote

    +4

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    ClarksonCote
     Says

     

    Aug 30th, 2010 (2:01 pm)

    VancouverJon: Why does gallons/100mi make more sense? I don’t care how many gallons I need to drive 100 miles. When do I think of 100 mile increments?  (Quote)

    GPM makes more sense, IMO, because it’s much easier to quantify gasoline savings than MPG. Somebody going from 40MPG to 50MPG doesn’t save more gas than someone going from 10MPG to 15MPG. This isn’t readily understood until you describe usage in a gallons-per-100 miles (or liters/100kM) type format. MPG only tells some of the story.

    join thE REVolution


  36. 36
    Rand E. Gerald

    +3

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Rand E. Gerald
     Says

     

    Aug 30th, 2010 (2:02 pm)

    ClarksonCote: I like how the labels also put gallons of gas equivalent per 100miles.GPM makes a lot more sense than MPG.join thE REVolution  

    That’s more like the way fuel economy is calculated in countries which use the metric system. They use l/100km (litres per one hundred kilometres). It is a more sensible way to do it. When the engine is off, its fuel economy is 0.0 l/100km but infinite miles per gallon. The two advantages are that it takes infinities out of the calculations and that cost per unit distance is a direct relationship with fuel economy and not an inverse relationship.

    Many cars now have a built in available range calculator. It relates instantaneous fuel economy (ml/sec) divided by instantaneous speed (km/hr) and multiplied the remaining fuel (l) and multiplied by a units constant to give approximate remaining range in km or miles.


  37. 37
    KenP

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    KenP
     Says

     

    Aug 30th, 2010 (2:03 pm)

    How this vehicle compares — I want a link to the 103 mpg vehicle…
    I’d think it should use MPG – meld the two labels – cost or savings per year (like appliances)


  38. 38
    Andrew

    +3

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Andrew
     Says

     

    Aug 30th, 2010 (2:03 pm)

    Too confusing! They’ve got to make it simple..


  39. 39
    Jackson

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Jackson
     Says

     

    Aug 30th, 2010 (2:07 pm)

    Tagamet:
    Although the Letter Grade is definitely more comfortable, I’m not sure that they can “slice” the data to assign +/-’s to the letters – a C+ may be worse than a B-, but how are they different?Be well,
    Tagamet  

    This “grading” system seems to be from the EPA’s point of view, not an end user’s (what they want to see in terms of emissions). And if this is so, what does this say about Flex Fuel (using the same letter as ordinary fuels and non-plugin hybrids)?


  40. 40
    LeoK

    +1

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    LeoK
     Says

     

    Aug 30th, 2010 (2:08 pm)

    Luke: It’s fairly clear from looking at the labels that the “A+” rating is given relative to the other vehicles in this class, rather than against the type of absolute measures that you suggest.  (Quote)

    I applaud the EPA for seeking public comment. Knowing how the government works, whatever decision is made will likely be around for years – they do not typically go back and revise these things frequently. So an open exchange of ideas is very good.

    Given that there will be many variations on propultion systems, it is imortant to provide consumers with a means to compare them for their own specific use. Individual use will dictate which propultion system makes the most sense.

    As we’ve discussed at length on this site before, a label that offers economy/gallons used/cost estimates for varying types of driving is very useful. Thus it seems they are on the right track. Here are my thoughts:

    1. While the letter grade (A+ to D) may be new, from a real world consumer perspective I believe it would be harder to understand and explain. If I understand the theory correctly, the proposal would be to rank all vehicles within each size class and give the top 20% an A, the next 20% a B, etc. The confusion would come when a compact car with a C rating is more efficient than a mid-size car with an A rating. I belive they need to stick to a number rating.

    2. I like the breakdown on the bottom of the letter sticker showing efficiency over a 50 mile drive and then a gas only 100 mile drive. But given the complexity of all the potential variations of propulsion systems, I would add a few more statistics:
    MAXIMUM DISTANCE TRAVELED ON ONE CHARGE:
    MAXIMUM DISTANCE TRAVELED IN EXTENDED MODE:
    ESTIMATED ENERGY CONSUMPTION FOR A 400 MILE TRIP TAKEN IN ONE DAY: (here’s where cars like the LEAF would have to answer “not possible”)

    Using the 50 mile mark as a benchmark, in the case of the VOLT, GM could dramatically improve the posted numbers by getting the Electric range up from 40 to 50 miles – therefore no gallons used on a 50 mile trip! Gen2 has a new goal!


  41. 41
    Dan Durston

    +17

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Dan Durston
     Says

     

    Aug 30th, 2010 (2:09 pm)

    I’m not a fan of the MPGe idea and the arbitrary 50 mile range used for this calculation. Just tell us how far it goes on electricity and how much electricity it uses. The extended range part is fine. There’s no need for letter grades. That’s still as it’s a constantly changing scale. An ‘A’ one year might be ‘B’ next year if new products come out. Only a very uneducated consumer is going to buy a car because ‘oh look this one is an ‘A’ and that one’s a ‘B+’.

    The 50 mile range used for the electric/gas mode doesn’t work because it implies to the consumer that the car has a 50 mile electric/gas range. This doesn’t hurt the Volt too badly, but this label would really water down the benefits of a 25 mile range EREV. Instead of doing 50 miles, do whatever the electric/gas range is.

    Trying to translate the numbers into some lame consumer friendly figure (MPGe) just makes things more confusing. Just give us the data. In 50 years no one is even going to remember what a gallon of gas was, and we’ll all be stuck using the term MPGe.

    Another problem with MPGe is that it doesn’t separate the gas and electric energies. Two cars both rated at 50 MPGe could be vastly different financially to operate. If one uses mostly gas and the uses just electricity (which is much cheaper than gas) then the electric one is going to be much cheaper to operate even though they are both rated at the same MPGe.

    It seems like the EPA is trying to make a label that will include cars like the Plug in Prius that aren’t really electric cars. I think they need to distinguish between real electric cars (only electric motor connected to the wheels) and hybrid cars that have a little battery pack that you can plug in for a little extra boost. There’s a big difference between these two designs.


  42. 42
    Loboc

    -1

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Loboc
     Says

     

    Aug 30th, 2010 (2:09 pm)

    DonC: This MPGe stuff is silly. It’s all about technical efficiency which is irrelevant when comparing electrons to gas. For example, say a car ran on air. Air is free. So does it matter that the car running on air uses a lot or a little air? Is there any reason whatsoever to translate air consumption for this car into MPGe? Why not translate gasoline consumption into some other standard, like “cords of wood”? Better to just measure apples as apples and oranges as oranges.Efficiency is the province of engineering wonks. It doesn’t even have any real economic significance.For everyone dying to know what the MPG in CS Mode is, the first as well as the second sticker will tell you right up front.  

    Agreed.
    Both mpge and CAFE are obsolete ways to accomplish the goals of energy independence. Both need to go away. Throw out the whole mess and start over.

    I like the A, B, C labels for that reason. However, it needs to be further simplified to just a number of dollars per year. Get rid of the ‘dollars saved over x’ thing and just put the ‘dollars spent per year’ number there.

    As far as CAFE. That whole concept doesn’t work at all. People will still buy what they want to buy regardless of what the government says.

    Each car class needs a max number of energy dollars that can be spent per year (no matter what fuel is used) and a max number of CO2 emissions allowed.

    Something like:

    Compact = $300 energy dollars and x CO2 emissions.
    MidSize =
    FullSize =
    Lt. Truck =
    Luxury/other = (but add on a huge luxury tax like $30k per vehicle).

    As fuels adjust their pricing, new cars would have to be recalibrated/redesigned to meet the dollar and CO2 goals.

    The Corporate Average Fuel Economy allows too much wiggle room for the car manufacturers. Set a hard number and get on with it.


  43. 43
    John C. Briggs

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    John C. Briggs
     Says

     

    Aug 30th, 2010 (2:09 pm)

    I know it is just an example, but did anyone notice the 34 KWH/100 miles.
    The Volt is depending on 8 KWH for 40 miles or 20 KWH/100 miles.

    If 34KWH/100miles turns out to be the number we will have for EVs

    16 KWH = 47 mile range (SMART ED)
    24 KWH = 71 mile range (LEAF)
    53 KWH = 156 mile range (TESLA)

    Is that some sort of reality check?

    John C. Briggs


  44. 44
    CorvetteGuy

    +7

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    CorvetteGuy
     Says

     

    Aug 30th, 2010 (2:10 pm)

    PCwik: Give me the numbers not the “A” Label. Grades can be politically manipulated, but 80 = 80, always.  (Quote)

    Can you imagine the ‘back-room dealings’ going on if any car was only 1 digit off from getting that “A” sticker designation! Maybe that’s why this whole business about EPA stickers is taking so long. Toyota must be screaming like a 4-year-old because the Prius has been ‘out-stickered’!!!


  45. 45
    BenHead

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    BenHead
     Says

     

    Aug 30th, 2010 (2:11 pm)

    I know we’re pretty much all about the Volt here, but the 50-mile MPGe seems like an odd choice. The day there are EREVs that do 50+ miles electric-only this is going to be absurd. Think about it: an EREV that drives 50 miles all-electric will get the same rating as one that drives 100 miles all-electric, all else being equal. But the latter is clearly “better”. Real-world it may fare worse on the sticker just because its additional weight might use a little more electricity.

    I think 3 numbers – KWh/mi (or MPGe if they must) for all-electric mode, miles in all-electric mode, and MPG in ICE mode – is as simple as it can be made without losing too much info.


  46. 46
    stuart22

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    stuart22
     Says

     

    Aug 30th, 2010 (2:12 pm)

    I haven’t the time to closely examine these, but on first look I thought the first tag with ‘gas only’ MPG to be bad news. EREV’s are NOT ‘gas only’ and I see that number as misleading. I’ll look closer when I have more time…


  47. 47
    Jackson

    +3

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Jackson
     Says

     

    Aug 30th, 2010 (2:12 pm)

    Bill:
    I can’t wait to see the A+ sticker on the LEAF.
    Lyle…the reason the sticker doesn’t count the emissions created to generate the electricity is because a lot of us will be using pvs (solar cells) to charge the car.I’m planning on pv charging during the day (5kw DC) at the off-peak hours.My LEAF will not only be zero emissions, but the fuel will be FREE!Volt’s and Priuses won’t be able to say that! And the payback on the system is only 5 short yearts!  

    Individual initiatives aside, emissions from electricity generation is a separate issue. If an electric vehicle produces too many emissions, so does an electric toothbrush. Since EVs are years away from requiring new generation capacity themselves (because they’ll mostly charge off-peak), there is no particular reason to single them out for environmental ire.


  48. 48
    ClarksonCote

    +5

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    ClarksonCote
     Says

     

    Aug 30th, 2010 (2:13 pm)

    I hope for the Volt, they have “Electric Only” and “Gas Only” on the label, versus “Electric + Gas” and “Gas Only”

    join thE REVolution


  49. 49
    Rand E. Gerald

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Rand E. Gerald
     Says

     

    Aug 30th, 2010 (2:14 pm)

    bitguru: .
    I wish they would use gallons per 235 miles instead of gallons per 100 miles.That way there would be no conversion factor from liters per 100 km that the rest of the world uses.  

    To convert between the two systems (mi/gal) and (l/100km) simply divide 235.2 by the value to be converted. So 23.52 mi/gal = 10.0 l/100km and 50 mi/gal = 4.7 l/100km.


  50. 50
    ECO_Turbo

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    ECO_Turbo
     Says

     

    Aug 30th, 2010 (2:15 pm)

    When there are more of these type of cars so they are competing with each other, these types of stickers will be fine. Right now we need something that acentuates the difference between cars that burn gas all the time and cars that don’t. I say fill a Volt up with electricity and gas and then drive it on the normal EPA test and see what you get. Put that on a normal sticker until the technology is more widely understood. The only change needed might be to put on the sticker “when plugged in at recomended intervals this car got:”


  51. 51
    Jackson

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Jackson
     Says

     

    Aug 30th, 2010 (2:18 pm)

    Dan Durston: Trying to translate the numbers into some lame consumer friendly figure (MPGe) just makes things more confusing. Just give us the data. In 50 years no one is even going to remember what a gallon of gas was, and we’ll all be stuck using the term MPGe.

    … and yet in the 21st Century, we still talk about horsepower with no apparent injury …


  52. 52
    Kyle

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Kyle
     Says

     

    Aug 30th, 2010 (2:22 pm)

    I think label-1-phev is the better label and should be chosen. It provides consumers with how much they will save and categories vehicles into classes so that consumers can easily pick out the best cars. I like #3 Clarksoncote am in favor of moving to gallons per mile because research suggests that people make more informed decisions about fuel usage that way. See the MPG Illusion in Science also http://www.mpgillusion.com/. I realize it may not be possible for the EPA to go with a GPM system because of existing statute or other constraints but it would do a lot to help inform drivers about choosing more fuel efficient vehicles.


  53. 53
    Bram stolk

    +2

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Bram stolk
     Says

     

    Aug 30th, 2010 (2:23 pm)

    “how this vehicle compares” is misleading.
    In the 65mpg example, it suggests that this particular car is average for midsize station wagons
    How can 65 mpg be average for all vehicles in the category?

    The 100mpg on far right is an outlier

    Much better would be using a proper scale: if it does better than 90 percent of vehicles, put the marker at 90 percent of the scale, and not on a position relative to extreme outlier performance.

    Please fix this horrendous error.


  54. 54
    Frank March

    +1

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Frank March
     Says

     

    Aug 30th, 2010 (2:25 pm)

    This is just simply a good example of the insane, convoluted thinking for dumming down America.!
    Why in the world would you want to confuse the world with “combined” results.?

    Give the MPG that you get when the battery went down driving on a flat road, no wind say between 100 and 300 miles.
    Give the MPkWh that you get when driving on battery alone. (Don’t everybody pays the electric bill based on used up kWh?)

    If you want to use a “standard” gas price, a likewise standard electric price could be used as well. Then give the cost of driving 15k miles a year on both (not mixed.!!)

    Those four numbers will tell the story very well for all kinds of vechiles.


  55. 55
    Kyle

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Kyle
     Says

     

    Aug 30th, 2010 (2:25 pm)

    I do think that efficiency of electric vehicles (as they are classified in label 1-phev) should be weighted by carbon intensiveness of energy production. So electric vehicles carbon footprint should represent the average US carbon footprint of electric consumption.


  56. 56
    M Duoba

    +3

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    M Duoba
     Says

     

    Aug 30th, 2010 (2:26 pm)

    MPGequivalent
    is a disease that must be cured!


  57. 57
    Rashiid Amul

    +8

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Rashiid Amul
     Says

     

    Aug 30th, 2010 (2:28 pm)

    David: May I remind everyone that the Prius is 10 years old.

    Not sure what this has to do with the price of rice in China, but I will ask this.
    In the 10 years the Prius has been around, how much of an improvement did Toyota make with their all-electric range? Not too much. Now that they have competition from Chevy, Toyota is saying, “Oh sh1t! We better do something and fast!”.
    Thus the Toyota plug-in. Without Chevy, I highly doubt Toyota would have gotten off their collective backsides and improved the Prius. As it is, the new improvement is lame at best.


  58. 58
    Dan Durston

    +2

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Dan Durston
     Says

     

    Aug 30th, 2010 (2:29 pm)

    The letter grade doesn’t take into account the EV range, only the efficiency. So a pure EV with a 50 mile range on 10kwh (5 miles/kwh) would get a higher rating than an EV that can do 200 miles on 50kwh (4 miles/ kwh). Yes the former is more efficient, but the latter is going to be a much more useable vehicle that saves a lot more gas since you can leave your car at home far more often. A letter grade is overly simplistic and treats the customer like they’re in high school.


  59. 59
    greenWin

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    greenWin
     Says

     

    Aug 30th, 2010 (2:29 pm)

    Drop the CO2 data. It is confusing and at this point meaningless to the public.

    There also should be some cognizance of the well established <40 mile average daily commute distance. One reason the Volt is keyed to a 40 mile AER is to address the 80% average commute distance in North America.

    The stickers should demonstrate MPG equivalent for two distances. One average daily commute e.g. <40 miles. Another for "Above average commutes" or the 50 mile plus extended range formula suggested here. Since we know the average daily commute, and these vehicles are likely to be purchased by average commuters – we should see the average MPG equivalent on the sticker.


  60. 60
    joe

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    joe
     Says

     

    Aug 30th, 2010 (2:31 pm)

    I like the way it’s figured out! It’s just as good as any. Around home and long distance..in plain view.


  61. 61
    Zach

    +7

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Zach
     Says

     

    Aug 30th, 2010 (2:32 pm)

    To be honest, I don’t like any of them. There is too much information. Even I had a hard time following much of it, and I’ve been here for over 2 years.

    ALL they need is MPG in CS mode, and MPC (miles per charge) in EO (elec only) mode for both CITY and HWY driving. Any other means to label them is flawed.

    Lyle, put a pole up asking several options, which would we choose. I think this is all ridiculous.


  62. 62
    Bill

    +3

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Bill
     Says

     

    Aug 30th, 2010 (2:35 pm)

    Kyle: I do think that efficiency of electric vehicles (as they are classified in label 1-phev) should be weighted by carbon intensiveness of energy production. So electric vehicles carbon footprint should represent the average US carbon footprint of electric consumption.  (Quote)

    I disagree for the reasons I’ve stated before. How can you get an average carbon footprint for electric consumption when more and more people will be charging using their pv systems? And even if they don’t have pvs, most then will charge at night when the grid is the cleanest and has less demand. Charging off the grid with coal or oil is STILL 60% cleaner than with an ICE. Also, many states now have electricity generation with wind, hydro, solar, etc. and there will be much more in the near future.


  63. 63
    Tagamet

    +1

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Tagamet
     Says

     

    Aug 30th, 2010 (2:43 pm)

    JohnK: It’s a darn good thing we have our own shrink here.

    When you’re right, you’re right! (lol)

    Be well,
    Tagamet


  64. 64
    jim

    +2

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    jim
     Says

     

    Aug 30th, 2010 (2:43 pm)

    Three labels shown. First fine for every vehicle, folks. All the ranges will be adjusted at print time for the vehicle in question. Electric-only will obviously show nothing on the right-hand side. Gas- and diesel-only vehicles will show nothing on the left. The “Environment” section will be tweaked by marketing and thus can safely be ignored. The rest of the fine print is just the basic information on how the label contents were supposedly arrived at (ie, boilerplate required for the litigious types). One label handles it all. Simple and easy to compare from vehicle to vehicle. The second label is an adaptation of the first label and it’s differences will prove to be distracting at best. The third label … well, perhaps these folks would be best served if they first found a reliable mechanic and then just bought whatever he is selling, n’est pas? RIF!


  65. 65
    Bill

    +2

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Bill
     Says

     

    Aug 30th, 2010 (2:43 pm)

    Maybe I missed something on the EPA’s website, but it seems to me that ALL they are asking for is our input on the format/arrangement, Label 1 or 2 (EV). I don’t believe they’re going to change any of the categories, but I could be mistaken.


  66. 66
    LeoK

    +1

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    LeoK
     Says

     

    Aug 30th, 2010 (2:44 pm)

    One more thought:

    Dear EPA, for the next 36 months, as we transition from an all ICE automotive age to a combination of various propultion systems, the #1 goal must be consumer simplicity. The average consumer must understand how much gasoline, electicity, or other fuel they are using.

    KISS: Keep it Simple S….

    Just give consumers facts that they can relate to. I sugggest a chart type sticker that has three parts:
    LOW MILEAGE DRIVERS: If you drive 10,000 miles per year or less, look here:
    numbers in this section would relate to driving about 38 miles/day (5 days per week)
    AVERAGE MILEAGE DRIVERS: If you drive approximately 15,000 miles per year, look here:
    numbers in this section would relate to driving about 58 miles/day (5 days per week)
    HIGH MILEAGE DRIVERS: If you drive 20,000 miles or more annually, look here:
    numbers in this section would relate to driving about 77 miles/day (5 days per week)

    If there is electricity involved in the equation, include info like DISTANCE TRAVELED ON ONE CHARGE. ESTIMATED TIME TO RECHARGE (using conventional 110V power and 240V dedicated power). Another useful measure for consumers is MAXIMUM DISTANCE TRAVELED IN ONE DAY (note, for an ICE or EREV or PHEV, this could simply state ‘unlimited’)

    Consumers must be able to compare an ICE to an EV to an EREV to a PHEV, etc. At least for an interim transition period, the EPA owes it to the American Consumer to find a means to make these important comparisons. Breaking it down by consumer useage is a more useful tool than breaking it down by the type of propulsion system the vehicle has. JMHO.


  67. 67
    Dietrich Seaman

    +1

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Dietrich Seaman
     Says

     

    Aug 30th, 2010 (2:49 pm)

    The box labeled “environment” on both labels is needlessly confusing. One scale, “Greenhouse Gases”, has 850 at the left side, labeled “worst”, going down to the right side, labeled 0 and “best”. The second scale, “Other Air Pollutants”, goes from 0 (“worst”) at the left to 10 (“best”) at the right.

    It seems to me that the numbers on the second scale are backwards. Even if they don’t represent some actual measurement, such as parts-per-million (possibly what the “Greenhouse Gases” scale refers to), the “Other Air Pollutants” should be zero at the “best” end. Why would you want one number to get smaller and another bigger when they are both undesirable?


  68. 68
    James

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    James
     Says

     

    Aug 30th, 2010 (2:55 pm)

    CorvetteGuy: I can’t wait to see a photo of a VOLT with an “A” sticker, and the P…US with a “B” sticker. How much fun will that be?!  (Quote)

    Once again, it seems some here feel a need to cut the Toyota Prius. The Prius paved the road for Volt and is it’s main comparative vehicle.

    Corvetteguy and all the other Volt fanboys who cut down the Prius don’t get that. No problem with a Mustang-Camaro, Vette-911, F-150, Chevy C-K rivalry — but the Prius hate on here is one of the reasons I don’t post here often any more. Mention the Prius and get – votes all day.

    Someone will chime in and say it’s due to the Priuschat and Prius-fanboys who have come here to shoot arrows at the Volt. Instead of ignoring those people – and carrying on, it’s been the trend at gm-volt.com to battle. It’s made this site much less fun to post on. It’s highlighted narrow thinking and made those Volt fans who love their Prius and won’t be able to buy a Volt due to it’s limited production and sales feel they are coming into some sort of battle zone rather than a pro EV site with a general interest to reduce usage of fossil fuels and free America from it’s bondage to oil.

    Corvetteguy? Won’t it be a rush to see SUVs, “performance cars” and large trucks with D stickers? Perhaps that’s a better thought than knocking the car that got us here.

    RECHARGE!

    James


  69. 69
    CorvetteGuy

    +10

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    CorvetteGuy
     Says

     

    Aug 30th, 2010 (2:58 pm)

    The horizontal bar labeled: “Blended Electric + Gas Range (battery)” is confusing by its very nature of having the words ‘Gas Range’ next to ‘(battery)’….

    That horizontal bar should at least show the initial 40-miles range before using the word ‘Blended’. And I would hope that the big box on the left side that has the number “65″ will show that for the first 50 miles in a VOLT, the fuel used would only be 0.29 gallons for a combined total of 170 Miles-Per-Gallon!

    I know these are sample stickers, but if the way they are showing data is accurate, those would be the numbers on a real one.

    slogan16.jpg


  70. 70
    Manfred

    +4

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Manfred
     Says

     

    Aug 30th, 2010 (2:58 pm)

    I have to agree with the Grump.

    Just tell me:

    1) how far the Volt goes on battery power only

    2) How many MPG the Volt gets, once the gasoline generator kicks in.

    “Blended” numbers are useless, as they constantly change, depending on how far you drive. I don’t need the EPA to swirl the numbers around, and come up with a “blended” MPG. I can figure it out for myself, thank you very much.

    The main thing is that we get away from Gasoline. I will be riding by electric bicycle to work.


  71. 71
    jim

    -5

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    jim
     Says

     

    Aug 30th, 2010 (2:58 pm)

    CO2? Carbon footprint? Whoa. I thought all that nonsense was debunked and shelved months ago with the exposure of the behind-the-scenes shenanigans of ‘green scientists’ manipulating and hiding non-supportive data. Anyhow, guess that wasn’t too widely advertised by the ‘green’ media, eh. I had to laugh when greenWin said the masses wouldn’t understand it. He is 100% correct but not for the reason he thinks. He’s right because only the elite in their rarefied air-conditioned penthouses — and, well, politicians too — swallow this kind of nonsense. The average working guy knows snake oil when he hears/sees it and slams the door on it.


  72. 72
    LandKurt

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    LandKurt
     Says

     

    Aug 30th, 2010 (2:58 pm)

    John C. Briggs: I know it is just an example, but did anyone notice the 34 KWH/100 miles.  

    Yes, I noticed that too. Maybe it’s a sticker for a fictional electric truck rather than a compact car.

    There is one thing that could increase the energy use figure on the sticker: charging inefficiencies.

    Electric car manufacturors give the battery storage capacity but don’t mention the charging inefficiency losses. I see one report of a Tesla owner saying that 20% of the charging power is lost. If the Volt is the same it will take 10 kWh from the wall plug to fully charge the Volt. The EPA should be using that figure since it’s what we’ll be paying the electric company for. Including it would also encourage the use of more efficient charging methods and battery chemistries.

    I don’t like the MPGe equivalence of 33.7 kWh = 1 gallon of gas. That’s based on BTU’s per gallon, which seems irrellavant. If it’s used at all it shopuld be based on a factor like cost for each or environmental impact. The cost would vary, but they’ve already done cost calculations base on 12 cents per kWh and $2.80 per gallon (which would be 23.3 kWh = 1 gallon). Of course, a lower equivalence ratio brings down the MPGe for electric cars making them look not quite as attractive.


  73. 73
    Lon

    +2

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Lon
     Says

     

    Aug 30th, 2010 (2:58 pm)

    I have to agree with Grump, how many miles on electric only then mpg once generator is on.
    I think those shopping alternative vehicles can figure out the rest for themselves.


  74. 74
    jim

    +2

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    jim
     Says

     

    Aug 30th, 2010 (3:00 pm)

    @ #66 LeoK – that was simple? You must design computer motherboards for a living! LoL


  75. 75
    Vivifiant

    +5

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Vivifiant
     Says

     

    Aug 30th, 2010 (3:02 pm)

    I like the stickers layout and information except for the use of antiquated measuring units. The USA officially adopted the metric system in 1893 (Mendenhall order). Now we are well into the 21st century and the EPA suggests to still use gallon equivalents for electric cars?

    In a combined effort teachers and parents have set back generation after generation of American children behind those of the rest of the world by hanging onto the old system based on body parts (feet, inches etc.) … isn’t it time to go metric? Isn’t it time America joins the world?

    How many city/highway kilometers can you go with a full charge ?

    Vivifiant, Ohio


  76. 76
    Vivifiant

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Vivifiant
     Says

     

    Aug 30th, 2010 (3:04 pm)

    Other consideration:
    Since battery power is also dependent on the temperature, maybe there should be a state specific winter/summer number on the label: How far – how many kilometers – can one go with a fully charged battery in Florida vs. North Dakota etc.

    Vivifiant, Ohio


  77. 77
    CorvetteGuy

    +14

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    CorvetteGuy
     Says

     

    Aug 30th, 2010 (3:07 pm)

    James: Once again, it seems some here feel a need to cut the Toyota Prius. The Prius paved the road for Volt and is it’s main comparative vehicle. Corvetteguy and all the other Volt fanboys who cut down the Prius don’t get that. No problem with a Mustang-Camaro, Vette-911, F-150, Chevy C-K rivalry — but the Prius hate on here is one of the reasons I don’t post here often any more. Mention the Prius and get – votes all day. Someone will chime in and say it’s due to the Priuschat and Prius-fanboys who have come here to shoot arrows at the Volt. Instead of ignoring those people – and carrying on, it’s been the trend at gm-volt.com to battle. It’s made this site much less fun to post on. It’s highlighted narrow thinking and made those Volt fans who love their Prius and won’t be able to buy a Volt due to it’s limited production and sales feel they are coming into some sort of battle zone rather than a pro EV site with a general interest to reduce usage of fossil fuels and free America from it’s bondage to oil.RECHARGE!James  (Quote)

    This difference is, we only make light-hearted jokes. Those guys are serious __holes. Most of those here support all hybrid and/or electric cars. There is a diverse market for each car made. There cannot be only 1 hybrid vehicle for every market segment, any more than there can be just 1 gas engine car.

    This site was originally for interested persons to discuss and be informed about the development of the VOLT. There is no rational reason for supporters of the Prius to come here daily to bash any positive statement made about that development, but that is what they do. Constantly.

    So, as a person following this site for about 3 years now, when I post a light-hearted poke at the Prius Trolls, it’s not to start a war, they have already done that, it is just to remind them that we don’t take them seriously. They would have to be credible in order to do that.


  78. 78
    jim

    +3

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    jim
     Says

     

    Aug 30th, 2010 (3:08 pm)

    Speaking of MPGe equivalence of 33.7 kWh = 1 gallon of gas. That’s based on BTU’s per gallon … at what percentage efficiency? Will the EPA now require all manufacturers to calculate and report the efficiency, based on the BTU usage, of each model / engine / transmission / options / etc etc etc combination offered for sale? Let’s leave the fine print for the lawyers and just compare the numbers from car to car KEEPING MIND THEY BEAR LITTLE RESEMBLANCE TO ACTUAL RESULTS! These EPA labels are ONLY ONLY ONLY a CALCULATED METHOD designed to compare one vehicle with another. My Dad can beat the figures on any label while lead-foot Charlie racing from light to light will NEVER see those numbers.


  79. 79
    CorvetteGuy

    +7

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    CorvetteGuy
     Says

     

    Aug 30th, 2010 (3:16 pm)

    James: Corvetteguy? Won’t it be a rush to see SUVs, “performance cars” and large trucks with D stickers? Perhaps that’s a better thought than knocking the car that got us here.

    Not at all. A “D” sticker on work truck has no relation to an “A” sticker on VOLT. In fact, that “D” sticker is the type of motivation that ALL OF US have been asking for to get automakers to improve the efficiency of a V8 engine. How do you think the LS3-Powered Corvette made it on Car and Driver’s list of best fuel-efficient cars?


  80. 80
    mark wagner

    -1

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    mark wagner
     Says

     

    Aug 30th, 2010 (3:19 pm)

    I am glad to see labels that make more sense than some earlier rumored methods. I like that a separate number would be used for EV mode vs “range extended” mode. I am also glad to see kWh/100 miles reported (as well as gallon equivalent/ 100 miles).

    However I don’t agree with reporting a CO2 emissions number that does not account for any emissions from electricity generation. I think there should be an estimated CO2 based on local grid power generation or some method of reporting actual CO2 generation — or don’t report it at all. It is simply misleading to pretend all EVs produce no emissions regardless of their efficiency or miles driven or means of power generation. It is even more misleading (or confusing) when the issue is blurred by a dual mode EREV.

    I am a big supporter of electric transportation, but midleading praise is bound to have backlash and create confusion.


  81. 81
    James

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    James
     Says

     

    Aug 30th, 2010 (3:27 pm)

    Zach: To be honest, I don’t like any of them. There is too much information. Even I had a hard time following much of it, and I’ve been here for over 2 years.ALL they need is MPG in CS mode, and MPC (miles per charge) in EO (elec only) mode for both CITY and HWY driving. Any other means to label them is flawed.Lyle, put a pole up asking several options, which would we choose. I think this is all ridiculous.  (Quote)

    I have to agree with Zach. K.I.S.S.. I find all the data interesting enough but the common Joe and Joan want it straight up. These stickers have EnergyStar written all over them. Truth is, it’s like alot of my posts – too much information :) .

    These stickers give information that’s in constant flux with electricity rates and gas prices differing by region changing by the week. I can just see auto salespeople just saying, “your results may vary” alot, and confusing the customer more by trying to explain local rates and different numbers.

    The A-D rating is a plus. I feel it’s about time such a basic rating was given new cars and trucks. Truly, IMO this is the best part of the labels. Next to it give kwh usage, MPGe and CS mileage in large numbers. I say dumb the rest down and give the other data on a second sticker located next to the main one stating the dollar numbers vary and are just for comparison .

    A hybrid of the two choices including the A-D rating and the EV range graphic would be my choice. Leave the dollar-cost estimates, and Co2 green info to a secondary sticker. Competitor comparison graphic would be helpful for hybrids, but makes no sense, obviously for Volt or iMiev-LEAF since they have no class competitors at this juncture.

    RECHARGE!

    Thanks for all the negative votes for post #1. Humor, it appears, is not a language spoken here.

    James


  82. 82
    Tagamet

    +2

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Tagamet
     Says

     

    Aug 30th, 2010 (3:28 pm)

    Bill: Maybe I missed something on the EPA’s website, but it seems to me that ALL they are asking for is our input on the format/arrangement, Label 1 or 2 (EV).I don’t believe they’re going to change any of the categories, but I could be mistaken.  

    I submitted my comments anyway, just so “I’d” be on record. Actually I borrowed it from a post here.

    “I think 3 numbers – KWh/mi (or MPGe if they must) for all-electric mode, miles in all-electric mode, and MPG in ICE mode – is as simple as it can be made without losing too much info.”

    Be well,
    Tagamet


  83. 83
    LandKurt

    +1

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    LandKurt
     Says

     

    Aug 30th, 2010 (3:29 pm)

    jim: Speaking of MPGe equivalence of 33.7 kWh = 1 gallon of gas. That’s based on BTU’s per gallon … at what percentage efficiency?   

    I believe that is based on a 100% theoretical efficiency that no real world conversion will ever achieve. That’s my problem with it.

    jim: Let’s leave the fine print for the lawyers and just compare the numbers from car to car KEEPING MIND THEY BEAR LITTLE RESEMBLANCE TO ACTUAL RESULTS! These EPA labels are ONLY ONLY ONLY a CALCULATED METHOD designed to compare one vehicle with another. My Dad can beat the figures on any label while lead-foot Charlie racing from light to light will NEVER see those numbers.  

    I agree that EPA stickers are for comparing cars, not for exactly predicting your personal mileage.

    Using an MPGe equivalence between electric and gas is fixing a comparison rate between apples and oranges. I find it odd that they used such a theoretical basis of comparison. I suppose they figure they need something otherwise the average consumer will never be able to judge the difference between 40 MPG and 30 kWh/100mi. But then isn’t that what the big letter grade is for: boiling it down for the crowd that doesn’t like figures?


  84. 84
    Loboc

    +5

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Loboc
     Says

     

    Aug 30th, 2010 (3:29 pm)

    mark wagner: However I don’t agree with reporting a CO2 emissions number that does not account for any emissions from electricity generation. I think there should be an estimated CO2 based on local grid power generation or some method of reporting actual CO2 generation — or don’t report it at all.

    So the sticker would be different depending on the local grid mix? Not gonna happen.

    How about adding in the CO2 footprint for building the car as well? Not gonna happen.

    Besides, it’s a trivial amount of CO2 for 80c of electricity per day.

    They should drop the whole CO2 thing until it actually costs the consumer more to have a higher CO2 emission rating.


  85. 85
    Tagamet

    +1

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Tagamet
     Says

     

    Aug 30th, 2010 (3:30 pm)

    James: Thanks for all the negative votes for post #1. Humor, it appears, is not a language spoken here.

    I saw that happening and +1′d you, but I knew your humor was just not registering. Not your bad.

    Be well,
    Tagamet


  86. 86
    Bill

    +1

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Bill
     Says

     

    Aug 30th, 2010 (3:30 pm)

    mark wagner: I am glad to see labels that make more sense than some earlier rumored methods. I like that a separate number would be used for EV mode vs “range extended” mode. I am also glad to see kWh/100 miles reported (as well as gallon equivalent/ 100 miles).However I don’t agree with reporting a CO2 emissions number that does not account for any emissions from electricity generation. I think there should be an estimated CO2 based on local grid power generation or some method of reporting actual CO2 generation — or don’t report it at all. It is simply misleading to pretend all EVs produce no emissions regardless of their efficiency or miles driven or means of power generation. It is even more misleading (or confusing) when the issue is blurred by a dual mode EREV.I am a big supporter of electric transportation, but midleading praise is bound to have backlash and create confusion.  (Quote)

    I guess you missed my earlier post. Once again, they got it right! There aren’t ANY emissions when we charge our ALL electric cars (BEVs) with renewable energy such as wind, solar, etc. and more and more people are going to be using this method of charging, so there’s no way you can get an ‘average’ CO2 and other pollutant emissions.


  87. 87
    Redeye

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Redeye
     Says

     

    Aug 30th, 2010 (3:32 pm)

    I guess they EPA gets an “A” for effort.

    But “Gas Only” OK

    “Electric + Gas” NO. Hope they can do away with that part.

    I don’t know, maybe show how many miles per year you can drive with no gas whatsoever with one charge per day?


  88. 88
    DavidWA

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    DavidWA
     Says

     

    Aug 30th, 2010 (3:33 pm)

    There is a short video the EPA put out walking you through the stickers and asking for people’s comments that is worth a look. You can find it at the bottom of the story over at Statik’s site.

    http://nissan-leaf.net/2010/08/30/epa-puts-out-new-fuel-economy-labels-for-evs-and-erevs/#comments


  89. 89
    Mike Cohn

    -5

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Mike Cohn
     Says

     

    Aug 30th, 2010 (3:34 pm)

    “Global Warming does not exist. If it took 20 Gulf spills to finally get off imported oil, I say spill baby spill! Real Americans support the Volt. Traitor libs and eco-nazis support the Leaf and PHEV Prius”.

    “The Volt will fall apart because it’s not a Toyota. The soldiers knew there was a risk of dying when they joined. My main reason for buying the PHEV Prius or Leaf isn’t saving fuel, money or lives, it’s for the environment”.

    How much more stupid could both sides get?

    The signs are indeed confusing. The graphics and colors are nice IF they don’t confuse. A clearer point about miles of all-electric at certain speed is needed. Gas consumed should be highlighted in two forms – with battery and without. A simple blended number is not enough. I want to know what it will get when the battery is depleted and I’m driving on just gas. Gallons per hundred miles is useful if ALL gas consumption stickers are changed, not just the ones for EV and PHEV.


  90. 90
    James

    -10

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    James
     Says

     

    Aug 30th, 2010 (3:35 pm)

    (click to show comment)


  91. 91
    Wes

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Wes
     Says

     

    Aug 30th, 2010 (3:37 pm)

    Letter grade is awesome as the general public will understand this at large. It’s awesome to see such a leap forward from the current label.


  92. 92
    Lon

    +1

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Lon
     Says

     

    Aug 30th, 2010 (3:38 pm)

    Good point Mark – Base the CO2 emissions on a nightly charge and watt consumption then could divide that by 40 for the first 40 miles, lump that with the first part of the miles on battery only,
    then use a different CO2 emission for the generator output on the miles to zero for the electric mode supported by gas generator portion of sticker. Still would only have two seperate figures, so consumers could average if they want or figure the first portion if they just do local commutes,
    Bill: could qualify that with a based on local electric gride and say Zero if wind or solar?


  93. 93
    Nixon

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Nixon
     Says

     

    Aug 30th, 2010 (3:40 pm)

    I’m highly confused. If Lyle is right, and the mixed “Electric + Gas” label will be used for the Volt, then what is the label on page 12 titled:

    “Label 2 for PHEV, extended range electric (series) type”

    From this EPA pdf to be used for?
    http://www.epa.gov/fueleconomy/label/label-designs.pdf

    I think THIS one on Page 12 that just has an electric MPGe number and a gas number is the best fit for the Volt. It makes the most sense. If it isn’t what the EPA is planning on using for the Volt, then eveyone should be commenting to tell them they should be using this one instead of the one Lyle posted.


  94. 94
    Tim Hart

    +2

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Tim Hart
     Says

     

    Aug 30th, 2010 (3:44 pm)

    I’m with The Grump. The EPA should tell the consumer how far it goes on electricity only and how far it goes on a gallon when the generator kicks in. That’s all you really need to know to choose between AN EREV and a BEV.


  95. 95
    Nixon

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Nixon
     Says

     

    Aug 30th, 2010 (3:45 pm)

    Also see “Label 3 for PHEV, extended range electric (series) type” on page 18. Again, this looks WAY better than the one Lyle posted. It also drops the “Electric+Gas” number for a pure electric MPGe number. This would be a good option too. How do we know which one they are proposing using for the Volt? Does Lyle have inside information, because I didn’t see anything that specifically said the Volt would use any particular label under the proposed rules.

    http://www.epa.gov/fueleconomy/label/label-designs.pdf


  96. 96
    Sasparilla

    +2

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Sasparilla
     Says

     

    Aug 30th, 2010 (3:46 pm)

    It seems like the EPA is going to go with one or the other type, is that what everyone else understanding?

    While the letter grade is certainly easy to look at and know an A is supposed to be better than a B+, it doesn’t seem as clear when trying to discern additional information (and an A to one person would certainly be different than an A to another – and one or the other will not like it).

    I’d definitely vote for Label Option 2 (which is the first label type that Lyle has posted up there) – it conveys alot of details pretty clearly.

    For the Plug In Hybrid label I think they just need to add one more section to the “Charge & Range” bar and that would be Pure Electric (Range) first, then the Blended Electric section and then the Extended Range section. This would cover vehicle like the Volt that can go all electric (and show it off) and it would cover vehicles like the Plug In Prius which will be driving in much more of a blended format and consumers would be able to see that. I’m going to add that as a comment to them.

    This is much better than I thought the Feds would do on this, quite frankly – seeing a mpg for gas only on the plug in sticker made me smile as I didn’t think they’d put that on there. Nice to see this moving along.


  97. 97
    steve

    +1

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    steve
     Says

     

    Aug 30th, 2010 (4:00 pm)

    Well at first glance I think they can do better. I think the blended rating of the hybrid shouldn’t be there unless the car is a plug-in without any electric-only capability. That’s essentially how the plug-in Prius conversions work. I have mixed feelings about the 100mile reference point they seem determined to include.

    EREV types should state electric range, Kw-hr. capacity, and Kw-hr. per mile. State the fuel economy for gas only with battery discharged (looks like this part is OK)

    MPGe is unnecessary. Just state it in kilowatt-hrs per mile. MPGe makes even less sense for a pure BEV. It doesn’t use gas right? So why is the EPA still rating it in MPG? You’ll end up with BEV owners in gas stations looking for the gas cap.


  98. 98
    CorvetteGuy

    +9

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    CorvetteGuy
     Says

     

    Aug 30th, 2010 (4:02 pm)

    James: I don’t feel the future has any place for V-8 performance cars or large, inefficient, non-hybrid fullsized trucks. As a car salesman, you say, “Hey it’s all good, man!” Your job is to say that.

    There have been ‘performance cars’ since the horseless carriage was invented. That’s not going to go away. But those cars are the smallest fraction of all cars made, so removing all of them would have no impact on anything except a large ‘aftermarket and parts’ industry.

    As for the personal work truck, of course there is room for improvement on those. And there has been in the last 20 years. But there is a long way to go. I would love to see a 40 or 50 MPG Silverado that can tow a 9,000 pound trailer, that is LESS than $30,000 – - – who wouldn’t?

    I’m sorry you don’t like performance cars, but if “Driving Miss Daisy” is your style, then “Hey! It’s all good, man.”


  99. 99
    Vivifiant

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Vivifiant
     Says

     

    Aug 30th, 2010 (4:09 pm)

    Maybe in addition to the EPA sticker there should be a permanent sticker (on the licence plate or in the windshield) showing the pollution of the car. France has a bonus-malus taxes system based on the eco-friendliness of cars. The French government issues an annual list of all models/makes of cars sold in France showing their carbon dioxide pollution per km.
    If you buy a clean – low pollution car you get money (bonus) at the first registration whereas if you buy a high pollution car you pay a taxes (malus).

    Examples: A clean Opel-Corsa (General Motors), Group “A” will get you a bonus of 100 Euros ($130) at registration while a highly polluting Renault Espace, group “G” will set you back 2600 Euros ($3300) at registration.

    Car dealers in France proudly advertise the eco-friendly cars and manufacturers thrive to re-design and tweak engines to lower pollution to get into the next lower group. Consumers buy increasingly eco-friendly cars to not have the stigma of being an intentional polluter.

    Link to the list:
    http://www.ademe.fr/auto-diag/transports/rubrique/CarLabelling/ListeMarque-es.asp

    Maybe your next car is less polluting, maybe electric? As mentioned above, in addition to the EPA label I suggest a fixed sticker for all cars showing their pollution, maybe with letters from A through G like in France or some other classification clearly showing their impact on the environment.

    Vivifiant, Ohio


  100. 100
    N Riley

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    N Riley
     Says

     

    Aug 30th, 2010 (4:19 pm)

    Putting the letter grade on the label will help the potential buyer, but if the letter grade was placed on the vehicle permanently, it would cause many of us to better choose a vehicle. We would not want to forever be reminded and displayed to others that we are driving a grade C car when we could have been driving a grade B or even possibly a grade A car.


  101. 101
    N Riley

    +1

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    N Riley
     Says

     

    Aug 30th, 2010 (4:21 pm)

    I see Vivifiant (#99) was thinking along the same lines as I was. Great minds………


  102. 102
    Tagamet

    +1

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Tagamet
     Says

     

    Aug 30th, 2010 (4:27 pm)

    N Riley: I see Vivifiant (#99) was thinking along the same lines as I was.Great minds………  

    How ’bout we settle on “similar minds…..” (g).

    Be well,
    Tagamet


  103. 103
    N Riley

    +2

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    N Riley
     Says

     

    Aug 30th, 2010 (4:32 pm)

    Tag,

    I am satisfied to even have a mind. You still interested in the Volt or are you like me? Just waiting for either one to get to your area first – the Volt or the Leaf.


  104. 104
    CorvetteGuy

    +4

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    CorvetteGuy
     Says

     

    Aug 30th, 2010 (4:35 pm)

    Bill: I can’t wait to see the A+ sticker on the LEAF.

    I agree. If the VOLT gets an “A” on emissions, then the LEAF should get the “A+”.
    The tables only turn when you add ‘total range’ into it. Both are going to do very well for their individual market segments.


  105. 105
    Tagamet

    +2

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Tagamet
     Says

     

    Aug 30th, 2010 (4:39 pm)

    N Riley: Tag,I am satisfied to even have a mind.You still interested in the Volt or are you like me?Just waiting for either one to get to your area first – the Volt or the Leaf.  

    Wanting to document the existence of a resident mind is my quest as well. I had a $1K deposit down in a neighboring state that was getting more than a dozen. Then the price came out. So much for “comfortably under $30K” (lol). I have two part-time jobs going, so (God willing) I’ll be around for Gen II. If I’m upright, I will at some point have a Volt! We’re too spread out around these parts to get by with a Leaf (though I wish them success).

    Be well,
    Tagamet


  106. 106
    Nixon

    +3

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Nixon
     Says

     

    Aug 30th, 2010 (4:42 pm)

    The Label Lyle has posted DOES NOT represent the proposed rules!!! This IS NOT how the Volt will be labeled!! The Volt will have a heading of “All Electric (first x miles only)”. Only something like a Prius PHEV would have the “Blended Electric + Gas (first x miles only)” if 600.308-12 subpart E is changed as proposed on page 218 of the full rules:

    http://www.epa.gov/fueleconomy/label/nprm-label2010.pdf

    (1) If the vehicle’s engine starts only after the battery is fully discharged, include the following
    heading statement: “All Electric (first x miles only)”. If the vehicle uses combined power from
    the battery and the engine before the battery is fully discharged, include the following heading
    statement: “Blended Electric + Gas (first x miles only)”.

    The label Lyle posted that lists “Blended Electric + Gas” does NOT reflect this proposed rule!!


  107. 107
    Engineer

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Engineer
     Says

     

    Aug 30th, 2010 (4:43 pm)

    @nasaman

    I am going to disagree on the point of letter classification. In order to use the Letter classification consumers must FIRST be familiar with the terminology. Not every consumer will know what a class “A” fuel rating means. However with a number, anyone can identify with that, and will instantly know what it means.

    Also with a letter classification, at a glance there is no way to compare car A and car B. Both car A and B have a grade “A” rating. but which one is better?

    I think it almost necessitates that the largest part of the page is devoted to a number.

    Because think about it, do you know the numerical difference between a LEV and an ULEV? Most will say no, but can qualify it and say that “ultra” is better than not. But when making a purchasing decision I can’t quantify a “turbo”, “ultra”, “mega” to each other without prior knowledge.


  108. 108
    stuey81_in_australia

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    stuey81_in_australia
     Says

     

    Aug 30th, 2010 (4:44 pm)

    30 miles of charge? what the? then down the bottom it says this vehicle gets 56 mpg equivelant but up top 38 mpg, someone explain this to me?

    stuey


  109. 109
    Nixon

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Nixon
     Says

     

    Aug 30th, 2010 (4:45 pm)

    OK, now the images that Lyle had posted before that had “blended” are gone, and the right ones are there. I feel better now.


  110. 110
    flmark

    +1

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    flmark
     Says

     

    Aug 30th, 2010 (4:47 pm)

    I don’t like any of this and a LOT of paradigm shifting needs to be done if these stickers are to have any merit at all. One must ask ALL of the future-type questions. For example, 3 years from now, it may be an option to choose how much battery to put into your mixed/combo/sorta/full time EV. Where will the EPA (and a number of suggestions here) be then? How about as we swap out what backs up those initial all-electric miles? Isn’t it conceivable that we could have a choice between gasoline, NG and even wood pellet fired? I don’t have answers for all of this, but before we make suggestions to the EPA, we better ask ourselves where this will head from here. My feeling right now is that these proposed stickers will only become more convoluted as time marches on. Forget current mindset; it won’t work for very long at all!


  111. 111
    kent beuchert

    -1

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    kent beuchert
     Says

     

    Aug 30th, 2010 (4:52 pm)

    Once again either the EPA or GM, or both ) are telling fibs and/or nonsense. 30 mile electric range doesn’t jibe with anything GM has said in the past. Nor does the MPG while operating under gas mode. At least the EPA is not quite as braindead as in the past, when it tried to assign a
    simple (and totally meaningless) MPG number for a car that basically doesn’t have an MPG.
    I’ll wait for Road and Track to test this car to see how close they can come to reality.


  112. 112
    Henryk

    -3

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Henryk
     Says

     

    Aug 30th, 2010 (5:07 pm)

    I prefer this solution, at least it can be applied to all gasoline-fueled cars.
    Yes electric car is the future, but for at least 20 years

    The FireStorm Plasma iPlug is a new entry in the formerly mundane area of Spark Plugs. All Spark Plugs produce “sparks” to ignite the Air Fuel Mixture in the combustion Chambers. FireStorm is different, it produces “PLASMA”. By doing that, it eliminates the Catalytic Converter and EGR Systems and can still pass future emission requirements in California.

    Here is a clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=abwXApkLhbc

    Further testing after that clip was shot in Detroit proved a 70% savings in fuel all while affording a 125 More Horsepower.
    It is a Paradigm Shift in Air Fuel Ratio as this plug operates at 30 to 1 Air to Fuel Ratio. All current IC engines operate at 14.7 to 1 and require a Cat and EGR.

    FireStorm can even crack water right in the Combustion_Chamber thereby eliminating so-called HHO Generators. Can I hear fill your car up at the side of your house with the garden hose? YES!!!!


  113. 113
    DonC

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    DonC
     Says

     

    Aug 30th, 2010 (5:08 pm)

    Luke: Air may be free, but the energy to compress the air in an air-powered cars is not free. I’ve run the numbers, and it’s the same energy storage per kg is similar to lead-acid batteries for a backyard “hot rod” style conversion.

    And the question would have to be: So what? Maybe if you didn’t get why efficiencies don’t matter this might be a better example. I have a solar PV system. You have a gas generator. We both make X amount of electricity. My PV system is less efficient than your generator but, a big but, sunlight to power my PV system is free whereas the gasoline needed to run your generator is not. So you’re getting a much higher MPGe so to speak, but since my system isn’t incurring any costs which would be better?

    Focusing on efficiencies only makes sense when you’re measuring the use of the same energy source. Otherwise it’s like trying to measure apples in terms of oranges. Saying that “if electricity were gasoline” is about as realistic as saying “if wishes were horses”. They’re not so what’s the point of pretending they are?


  114. 114
    Jim I

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Jim I
     Says

     

    Aug 30th, 2010 (5:09 pm)

    IMHO, converting an electric car back to MPGe just makes no sense. You might as well convert it back to bales of hay eaten per horse per day….

    Either give us a comparison of what it costs to fuel the vehicle per year for a standard driving test, or go with what we have been saying here for years and Grump said again today.

    Maybe it is a good thing I will not be able to purchase until late 2011. Because within 30 days of the first Volt being delivered to a gm-volt.com member, there will be a post here that tells me exactly what I want to know, which is:

    What is the real world AER of the vehicle in city driving and highway driving

    And:

    How far you can drive on a full tank of gas, and how many gallons of gas it took to fill it back up in city and highway driving.

    From that, I will be able to estimate what my yearly consumption of electric and gasoline will be. I know that my actual numbers will depend upon where I live, and my driving style, but it will give me a much better idea that what I am seeing on these EPA labels.


  115. 115
    Jim stACk

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Jim stACk
     Says

     

    Aug 30th, 2010 (5:10 pm)

    Looks pretty good. It hard to say everything in a wndow sticker. Simple and shrt yet clear . This does a good job of that.


  116. 116
    Tagamet

    +1

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Tagamet
     Says

     

    Aug 30th, 2010 (5:11 pm)

    Nixon: OK, now the images that Lyle had posted before that had “blended” are gone, and the right ones are there.I feel better now.  

    I was getting concerned for you. These things tend to resolve themselves (usually with a poster’s help). Thanks.

    Be well,
    Tagamet


  117. 117
    DonC

    +3

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    DonC
     Says

     

    Aug 30th, 2010 (5:12 pm)

    stuey81_in_australia: 30 miles of charge? what the? then down the bottom it says this vehicle gets 56 mpg equivelant but up top 38 mpg, someone explain this to me?

    My advice is to ignore everything but the part that says you will save $5700 over five years.


  118. 118
    John W (Tampa)

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    John W (Tampa)
     Says

     

    Aug 30th, 2010 (5:13 pm)

    No matter what they do some company is gonna be unhappy. Putting a combined number in the first 50 isn’t good for the Volt, 30 or 40 would be better, then you have the plug in prius which uses gas over 50 mph, this is gonna be a mess.. Even the grade system is a bit unfair. If you drive 25 miles a day the Volt should be an A+ like a full electric. I’m gonna stay out of it.


  119. 119
    VancouverJon

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    VancouverJon
     Says

     

    Aug 30th, 2010 (5:14 pm)

    ClarksonCote:
    GPM makes more sense, IMO, because it’s much easier to quantify gasoline savings than MPG.Somebody going from 40MPG to 50MPG doesn’t save more gas than someone going from 10MPG to 15MPG.This isn’t readily understood until you describe usage in a gallons-per-100 miles (or liters/100kM) type format.MPG only tells some of the story.join thE REVolution  

    Ok, that makes sense. GPM does make comparisons between vehicles more concrete, but specifically showing how much less fuel you would need. Although once you own the vehicle, I still think mpg is more useful. It’s much easier to calculate for a simple way to see that your car is still operating ok.


  120. 120
    ClarksonCote

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    ClarksonCote
     Says

     

    Aug 30th, 2010 (5:24 pm)

    ClarksonCote: I hope for the Volt, they have “Electric Only” and “Gas Only” on the label, versus “Electric + Gas” and “Gas Only”join thE REVolution  

    So I noticed now that there’s an updated main graphic for this story on the top of this page that has the “Electric only” and “Gas only” depiction that I was hoping for, but I didn’t find this version when looking at the EPA website. Lyle, where’d you get this from?

    join thE REVolution


  121. 121
    CBK

    +1

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    CBK
     Says

     

    Aug 30th, 2010 (5:25 pm)

    I don’t get it. This is just making a mountain out of a mole hill. For Pete’s sake, just show the expected range using battery only and in CS mode the MPG. In both cases the caveat is “your mileage will vary” depending on your foot, terrain, and weather.

    IMHO 99% of the people will ignore/not understand the CO2 issues and basically will care not one
    whit.


  122. 122
    Tagamet

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Tagamet
     Says

     

    Aug 30th, 2010 (5:29 pm)

    ClarksonCote:
    So I noticed now that there’s an updated main graphic for this story on the top of this page that has the “Electric only” and “Gas only” depiction that I was hoping for, but I didn’t find this version when looking at the EPA website.Lyle, where’d you get this from?join thE REVolution  

    It’s one of the last 3 images in the pdf file.

    Be well,
    Tagamet


  123. 123
    Streetlight

    +1

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Streetlight
     Says

     

    Aug 30th, 2010 (5:31 pm)

    I vote the top label more appropriate. EPA got this right: battery mode as distinguished from ER mode. The battery mode box (of the label) should include a useful disclosure of charge times vs. outlet voltage type. The ‘Gas Only’ box needs to add, for consistency, the size of the fuel tank. (Because the battery mode box refers to range.) I’d also like to see a notice that the owner’s manual recommends premium gas. Along with a note range & fuel consumption are determined at 0.0 incline and STP (Standard temp & pressure.)

    However, the sticker title box needs work. Its outright confusing. Now we get into the sticky issue of how to ID EV propulsion. (There also needs to be a sticker ID itself – other than to refer to it as “its says ‘xxx’”) VOLT being an all-electric motor drive-it should state exactly that. And so forth. So we have:

    All-Electric Combination Drive Vehicle
    1) Battery (Plug-in re-charge See box xxx for electric charge times) And,
    2) Extended Range Generator driven Gas Engine Drive. (See box xxx for gas consumption)

    No acronyms. No techie speak. No spin. No more confusion.


  124. 124
    ClarksonCote

    +2

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    ClarksonCote
     Says

     

    Aug 30th, 2010 (5:33 pm)

    ClarksonCote:
    So I noticed now that there’s an updated main graphic for this story on the top of this page that has the “Electric only” and “Gas only” depiction that I was hoping for, but I didn’t find this version when looking at the EPA website.Lyle, where’d you get this from?join thE REVolution  

    *Grumble grumble*… I found where it was now, just after the edit time expires. I guess I like label option 2 in the “All Labels” PDF file of the EPA’s website. Seems like that gives the most relevant spread of information. I also like how they distinguish series hybrids from parallel hybrids.

    http://www.epa.gov/fueleconomy/label/label-designs.pdf

    The image below clearly indicates, in my opinion, how a vehicle like the Volt would work, and how your distance after all-electric mode will decrease your effective MPG. It doesn’t have a chart of different travel distances, but it still conveys the concept well, and succinctly.

    epa.png

    join thE REVolution


  125. 125
    Dylan

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Dylan
     Says

     

    Aug 30th, 2010 (5:33 pm)

    I think the more information you can get on the sticker without being to cluttered is a good thing. At the high level, yes people will be confused at first, but you have to understand that buying one of these things is a huge investment for people so the general buyer is going to do some research if they choose to buy these vehicles and sugar coating the information isn’t going to help that. To me it is like looking at the nutritional information on the back of food. At first you have no idea what any of those vitamins mean, but they become extremely needed information to the informed consumer.

    Saying that the detailed information you give on the sticker should be consistent. For instance, the “takes 4 hours to charge” piece is extremly subjective without any contexts of how that number was given (KWh of the battery, voltage/amp of the charger). For the Volt for instance you are dealing with 8 KWh usable pack so the general person can get away with a 110v charger, but the leaf will need a 220-240 charger (yet the charge times will be fairly close to each other). Now to put that information on the sticker would confuse people so there should be some type of balance there.

    I feel that the letter grade sticker is assuming the average consumer is in 5th grade. My first look at that sticker and i went… “yeah it got an A…. sooo that means what to me”. I look at that sheet and i only look at 3 numbers, cost savings, MPG blended, MPG gas. the MPG blended doesnt tell me anything except that if i drive exactly 50 miles i can expect that much gas burned, but doesnt give any indication of the 49th or 51st mile. The annual fuel cost is kind of around that same assumption level that the blended values come from.

    I think the general consumer should have the how many miles on electric and MPG in CS mode (series hybrid) information, but a tabled chart of different driving conditions with combined modes is just too much information for someone to quickly take a look at and come up with a good idea of what to expect. When you start mixing the results of the electric motor which is finite against a gas MPG rating, you fill the form with information that any person who can do simple multiplication can do on their own if the 2 values are sparated from eachother. If a manufacture wants to try and sell an experience of their car to a consumer, the manufacture can have a 2nd label on the car.

    The govenment label is there to inform the consumer of the facts.


  126. 126
    kdawg

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    kdawg
     Says

     

    Aug 30th, 2010 (5:34 pm)

    “There are two different labels, one for blended PHEVs and one for EREVs (the Volt). ”

    So much for the EPA grouping the Volt with the PHEV’s. I’m glad they recognize the series design as something different then a plug in parallel design.


  127. 127
    Jackson

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Jackson
     Says

     

    Aug 30th, 2010 (5:42 pm)

    James: Thanks for all the negative votes for post #1. Humor, it appears, is not a language spoken here by James.


  128. 128
    CorvetteGuy

    +4

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    CorvetteGuy
     Says

     

    Aug 30th, 2010 (5:47 pm)

    I walked over to the Parts Department to order up (2) of the 2011 VOLT Owner’s manuals… HolyGuacamoleeee!!! Their $105.00 each… The system says they are not available yet, so I can’t place a pending order. My parts manager is going to let me know when ordering one is allowed.


  129. 129
    koz

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    koz
     Says

     

    Aug 30th, 2010 (5:48 pm)

    Sheesh! What a mess. Why would they propose a label that doesn’t have the information one needs to estimate one’s fuel use? Yet they give a bunch of useless or obscure information. Why are they calling one mode All Electric if they intend it to cover PHEVs that will have a blended charge depleting mode like the Prius. Yes, it will be confusing at first, but charge depleting or the like more accurately describes this mode of operation.

    In order to esitmate the annual fuel costs, you need to know:
    Charge Depletion- Miles/kwh(with max charge depletion kwh from the wall) plus mpg(where applicable such as the PHEV Pruis)
    Charge Sustaining- mpg

    We NEED to know this since we cannot purchase G-equivalents anywhere and they don’t give the breakdown electricity and gas. For the Volt, there is enough info on the sticker but you would have to calculate the total Kwh for electric only (charge depleting) mode from the range given and the kwh/100miles (why not just kwh/mile?). But for a blended PHEV how would one figure the breakdown of electricity and gas?

    If they feel breaking it down by city and highway is too complicated and for this class of vehicle it is unimportant since the difference between the two is not that great, then I’m OK with combined numbers only. They could also use the same basic sticker for BEVs and just put a big N/A by charge depletion.

    The annual fuel cost estimate in huge font will just mislead most people since it is accurate for nearly nobody. It assumes: 15,000 miles annual of which an unknown qty is driven in each mode, $2.80/gal, $0.12/kwh, and meeting the EPA rate cunsumption rates. Everybody who will line up for that, please raise their hand. If they want to give something useful here make a chart or graph so people can interpret something meaningful for their personnal driving condition.

    Ooops. I just reread Lyle’s article and see they will have different stickers for EREV and blended PHEVs. This removes a lot of my criticism but it is still misleading and overly complex for the individual that wants to estimate his/her fuel costs.


  130. 130
    Carefreelynn

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Carefreelynn
     Says

     

    Aug 30th, 2010 (5:49 pm)

    I’m not crazy about any of the three stickers. A suggestion might be to adopt something close to the Energy Star stickers people already use http://www.ehow.com/how_5917138_read-star-label-home-appliances.html

    The last sticker of the three comes closest, but toward the bottom there is WAY too much detail. People who want that detail should go to the EPA website or it should be provided on the GM website or both.


  131. 131
    koz

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    koz
     Says

     

    Aug 30th, 2010 (5:50 pm)

    CorvetteGuy: I walked over to the Parts Department to order up (2) of the 2011 VOLT Owner’s manuals… HolyGuacamoleeee!!! Their $105.00 each… The system says they are not available yet, so I can’t place a pending order yet. My parts manager is going to let me know when ordering one is allowed.  (Quote)

    That’s absurd. How much is a CD?


  132. 132
    Tagamet

    +1

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Tagamet
     Says

     

    Aug 30th, 2010 (5:58 pm)

    CorvetteGuy: I walked over to the Parts Department to order up (2) of the 2011 VOLT Owner’s manuals… HolyGuacamoleeee!!! Their $105.00 each… The system says they are not available yet, so I can’t place a pending order. My parts manager is going to let me know when ordering one is allowed.  

    LOL, you must be ordering the one with the gas tank info in it.

    Be well,
    Tagamet


  133. 133
    Jackson

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Jackson
     Says

     

    Aug 30th, 2010 (6:03 pm)

    Tagamet:
    It’s one of the last 3 images in the pdf file.Be well,
    Tagamet  

    I have a habit of making copies of any pdf’s I come across. The one I downloaded this morning does not have this information, or these label designs. Could they have changed their minds already?


  134. 134
    Dan Durston

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Dan Durston
     Says

     

    Aug 30th, 2010 (6:04 pm)

    n/m


  135. 135
    Jackson

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Jackson
     Says

     

    Aug 30th, 2010 (6:07 pm)

    CorvetteGuy: I walked over to the Parts Department to order up (2) of the 2011 VOLT Owner’s manuals… HolyGuacamoleeee!!! Their $105.00 each… The system says they are not available yet, so I can’t place a pending order. My parts manager is going to let me know when ordering one is allowed.

    What is the cost for a replacement Owners’ manual for other cars? I’d think that you get one free with your car, but if you wanted another one, you’d have to pay for it.


  136. 136
    Scott

    +1

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Scott
     Says

     

    Aug 30th, 2010 (6:10 pm)

    Charge time should be represented in miles per hour or minutes per mile. Stating the charge time total gives an advantage to cars with shorter ranges


  137. 137
    Tagamet

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Tagamet
     Says

     

    Aug 30th, 2010 (6:15 pm)

    Jackson:
    I have a habit of making copies of any pdf’s I come across.The one I downloaded this morning does not have this information, or these label designs.Could they have changed their minds already?  

    Well, it’s the Gubmnt…..
    Try here:
    http://www.epa.gov/fueleconomy/label/label-designs.pdf
    Be well,
    Tagamet


  138. 138
    CorvetteGuy

    +1

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    CorvetteGuy
     Says

     

    Aug 30th, 2010 (6:16 pm)

    Tagamet: LOL, you must be ordering the one with the gas tank info in it.

    Maybe the price will come down on that after the “Top Secret” label comes off.


  139. 139
    Dan Durston

    +4

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Dan Durston
     Says

     

    Aug 30th, 2010 (6:22 pm)

    Nice to see Lyle has changed the labels shown to the ones applicable to the volt (‘electric series type’ rather than ‘predominately blended’ type). To be clear, here are the two potential labels for the Volt:

    Screenshot2010-08-30at40325PM.png

    Screenshot2010-08-30at40343PM.png

    In general, I’m okay with these labels but I still don’t like what they are doing with the MPGe idea and trying to use that to compare EREVs to EV’s and gas cars. The way they are using MPGe to compare vehicles is hugely unfair. I hope I can articulate this clearly:

    In the EPA example they use a fictional EREV that gets 98 MPGe in EV mode and 38 MPG in gas mode. Using some hidden methodology, they’ve combined those figures to give the car an overall MPGe of 56. This figure appears on the comparison slider as being middle of the road for midsized cars.

    Here’s the problem, what if you had the exact same electric car without the range extension ability? Since there would be no gas mode, the overall MPGe would be just the electric mode MPGe or 98 MPGe in this case. The non-range extended EV would get an overall 98 MPGe rating and the extended range one would get a lowly 56 MPGe overall. On the comparison slider, the non extended range one would appear pretty much best in class, whereas the EREV would look mediocre. Under this system, the non-extended range one would appear to be twice as energy efficient as the extended range one, when the reality is that the extended range one can do everything the non ER one can do and lots more. To keep things fair, you should only compare EV mode to EV mode and then state the CS milage (if applicable) for EV’s with range extension.


  140. 140
    Jackson

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Jackson
     Says

     

    Aug 30th, 2010 (6:26 pm)

    Tagamet:
    Well, it’s the Gubmnt…..
    Try here:
    http://www.epa.gov/fueleconomy/label/label-designs.pdf
    Be well,
    Tagamet  

    Whoa!!! That is totally different from the 7-pager I downloaded by clicking the link in Lyle’s article:

    http://www.epa.gov/fueleconomy/label/420f10049.pdf


  141. 141
    Robert

    +3

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Robert
     Says

     

    Aug 30th, 2010 (6:27 pm)

    I find the whole MPGe rating useless, why do they make it so prominent?
    The 2 most important numbers for me are Range in all Electric mode, and MPG in all Gas mode, but niether one makes the Range prominent enough, the time it takes to charge also seems important and is only on the first, but they dont say what voltage and amperage they are charging it at.


  142. 142
    Tagamet

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Tagamet
     Says

     

    Aug 30th, 2010 (6:28 pm)

    CorvetteGuy: Tagamet: LOL, you must be ordering the one with the gas tank info in it.

    Maybe the price will come down on that after the “Top Secret” label comes off.

    I forgot, you must have “car salesman clearance” levels. (poke, poke). I just ordered one for $12.95, and if I order now, I get TWO, for only the extra shipping and handling.

    Be well,
    Tagamet


  143. 143
    Tagamet

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Tagamet
     Says

     

    Aug 30th, 2010 (6:30 pm)

    Jackson: Tagamet:
    Well, it’s the Gubmnt…..
    Try here:
    http://www.epa.gov/fueleconomy/label/label-designs.pdf
    Be well,
    Tagamet

    Whoa!!! That is totally different from the 7-pager I downloaded by clicking the link in Lyle’s article:

    http://www.epa.gov/fueleconomy/label/420f10049.pdf

    Gee, I hope it’s better. We aim to please.

    Be well,
    Tagamet


  144. 144
    Tim

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Tim
     Says

     

    Aug 30th, 2010 (6:35 pm)

    I think they should post the average cost for a kilowatt hour of electricity, just so the average consumer can further.understand the economics


  145. 145
    Nikeman

    +1

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Nikeman
     Says

     

    Aug 30th, 2010 (6:36 pm)

    I would think all that is needed is:

    kWh consumed to recharge depleted battery

    Then

    Miles on one charge using EPA city cycles
    Miles on one charge using EPA highway cycles

    This should handle urban and freeway commutes

    MPG in sustaining mode in EPA city cycle
    MPG in sustaining mode in EPA highway cycle

    Give us that and a calculator and we could figure out all permutations

    Performance at 20, 70 and 100 degrees would be nice but potentially confusing to folks less enlightened that those who prowl this hallowed site

    CO2 and other outputs in sustaining mode would be helpful for the folks of a greener tint


  146. 146
    CorvetteGuy

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    CorvetteGuy
     Says

     

    Aug 30th, 2010 (6:50 pm)

    Tagamet: I forgot, you must have “car salesman clearance” levels. (poke, poke). I just ordered one for $12.95, and if I order now, I get TWO, for only the extra shipping and handling.Be well,Tagamet  (Quote)

    Hmmm.. I guess we really are on the bottom of the food chain around here. ;)

    I looked at the parts computer screen. It did show $105.00 – - – I’ll just wait till next month and try again.


  147. 147
    Tagamet

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Tagamet
     Says

     

    Aug 30th, 2010 (7:02 pm)

    CorvetteGuy:
    Hmmm.. I guess we really are on the bottom of the food chain around here.
    I looked at the parts computer screen. It did show $105.00 – – – I’ll just wait till next month and try again.  

    Perspective is a funny thing …. From where *I’m* sitting, you’re at the top of the food chain, with all those Volts to play with and getting paid to take people on test drives (where the car sells itself). Nice work if you can get it (g).

    Be well,
    Tagamet


  148. 148
    Jeff

    +8

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Jeff
     Says

     

    Aug 30th, 2010 (7:11 pm)

    jim: CO2? Carbon footprint? Whoa. I thought all that nonsense was debunked and shelved months ago with the exposure of the behind-the-scenes shenanigans of ‘green scientists’ manipulating and hiding non-supportive data. Anyhow, guess that wasn’t too widely advertised by the ‘green’ media, eh. I had to laugh when greenWin said the masses wouldn’t understand it. He is 100% correct but not for the reason he thinks. He’s right because only the elite in their rarefied air-conditioned penthouses — and, well, politicians too — swallow this kind of nonsense. The average working guy knows snake oil when he hears/sees it and slams the door on it.  (Quote)

    Sigh… I’m amazed no one else has jumped in on this yet, so I guess I’ll bite the bullet and do it myself.

    Jim… I guess to you the “green media” must be everyone except Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck. The only thing that’s been “debunked” is the idea that the right-wing-manufactured “climategate” ever actually called into question the basic science behind global warming. There were indeed some minor errors in the latest IPCC report (and that should be embarrassing to the scientists involved), but numerous independent investigations have backed up the vast majority of its conclusions.

    But I guess if you’re really so gullible as to believe that global warming is some grand green conspiracy, then I guess you’re also probably not smart enough to understand the physics behind global warming. (oh, snap! needless personal insult!)

    And how do those conspiracy theories go again? The scientists willfully and perpetually lie to the public simply to keep government research grants coming their way to help solve a problem that doesn’t actually exist…? And politicians play along because they have such a lust for power and control over the populace that they’ll use any excuse to increase taxes and regulation…? And the rich, Volvo-driving, latte-sipping, liberal elites play along because they’d like nothing more than to see the lower- and middle-class suffer with higher energy costs? Am I getting this about right? Or can you not hear me over the crinkling noises from your tin-foil helmet?

    I definitely want to buy American and I do want to reduce oil imports and the trade deficit, but personally my #1 reason for wanting a Volt is to reduce the amount of CO2 I put into the atmosphere. It’s not because I love trees or whales or whatever. I just think it’s the responsible thing to do for future generations.


  149. 149
    JEC

    +1

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    JEC
     Says

     

    Aug 30th, 2010 (7:11 pm)

    CorvetteGuy:
    Hmmm.. I guess we really are on the bottom of the food chain around here.
    I looked at the parts computer screen. It did show $105.00 – – – I’ll just wait till next month and try again.  

    I would hope the owners manual would be electronic. With those fancy displays on the Volt, why not put them to some real use, and let me browse the pdf’ed manual.

    I brought this up a year + ago, but I really wish they would provide real diagnostics on the Volt. Requiring the owner to drive to a shop, to have the fault codes scanned and decoded is ridiculous! I would be willing to even pay a little extra to have the “diagnostic” package, so I can fix the beast or at least be able to determine if the problem is minor (someone left the gas cap off) or other benign problems.


  150. 150
    Red HHR

    +2

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Red HHR
     Says

     

    Aug 30th, 2010 (7:13 pm)

    Note to EPA, Suggested Sticker for all vehicles!

    Two numbers. First number on the sticker would be “Free Ride” or the electric range of said vehicle. The second number would be “The cost of Selling your Soul” This would be expressed as liters of fuel per 100 miles with sub-print of the average international retail cost.

    /er, i actually do not like the letter grade.


  151. 151
    Roy H

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Roy H
     Says

     

    Aug 30th, 2010 (7:16 pm)

    It is a mistake to include charge time. First it is irrelevant and just ads clutter to the label. Second it has too many variables, mostly dependent on the source voltage and available amperage, and on SOC at start of charge cycle. Who cares how long it takes as long as there is a full charge waiting for you in the morning.


  152. 152
    ChuckR

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    ChuckR
     Says

     

    Aug 30th, 2010 (7:17 pm)

    Jackson: Whoa!!! That is totally different from the 7-pager I downloaded by clicking the link in Lyle’s article:http://www.epa.gov/fueleconomy/label/420f10049.pdf  (Quote)

    Link to the expanded pdf is at the bottom of page 1 of the 7-page pdf.


  153. 153
    James

    +1

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    James
     Says

     

    Aug 30th, 2010 (7:20 pm)

    CorvetteGuy: I’m sorry you don’t like performance cars, but if “Driving Miss Daisy” is your style, then “Hey! It’s all good,

    But Corvette – Teslas perform, don’t they? And they do it without using a drop of gasoline. How’s that for performance?!

    Car mags instilled in us the notion that a “performance” car needs to be inefficient.

    They say old dogs can’t learn new tricks but the movie Who Killed The Electric Car really did a whammy to what I’ve always considered “performance”. Since they make the point that every species on the planet that survives must evolve…Who wants to be extinct?! One must reassess what one feels is a performance car. We’ve been brainwashed that Corvettes, Mustangs, Lamborghinis and Ferraris are what performance is….. Yet those vehicles, no matter the polish on the 19th century tech – are still 19th century tech.

    I believe a “true” car guy needs to be honest with him/herself and look at a car as being “good” or desirable -with a new measuring stick -

    1) Does it make it easier – or harder – for your kids to breathe?

    2)Does it showcase efficiency + how fast a car can go down a drag strip/ perform on a skidpad / carve a mountain road (if you wanted to)?

    3) When you stand on that accelerator, does it make someone in O.P.E.C. smile, or add to record profits that quarter for BIG OIL? Will your wish for velocity impede our national security?

    4)Is “clean-yet-mean” a phrase that describes it?

    5)Since we tend to equate a performance car with sexy, curvy bodywork – then the natural comparison to women — Do we fantasize about a lady with fascinating curves having a big stinkin’ stokie hangin’ out of her mouth?!! Or a smokin’ hot lady with flatulence?! Clean is sexy.

    6) Does it showcase an incremental step mankind has made to make our future better? Or is it a testimony to how people will shell out tons of money for a massaged version of the same ol’ same ol’?

    The faster we change our mindset re: the word performance, the faster we can see electric cars, perhaps with extended-range gensets, but hopefully soon without – as high performance.Tesla’s Roadster showed us the way. In fact, the only “performance” car or truck that will make me drool today has a plug and can be charged by solar panels or wind. Formula 1 made tentative moves toward electric performance enhancement and today – even Ferrari is developing a hybrid to comply with European environmental standards. We’ll drag the old-minded folk like you, kicking and screaming into a world that sees silent, swift, modern and clean electric cars as high performance.

    RECHARGE!

    James


  154. 154
    Red HHR

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Red HHR
     Says

     

    Aug 30th, 2010 (7:28 pm)

    So what is “Smartphone Interactive”? I assume you take a picture of the funny square with the phone, then what?


  155. 155
    Tagamet

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Tagamet
     Says

     

    Aug 30th, 2010 (7:44 pm)

    Jeff: Sigh… I’m amazed no one else has jumped in on this yet, so I guess I’ll bite the bullet and do it myself….

    Just couldn’t let it go….. (sigh).
    Hearts and minds changed: 0

    Be well,
    Tagamet


  156. 156
    Tagamet

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Tagamet
     Says

     

    Aug 30th, 2010 (7:46 pm)

    Red HHR: So what is “Smartphone Interactive”? I assume you take a picture of the funny square with the phone, then what?  

    She takes her top off…. (did I say that out loud??)(lol)

    Be well,
    Tagamet


  157. 157
    Red HHR

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Red HHR
     Says

     

    Aug 30th, 2010 (8:02 pm)

    Tagamet:
    She takes her top off…. (did I say that out loud??)(lol)Be well,
    Tagamet  

    Well I do like topless driving…
    Tucker.jpg


  158. 158
    pdt

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    pdt
     Says

     

    Aug 30th, 2010 (8:16 pm)

    Roy H: It is a mistake to include charge time. First it is irrelevant and just ads clutter to the label. Second it has too many variables, mostly dependent on the source voltage and available amperage, and on SOC at start of charge cycle. Who cares how long it takes as long as there is a full charge waiting for you in the morning.  

    I like seeing the charging time.


  159. 159
    Tagamet

    +1

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Tagamet
     Says

     

    Aug 30th, 2010 (8:21 pm)

    Red HHR:
    Well I do like topless driving…
      

    Beautiful.

    Be well,
    Tagamet


  160. 160
    nasaman

    +2

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    nasaman
     Says

     

    Aug 30th, 2010 (8:21 pm)

    DonC: My advice is to ignore everything but the part that says you will save $5700 over five years.

    I still agree, Don! And this is a major reason I favor the simplicity of the A, B,C,D stickers; the first numbers you read below the large A (etc) are the savings over five years just below it: e.g., in the sticker below, “Over 5 years this vehicle saves $6,900 in fuel costs compared to the average vehicle”. The next sections just below this provide all the detail anyone should want or need to compare this car to other cars.


  161. 161
    Texas

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Texas
     Says

     

    Aug 30th, 2010 (8:22 pm)

    1) They need to keep the city/highway distinction for gas operation because they vary so much with hybrid drivetrains.
    2) Put in charge time for 120 V AND 220 V (usually half the time).
    3) Love the idea for having a website listed so potential customers can go and put in their specific conditions. Thus, each car will have it’s own set of formulas. This is by far the best way to get a good idea of costs and environmental impact.

    Those comments aside, be prepared to make yearly changes for awhile until a realistic and fair system is worked out. This is new territory and I’m guessing the labels changed often back in the day when they were first introduced for regular cars.


  162. 162
    scott

    +1

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    scott
     Says

     

    Aug 30th, 2010 (8:27 pm)

    I Hate the MPGe ratings. They are too convoluted. If I charge on wind or solar wouldn’t my MPGe be different than from coal? It doesn’t tell the story and drives people’s thinking in the direction that this is the same as a car that gets 90MPG when indeed it is drastically different. Just put miles electric, MPG extended range, and the environmental scale (or grade). That is something tangible, unlike MPGe.


  163. 163
    BobS

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    BobS
     Says

     

    Aug 30th, 2010 (8:39 pm)

    What I really like is the part about the yearly savings compared to an all gas car. That is bottom line value that will be eye catching for consumers.


  164. 164
    Tagamet

    +2

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Tagamet
     Says

     

    Aug 30th, 2010 (8:40 pm)

    James: …One must reassess what one feels is a performance car. We’ve been brainwashed that Corvettes, Mustangs, Lamborghinis and Ferraris are what performance is….. Yet those vehicles, no matter the polish on the 19th century tech – are still 19th century tech….

    Aren’t you about a century off?

    Everyone has a right to “what floats their boat”.

    Be well,
    Tagamet


  165. 165
    CorvetteGuy

    +3

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    CorvetteGuy
     Says

     

    Aug 30th, 2010 (8:47 pm)

    James: But Corvette – Teslas perform, don’t they? And they do it without using a drop of gasoline. How’s that for performance?!Car mags instilled in us the notion that a “performance” car needs to be inefficient.They say old dogs can’t learn new tricks but the movie Who Killed The Electric Car really did a whammy to what I’ve always considered “performance”. Since they make the point that every species on the planet that survives must evolve…Who wants to be extinct?! One must reassess what one feels is a performance car. We’ve been brainwashed that Corvettes, Mustangs, Lamborghinis and Ferraris are what performance is….. Yet those vehicles, no matter the polish on the 19th century tech – are still 19th century tech. I believe a “true” car guy needs to be honest with him/herself and look at a car as being “good” or desirable -with a new measuring stick -1) Does it make it easier – or harder – for your kids to breathe? 2)Does it showcase efficiency + how fast a car can go down a drag strip/ perform on a skidpad / carve a mountain road (if you wanted to)? 3) When you stand on that accelerator, does it make someone in O.P.E.C. smile, or add to record profits that quarter for BIG OIL? Will your wish for velocity impede our national security?4)Is “clean-yet-mean” a phrase that describes it?5)Since we tend to equate a performance car with sexy, curvy bodywork – then the natural comparison to women — Do we fantasize about a lady with fascinating curves having a big stinkin’ stokie hangin’ out of her mouth?!! Or a smokin’ hot lady with flatulence?! Clean is sexy. 6) Does it showcase an incremental step mankind has made to make our future better? Or is it a testimony to how people will shell out tons of money for a massaged version of the same ol’ same ol’?The faster we change our mindset re: the word performance, the faster we can see electric cars, perhaps with extended-range gensets, but hopefully soon without – as high performance.Tesla’s Roadster showed us the way. In fact, the only “performance” car or truck that will make me drool today has a plug and can be charged by solar panels or wind. Formula 1 made tentative moves toward electric performance enhancement and today – even Ferrari is developing a hybrid to comply with European environmental standards. We’ll drag the old-minded folk like you, kicking and screaming into a world that sees silent, swift, modern and clean electric cars as high performance.RECHARGE!James  (Quote)

    No one wants a high performance ‘all-electric’ Corvette more than me. And I do understand your stated goals that the auto industry and the consumers must change their mindset to get off their ‘addiction to oil’… but I’m sorry to say that it is going to take many years for the transformation to be complete.

    So, you are right. It is up to all of us who can, take the first step and move to electric cars. Not everyone can this year, or next year, or probably the year after that, but it will happen eventually. And it will happen with every brand of EV, BEV, PHEV, EREV, whatever.

    The marketplace is big enough for every brand of electric-based car to succeed. I hope they all succeed. I would like to have my own dealership that sold nothing but electric cars someday… and if they ever make cars powered by ‘Mr. Fusion’, you’re still going to have to get one at a dealership from a ‘salesman’ who is hopefully a courteous professional. So don’t get too mad about that.


  166. 166
    LRGVProVolt

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    LRGVProVolt
     Says

     

    Aug 30th, 2010 (8:49 pm)

    carcus3: These labels tell me almost nothing about what I need to know.Hopefully the “website.here” will.  

    Well, carcus3, what do you need to know? We would be interested in know what you think!

    Happy trails to you ’til we meet again.


  167. 167
    Chris

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Chris
     Says

     

    Aug 30th, 2010 (8:53 pm)

    Lots of good comments today. Here’s what I posted at the EPA site:

    Hi–

    I’m kind of worried about any single letter (or number) labels, because different driving patterns using the same car can result in a different grade (or number) for that particular car. For example, a wonderful car optimized for errands (say, for a mother) could end up being relatively poor for long-distance driving (say, for a travelling salesman). And vice versa.

    As an extreme analogy, no one ever would try to put a single letter grade on all bicycles, considering the huge differences: mountain bikes, road-racers , trikes, etc, etc. That’s really an apples and oranges problem. But cars have similar use-pattern considerations.

    While not KISS, I think we must settle for a bit more complexity in the energy/environment labels, so that consumers can find the “right” number on the label to focus on (considering their personal driving patterns), and then use that particular number, car-to-car, to compare various choices. Dealers could help identify which number a consumer should focus on, after analyzing that consumer’s typical driving pattern. It’s better to make an educated decision, isn’t it?

    As a smaller point, I worry that letters also are too granular, and suffer a “hard-stop” at one end: the letter A. Numbers, while less user-friendly, offer more flexibility up and down the scale.

    Thank you very much!

    Chris


  168. 168
    Charlie H

    -5

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Charlie H
     Says

     

    Aug 30th, 2010 (9:05 pm)

    jim: CO2? Carbon footprint? Whoa. I thought all that nonsense was debunked and shelved months ago with the exposure of the behind-the-scenes shenanigans of ‘green scientists’ manipulating and hiding non-supportive data. Anyhow, guess that wasn’t too widely advertised by the ‘green’ media, eh. I had to laugh when greenWin said the masses wouldn’t understand it. He is 100% correct but not for the reason he thinks. He’s right because only the elite in their rarefied air-conditioned penthouses — and, well, politicians too — swallow this kind of nonsense. The average working guy knows snake oil when he hears/sees it and slams the door on it.  (Quote)

    Did you read *all* their e-mails? Or did you just hear about a selected few from sources with an agenda? Did you read *all* the research these climate scientists did? Or did you just swallow, whole, the “debunking” that some mining engineer with an agenda wrote up?


  169. 169
    The grump

    +1

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    The grump
     Says

     

    Aug 30th, 2010 (9:17 pm)

    You have to remember that we ARE interested in the Volt (trolls excepted).

    If you want to expand acceptance of the Volt, you need to ask yourself: If I knew absolutely NOTHING about the Volt, could I make sense of these EPA stickers?

    I will answer for you – No. You would probably ask a few questions, not fully understand the answers, and end up thinking “I better stick to what I know”, and buy a conventional car – again.

    GM must insist that the primary EPA label have both the miles on electric, then the MPG when the gas engine kicks in. Two simple figures that anyone can use to determine how much (if any) gas they would use. “Blended” numbers are pure baloney – you will never get 65 miles on battery alone, or by using one gallon of gas alone. Blended numbers are made-up, ficticious numbers. If the EPA uses 65 MPG, and the customers don’t get 65 MPG from the ICE, a lot of customers will feel deceived and angry.

    Keep the big sticker VERY simple – and truthful. You can’t go wrong with the truth. EPA can always put the geeky stuff like “blended” scenarios and greenhouse info on a (much) smaller sticker.


  170. 170
    pjkPA

    -8

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    pjkPA
     Says

     

    Aug 30th, 2010 (9:20 pm)

    Take off the highly debateable enviroment BS .
    There has not been any debate over these green house gas theories. It’s all theory and is designed to make money for the eviromentalists.
    First it was the ozone hole…. but that healed up. Now they need more money to fund their “work”… now we have the green house gas theory… it’s making millions at our expense.
    Most of this enviromental BS comes from California where they burn tons of garbage on Hunington beach at night then wake up and blame the cars because they can’t see the mountains through the smoke. They have billboards telling the people to report their neghbors if they see them washing their cars during the day and wasting water .. but drive a half hour to the desert and you splash through every intersection because the lawn sprinklers are workng all day. And they want us to fix their world.


  171. 171
    Dave K.

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Dave K.
     Says

     

    Aug 30th, 2010 (9:23 pm)

    The EPA needs to go to a simple AFV (alternative fuel vehicle) sticker.

    Gasoline (yes) 42 mpg combined

    E85 (no) n/a

    Battery (yes) 40 miles [120V or 240V]

    Other (yes) bio diesel 35 mpg combined

    All other info such as cost per year or green rating needs to be listed below the mpg/battery label. The proposed labeling is too complicated.

    =D-Volt


  172. 172
    motorman

    +1

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    motorman
     Says

     

    Aug 30th, 2010 (9:26 pm)

    People worry about MPG and the biggest cost operating a car is the deprecation so lets come up with a car that holds its value.


  173. 173
    LRGVProVolt

    +2

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    LRGVProVolt
     Says

     

    Aug 30th, 2010 (9:32 pm)

    Rather than commenting on what others have said, this time I’ll just state my opinion.

    Label 2 for PHEV, extended range electric (series) type gives everything many have requested:

    1) AER is stated in both MPG equivalent combined city/highway and Kw/hrs. per 100 miles,
    2) it tells the cost per year in all electric range,
    3) Gas Only states the MPGand and no of gal. per 100 miles,
    4) it tells the cost in gasolines mode only.
    5) the Charge and Range combines two images, a battery and a graph clearly divided into AER and Gas Only segments tied into the above statements,
    6) How This Vehicle Compares shows the high and low rating of vehicles in that category in MPGe and where in that range the specific vehicle stands,
    7) The Environment segment clear states how much CO2 is generated separate from other air pollutants.

    So many of us wanted the label to “just give us the MPG in CS mode” and that is what this label does.

    Happy trails to you ’til we meet again


  174. 174
    The grump

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    The grump
     Says

     

    Aug 30th, 2010 (9:33 pm)

    Dave K.: The EPA needs to go to a simple AFV (alternative fuel vehicle) sticker. Gasoline (yes) 42 mpg combinedE85 (no) n/aBattery (yes) 40 miles [120V or 240V]Other (yes) bio diesel 35 mpg combinedAll other info such as cost per year or green rating needs to be listed below the mpg/battery label. The proposed labeling is too complicated.=D-Volt  (Quote)

    ——————————————————-
    Get rid of the “combined” references, and I would agree. Blending is something Capt Jack should be doing with ice, coconut, pineapple juice and rum. Blending has NO place on an EPA sticker. EPA should stick to the truth, and leave the blending to those who make drinks with little umbrellas or little plastic swords in them.


  175. 175
    John A.

    -10

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    John A.
     Says

     

    Aug 30th, 2010 (9:38 pm)

    (click to show comment)


  176. 176
    DonC

    +4

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    DonC
     Says

     

    Aug 30th, 2010 (9:41 pm)

    nasaman: Over 5 years this vehicle saves $6,900 in fuel costs compared to the average vehicle”

    Maybe even better would be: Over 5 years this vehicle will send $6,900 fewer dollars to Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Venezuela and their assorted terrorist groups compared to the average vehicle.


  177. 177
    DonC

    +3

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    DonC
     Says

     

    Aug 30th, 2010 (9:43 pm)

    The grump: I will answer for you – No. You would probably ask a few questions, not fully understand the answers, and end up thinking “I better stick to what I know”, and buy a conventional car – again.

    So what part of “spend $6,900 less” is so hard to grasp? Just curious.


  178. 178
    Voltastic

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Voltastic
     Says

     

    Aug 30th, 2010 (9:54 pm)

    mark wagner: I am glad to see labels that make more sense than some earlier rumored methods. I like that a separate number would be used for EV mode vs “range extended” mode.I am also glad to see kWh/100 miles reported (as well as gallon equivalent/ 100 miles).However I don’t agree with reporting a CO2 emissions number that does not account for any emissions from electricity generation. I think there should be an estimated CO2 based on local grid power generation or some method of reporting actual CO2 generation — or don’t report it at all. It is simply misleading to pretend all EVs produce no emissions regardless of their efficiency or miles driven or means of power generation. It is even more misleading (or confusing) when the issue is blurred by a dual mode EREV.I am a big supporter of electric transportation, but midleading praise is bound to have backlash and create confusion.  

    Uh uh. Then you are also wishing that the CO2 figures for gas/diesel includes exploration + well to pump processing too right?


  179. 179
    Tagamet

    +5

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Tagamet
     Says

     

    Aug 30th, 2010 (9:58 pm)

    John A.: You can do the math yourself. It’s pretty easy. With a fully charged battery the Volt will travel 30 miles down the highway at infinity miles per gallon. Then you add 38 miles per gallon highway rating for an average of 68 MPG. That is for the first 68 miles. It’s all up to driving conditions as to what gas milage you get after that. I suspect less because you will be charging a dead battery on the second 68 miles instead of using it’s stored energy. Now whats the gas mileage durring the second 68 miles. 38 MPG at best and probibly lower in reality. These cars perform best at low speeds and short driving ranges. Stop and go trips are where the Hybrids pay off. Anything over their full battery range and you just have a very expensive conventional car. That is untill you get back into stop and go traffic. I’d say no matter how they decide to rate the vehicles you can bet the figures will be inflated and hard to understand.  

    I think that you really need to read up and try to get your facts straight. Oh, and Firefox has a spell-checker built right in.
    HTH,
    Tagamet
    /night all


  180. 180
    The grump

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    The grump
     Says

     

    Aug 30th, 2010 (10:02 pm)

    173 LRGVProVolt: Rather than commenting on what others have said, this time I’ll just state my opinion. Label 2 for PHEV, extended range electric (series) type gives everything many have requested:1) AER is stated in both MPG equivalent combined city/highway and Kw/hrs. per 100 miles,2) it tells the cost per year in all electric range,3) Gas Only states the MPGand and no of gal. per 100 miles,4) it tells the cost in gasolines mode only.5) the Charge and Range combines two images, a battery and a graph clearly divided into AER and Gas Only segments tied into the above statements,6) How This Vehicle Compares shows the high and low rating of vehicles in that category in MPGe and where in that range the specific vehicle stands,7) The Environment segment clear states how much CO2 is generated separate from other air pollutants.  (Quote)

    ——————————————————————–
    OK, lets take this point by point…

    1) “AER is stated in both MPG equivalent combined city/highway and Kw/hrs. per 100 miles.” Again with the “combined” nonsense. Just tell me how far the battery will take me.

    2) “it tells the cost per year in all electric range.” This depends on how much your locality charges per kilowatt, and when you use their electric (if you have a smart meter). We don’t need an “averaged” number for this – just check your power bill’s charge per kilowatt for an exact number.

    3) “Gas Only states the MPGand and no of gal. per 100 miles.” Huh? Even I don’t understand that category. Too obtuse.

    4) “it tells the cost in gasolines mode only.” I agree with you on this one – give us the exact MPG in CS mode. Not some blended, make believe number.

    5) “the Charge and Range combines two images, a battery and a graph clearly divided into AER and Gas Only segments tied into the above statements.”
    Huh (again)? Waaaay too much information. Put in on a secondary, much smaller sticker, so the average Joe won’t be confused.

    6) “How This Vehicle Compares shows the high and low rating of vehicles in that category in MPGe and where in that range the specific vehicle stands.”
    This is more “Waaaaaay too much information” which should be on the secondary, “geeks only”, much smaller EPA sticker. The average Joe would say “What the hell is a MPGe?”, and end up buying another gas car.

    7) “The Environment segment clear states how much CO2 is generated separate from other air pollutants.”
    This is “super geek” territory – this should be available only on GM’s website. No reason to clutter the EPA sticker with stuff like this.

    What the average Joe Customer cares about is price and mileage (real mileage, not blended numbers). Complicated EPA stickers are a turn-off, and will turn away would-be Volt customers. You may understand the EPA sticker, but most people don’t. EPA needs to keep the Volt sticker simple – and real.


  181. 181
    flmark

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    flmark
     Says

     

    Aug 30th, 2010 (10:11 pm)

    Jeff: Sigh… I’m amazed no one else has jumped in on this yet, ; (Quote)

    I wrote this yesterday about a different matter, but it is worth repeating. “Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig.” I think many here just tire of trying to bother with this kind of angry tirade anymore. The folks who jump on this bandwagon are not reasonable. They are LOOKING to fight. Some folks aren’t convinced and those are the ones worth raising a discussion with. Once the conspiracy issues get raised and Al Gore’s name pops up, it is just time to move on. These folks are just too emotional to use logic, statistics and all the rest.

    As an interesting aside, did anyone read of the hiker who disappeared in 1989 and just reappeared from a retreating glacier in Alberta? http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38900691/ns/world_news-americas I have been to Canada and seen the year markers of where the glaciers were 100, 50, 30 years ago and of course, it just reminds me of how foolish it is to deny global warming issues with so much qualitative information we have around us reinforcing a rapidly warming planet.

    But don’t bother with folks like the guy you were addressing. He’ll never listen.


  182. 182
    ed

    +1

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    ed
     Says

     

    Aug 30th, 2010 (10:13 pm)

    James: or does it refer to a car with trees growing from it’s roof that actually manufactures oxygen and sets it free into the atmosphere?

    love your comment


  183. 183
    bob tallon

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    bob tallon
     Says

     

    Aug 30th, 2010 (10:14 pm)

    The sticker works for me may be a little to complex for some folks without any technical back ground.


  184. 184
    an_outsider

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    an_outsider
     Says

     

    Aug 30th, 2010 (10:22 pm)

    I like the A to D grade with +/- . The CO2 addition is a must in Europe.

    The electric mode only wouldn’t show any mpg inho, only something like Kwh/100 miles as the 1997 EV1 sticker.

    In the CS (or list them all) mode, maybe the quantity of gaz to produce these Kwh/100 miles ?

    Then, if you know the cost by Kwh to charge from the grid and the cost per gas unit required to produce the same electric Kwh, you can figure the cost of operation cost… Is that make sense?

    sticker_ev.jpg


  185. 185
    The grump

    -1

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    The grump
     Says

     

    Aug 30th, 2010 (10:22 pm)

    DonC: So what part of “spend $6,900 less” is so hard to grasp? Just curious.  (Quote)

    —————————————————
    But sometimes it’s the case of “the devil you know vs the devil you don’t know”. Older people don’t like change. That’s why the EPA sticker must be super simple – to widen the customer base for the Volt. We’re fanboys – we’ve been here for years. However…

    You need to think like someone who has never heard of the Volt, and doesn’t like change. The complex EPA stickers in this article would scare off many would be customers. All the gizmos and doodads in the Volt is different enough, without having to deal with a scary (to them) EPA sticker. Stop thinking like DonC, and start thinking like a guy who still prefers 12 inch LP records, 8 track tapes, doesn’t care much for computers.

    Now figure out a way to get that guy to buy a Volt. If you want GM to make more Volts, GM needs more Volt customers. Older people have more disposable income – that equals more Volt customers, if you keep things simple for them. It’s not all about us – how successful do you want the Volt to be?


  186. 186
    Chris C.

    +3

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Chris C.
     Says

     

    Aug 30th, 2010 (10:26 pm)

    Just got here after being out all day. I’m glad to see this new EPA info didn’t create a 500 comment thread of bickering. :)

    One item I haven’t seen discussed much is the cost assumptions they are making. $2.80 per gallon of gas is reasonable, I suppose, although obviously that is very much variable (and that variability is why a lot of us are here today). It would be useful to have a table (not on the sticker, perhaps on the website) that shows how the total annual / 5year costs change with $4 gas, $5 gas, etc.

    But the other cost that I think is more out of whack is the electricity. They assume 12 cents per kWh. Is that what it costs in NY and CA? Here in the Deep South (home of coal burnin’ patriotism) we pay 8 cents/kWh. Hmmm, actually, since most of these EV purchases are going to be in markets that have higher electric costs (CA, NY, DC) maybe it does make sense to bias that cost number towards them.

    Red HHR: So what is “Smartphone Interactive”? I assume you take a picture of the funny square with the phone, then what?

    Here you go. Works great.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QR_Code

    jim: CO2? Carbon footprint? Whoa. I thought all that nonsense was debunked and shelved months ago with the exposure of the behind-the-scenes shenanigans of ‘green scientists’ manipulating and hiding non-supportive data. Anyhow, guess that wasn’t too widely advertised by the ‘green’ media, eh.

    A couple other guys here have already taken you to task, but I wanted to add this.

    Shame on you, Jim. It’s time to snap out of that daze you’re in, and start thinking critically about the “news” sources that led you to that opinion. We are now well past the time (about 20 years past, by my estimation) where we should have stopped allowing the forces of corruption to muddy the debate with this nonsense. Twenty years of inaction, twenty years of accelerating GHG growth, and I’m afraid maybe twenty years passed the tipping point. We really need people like you to wake up and smell the coffee. You are being lied to be people that profit off of your ignorance. Have any grandchildren?

    Oh, and I love the new stickers :) They do an excellent job of trying to simplify a very complex situation. I would only dispute the CO2 slider — that should just have a 1 to 10 scale like the “other air pollutants”, with backup data going into the more complete data set that you get if you go to the website.


  187. 187
    herm

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    herm
     Says

     

    Aug 30th, 2010 (10:37 pm)

    I am disappointed that the EPA did not design labels that are easy for the public to understand.. people buy an electric or hybrid to minimize their fuel consumption.. thats what the label should make clear. I would like to see how many gallons of gas the car would consume with four possible daily commutes:

    Gas usage per day for the Chevy Volt

    1. 25 miles daily 0 Gallons
    2. 50 miles daily 0.1 Gallons
    3. 75 miles daily 0.5 Gallons
    4. 100 miles daily 1.0 Gallons

    Then I would like see a slider from worst to best of yearly gas usage for the average driver, including all cars in the same size class. Combined cycle for all the numbers.

    I know many of us would just like to see the electric range and the CS mode mpg, but this would not be fair to the other hybrids such as the Prius that must often use their gas engine even when the battery is not depleted.. and there are a lot more hybrids than there will be Volts so lets not confuse things with two labels.. the gallons of gas use per day scale would fairly cover everyone.

    Forget about MPGe, carbon emissions, cost of electricity etc.. if the public wants to know just have them go to the EPA website.


  188. 188
    CorvetteGuy

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    CorvetteGuy
     Says

     

    Aug 30th, 2010 (10:39 pm)

    nasaman: “Over 5 years this vehicle saves $6,900 in fuel costs compared to the average vehicle”.

    Nasaman: Good to see you got your Space Shuttle Gravatar back!


  189. 189
    Bill

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Bill
     Says

     

    Aug 30th, 2010 (10:40 pm)

    N Riley: Putting the letter grade on the label will help the potential buyer, but if the letter grade was placed on the vehicle permanently, it would cause many of us to better choose a vehicle. We would not want to forever be reminded and displayed to others that we are driving a grade C car when we could have been driving a grade B or even possibly a grade A car.  (Quote)

    Or an A+ car! ;)


  190. 190
    Bill

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Bill
     Says

     

    Aug 30th, 2010 (10:47 pm)

    Henryk: I prefer this solution, at least it can be applied to all gasoline-fueled cars.Yes electric car is the future, but for at least 20 yearsThe FireStorm Plasma iPlug is a new entry in the formerly mundane area of Spark Plugs. All Spark Plugs produce “sparks” to ignite the Air Fuel Mixture in the combustion Chambers. FireStorm is different, it produces “PLASMA”. By doing that, it eliminates the Catalytic Converter and EGR Systems and can still pass future emission requirements in California. Here is a clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=abwXApkLhbc Further testing after that clip was shot in Detroit proved a 70% savings in fuel all while affording a 125 More Horsepower.It is a Paradigm Shift in Air Fuel Ratio as this plug operates at 30 to 1 Air to Fuel Ratio. All current IC engines operate at 14.7 to 1 and require a Cat and EGR. FireStorm can even crack water right in the Combustion_Chamber thereby eliminating so-called HHO Generators. Can I hear fill your car up at the side of your house with the garden hose? YES!!!!  (Quote)

    Hahaha…20 years my foot! You are so out of the loop. Try to get a little educated before you make such uninformed silly statements. We’re going to put the screws to the oil companies and the terrorists, and it will be sooner than you think! :D


  191. 191
    Open-Mind

    +2

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Open-Mind
     Says

     

    Aug 30th, 2010 (10:58 pm)

    I agree 100% with iRoc. Keep the definitions consistent so that bigger numbers are better. Or keep it consistent so that smaller numbers are better (like in Europe). But DON”T mix and match. The rest of the numbers people can calculate (if they care to) based on their unique driving patterns. And nothing about CO2 please since that’s just a big scam, although “the debate is over” greenies don’t like to admit it.


  192. 192
    herm

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    herm
     Says

     

    Aug 30th, 2010 (10:58 pm)

    flmark: I have been to Canada and seen the year markers of where the glaciers were 100, 50, 30 years ago and of course, it just reminds me of how foolish it is to deny global warming issues with so much qualitative information we have around us reinforcing a rapidly warming planet.
    But don’t bother with folks like the guy you were addressing. He’ll never listen.  

    The glaciers have been retreating since the end of the last ice age, no one denies climate changes.. what people deny is the belief that man is causing it.


  193. 193
    flmark

    +1

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    flmark
     Says

     

    Aug 30th, 2010 (11:19 pm)

    flmark: I don’t like any of this and a LOT of paradigm shifting needs to be done if these stickers are to have any merit at all. One must ask ALL of the future-type questions. For example, 3 years from now, it may be an option to choose how much battery to put into your mixed/combo/sorta/full time EV. Where will the EPA (and a number of suggestions here) be then? How about as we swap out what backs up those initial all-electric miles? Isn’t it conceivable that we could have a choice between gasoline, NG and even wood pellet fired? I don’t have answers for all of this, but before we make suggestions to the EPA, we better ask ourselves where this will head from here. My feeling right now is that these proposed stickers will only become more convoluted as time marches on. Forget current mindset; it won’t work for very long at all!  (Quote)

    I’ll quote myself here. I actually started to try to write a suggestion to the EPA, keeping in mind my own future-proofing concerns. I decided that the whole system needs to be DUMPED! When you go to buy a boat, you get ZERO guidance on this concept. The best you can hope for is that a boat magazine has done a fuel consumption graph vs speed. How do you, in one simple sticker, come up with all the scenarios that compare a speed-limited plug-in Prius vs all electric, then mixed mode CS Volt. Add in larger storage battery and your kwh/mi number goes down because of additional weight. Oh yeah, and the back up generator may not run on gasoline at all. My gosh, the concept is stupifying.

    There are very few items we can purchase that have been so easy to categorize as the city/hwy gas numbers and that spoiled us. We always knew there were variations, but these ballpark numbers enabled apples to apples comparisons. Apples to apples is GONE! Soccer mom, traveling salesman, reliable commuter, seasonal snowbird retiree- the variation in each of these scenarios is off the freakin chart!

    As with my boat example, we often rely on professional writers to give us a feel for our numbers without relying on government intervention. Or we rely on forums like this to judge what our individual results might be.

    Sorry, I just can’t come up with a method that will help evaluate the short term changes, accommodate future variations and not create as much confusion as it is supposed to solve. Who’s with me? EPA, you have shown me that the task is already out of your grasp. Average joe will not be aided in his purchase decision by the inevitable data barrage that is about to emerge- he will be confused instead.


  194. 194
    Matthew B

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Matthew B
     Says

     

    Aug 30th, 2010 (11:23 pm)

    I’m not a fan of the MPG equivalent. Just tell me how much electricity to charge it, how far it goes on that electricity, and what the fuel mileage is once the battery is depleted.

    I can then simply plug my driving cycle in and know exactly what the car would do for me.


  195. 195
    motorman

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    motorman
     Says

     

    Aug 30th, 2010 (11:25 pm)

    about the global warming,everything that produces energy also produces heat,coal fired power plant,atomic power plant to charge the volt batteries and the volt electric motor and its batteries also produce heat so what do we gain ? there is no free lunch. how much heat is produced to manufacture the volts batteries and electric motor ??


  196. 196
    Dan Durston

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Dan Durston
     Says

     

    Aug 30th, 2010 (11:30 pm)

    The good news in all of this is that we are definately going to get an extended range MPG figure for the Volt.


  197. 197
    flmark

    +2

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    flmark
     Says

     

    Aug 30th, 2010 (11:37 pm)

    herm: The glaciers have been retreating since the end of the last ice age, no one denies climate changes.. what people deny is the belief that man is causing it.  (Quote)

    Your statement is the complete oversimplification, and perhaps non-commital way of addressing the issue. I threw in one word on purpose- ‘rapidly’. When one denies man’s involvement, one negates the increasing RATE of change. The word ‘glacial’ univerally implies ‘slow’, but the retreats seen in recent years have been anything but ‘glacial’.

    Being in and around the nuclear submarine navy, I have paid attention to polar sea availability. When Canada decides it needs to exert authority over the Northwest passage and the Northeast passage has recently opened to commercial shipping http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1924410,00.html ,the absurdity of assuming that nature bears full responsibility becomes laughable.


  198. 198
    flmark

    +1

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    flmark
     Says

     

    Aug 30th, 2010 (11:50 pm)

    motorman: about the global warming,everything that produces energy also produces heat,coal fired power plant,atomic power plant to charge the volt batteries and the volt electric motor and its batteries also produce heat so what do we gain ? there is no free lunch. how much heat is produced to manufacture the volts batteries and electric motor ??  (Quote)

    The Second Law of Thermodynamics states exactly that. We always lose. The entropy of the universe is constantly increasing. The writers of my college textbook stated the same thing I used to tell MY students- that whatever form he/she/it/they take, God exists and is proven by this fundamental scientific principle. Some(thing) outside of our laws of nature started the whole (downhill) process in motion. But…

    That same second law states nothing about how long this will take. By shifting our energy consumption to the (relatively) infinitely renewable energy sources (via solar, wind, tides, biofuels, geothermal), we put ourselves in a much longer term approach to ultimate demise. Easter island was once fully forested and well populated. As they denuded their surroundings, the inhabitants doomed themselves to population collapse. We should learn from this type of very short term thinking.


  199. 199
    DonC

    +1

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    DonC
     Says

     

    Aug 31st, 2010 (12:10 am)

    herm: The glaciers have been retreating since the end of the last ice age, no one denies climate changes.. what people deny is the belief that man is causing it.

    Salt increases the boiling point of water. That’s a fact. Add more salt and the boiling point goes up. That’s a fact. Greenhouse gases increases planetary temperatures. That’s a fact. (Science can precisely measure that absent greenhouse gases the average temperature of the earth would be -2F rather than the +62F it is). Add more greenhouse gases and the planetary temperature goes up. That’s a fact. At some level it’s really no more controversial than adding salt to water.

    The problem isn’t the direction of the vector it’s the size of the vector. The fact is that it’s very hard to measure temperature change on a planetary scale. So yeah, everyone can see it’s getting warmer but it’s not so obvious how much warmer it’s getting — hence your comment about ice melting since the last ice age. Moreover, a reasoned discussion of the size of the vector isn’t helped by the fact that you have “Alarmists” on the one side and “Deniers” on the other. The science is somewhere in between, though more towards the “Alarmists”, which pisses the “Deniers” off and leads to the conspiracy stuff.

    But claiming you can dump boatloads of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere and not have any effect is either silly BS or wishful thinking. And positing some giant scientific conspiracy to mislead people is just “grassy knoll” stuff. You generally can’t get scientists to agree on where or when to meet for lunch.

    IOW Easter Island isn’t just an island in the middle of nowhere.


  200. 200
    DonC

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    DonC
     Says

     

    Aug 31st, 2010 (12:17 am)

    motorman: how much heat is produced to manufacture the volts batteries and electric motor ??  

    Since the amount of heat we can make is insignificant compared to how much heat the sun makes, this isn’t about how much campfires will increase global temperatures directly. They won’t. Greenhouse gases increase temperatures indirectly by effectively capturing the sun’s energy. If they didn’t exist the earth would be a frozen ball of ice so it’s not like they’re a bad thing. But it’s a tricky balance. Capture too little and you freeze your butt off. Capture too much and you sweat to death.

    So your question shouldn’t be how much heat is produced when making the Volt’s batteries and motor, it should be how much greenhouse gas is produced.


  201. 201
    LRGVProVolt

    +1

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    LRGVProVolt
     Says

     

    Aug 31st, 2010 (1:10 am)

    Matthew B: I’m not a fan of the MPG equivalent.Just tell me howmuch electricity to charge it, how far it goes on that electricity, and what the fuel mileage is once the battery is depleted.I can then simply plug my driving cycle in and know exactly what the car would do for me.  

    I believe that is exactly what Label 2 for PHEV, extended range electric (series) type does. Take a good look at it and you will see that it tells you how far you can go on a full charge of electricity, how far you go on Gas Only. It tells you on the range graph how far each will be with a full charge or tank.

    Happy trails to you ’til we meet again.


  202. 202
    Darius

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Darius
     Says

     

    Aug 31st, 2010 (1:21 am)

    For me electrical MPG sound strange. Why not stcking to SI (international) unit system invented by Napoleon? Gasoline KWh would be best solution for sticker. In addition to that – I dont know which gasoline EPA reffering to when calculating MPG. There are some difference between E85 and high grade gasoline. For me would be good to know certified calorific value (KWH/gallon) of fuel I am pouring into my gas tank. KWh hours are always kWh.

    I am sure that gas kWh equivalent would work in favor of transport electrification. And in contrary – Electrical MPG against electrification.


  203. 203
    Mastermo411

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Mastermo411
     Says

     

    Aug 31st, 2010 (1:48 am)

    Interesting. I have to wonder about fuel efficiency effecting not just new cars, but used cars. I found this idea for a “mechanical hybrid” if you could call if that. Check it out http://bit.ly/b39VaT Is something like that possible? Thanks for your thoughts.


  204. 204
    Truman

    +2

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Truman
     Says

     

    Aug 31st, 2010 (1:55 am)

    jim: CO2? Carbon footprint? Whoa. I thought all that nonsense was debunked and shelved months ago with the exposure of the behind-the-scenes shenanigans of ‘green scientists’ manipulating and hiding non-supportive data. Anyhow, guess that wasn’t too widely advertised by the ‘green’ media, eh. I had to laugh when greenWin said the masses wouldn’t understand it. He is 100% correct but not for the reason he thinks. He’s right because only the elite in their rarefied air-conditioned penthouses — and, well, politicians too — swallow this kind of nonsense. The average working guy knows snake oil when he hears/sees it and slams the door on it.  

    Did you know that most below-average working guys just assume they are average ? It’s not like half of all Americans walk around thinking “I’m on the left side of the bell curve, I better be careful not to get fooled by my TV”.

    Speaking of FOX News – that is the magic window on Bizarro World where global warming is a result of “shenanigans”, where President Obama, who is not an American citizen, is a socialist Muslim, and where Glenn Beck is not insane, and is in fact a respected, wise citizen-journalist. Sarah Palin lives there with her mute snowmobiling outdoorsman husband, plotting her run for the Presidency in 2012. It’s a wonderful world full of hope, Tea Parties, and semi-automatic weapons for everybody who’s white. Everybody is average, and proud of it. Nonsense is recognized without any reading or thinking – it just gives you a headache.

    You can live there too, if you spend lots of time watching FOX, reading the wingnut blogosphere, and listening to freedom-loving radio for those hidden clues that help you find the magic beans.


  205. 205
    James

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    James
     Says

     

    Aug 31st, 2010 (2:16 am)

    Jackson:   (Quote)

    By misquoting my post – ( Jackson – post #127 )I’d have to rank you as a real troll. Ranking on me is one thing. Disagreeing with me another.

    But tweaking my “quote” and thinking it’s a laugh. Just plain low.

    Frankly, I’d expected better of you.


  206. 206
    James

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    James
     Says

     

    Aug 31st, 2010 (2:43 am)

    Tagamet: Aren’t you about a century off?Everyone has a right to “what floats their boat”.Be well,Tagamet  (Quote)

    No. I am not.

    Internal combustion engines began cropping up in the horseless carraige late in the 19th century.
    I believe the first patents applied for, for 4 cycle engines were in the 1820s, but the more familiar multi piston type engines after 1860.

    Am I speaking another language tonight or ???. First post – it wasn’t until the West Coasters logged on that anyone “got” my humor on post #1 and hauled it out of -10 purgatory….Then Tag somehow misreads my post about piston engined powered automobiles and says I’m a century late?!!!

    Is there something in the water?

    As to the everyone has a right to…. slant… Hey, everyone has a right to put a gun to their head and fire too – But that’s not saying it’s good for you – or anyone else. A grand majority of true early adopters of electric cars believe what floats the common infernal combustion vehicle fan’s boat will sink everyone else’s.

    RECHARGE!

    James


  207. 207
    James

    +2

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    James
     Says

     

    Aug 31st, 2010 (2:56 am)

    DonC: Maybe even better would be: Over 5 years this vehicle will send $6,900 fewer dollars to Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Venezuela and their assorted terrorist groups compared to the average vehicle.  (Quote)

    AMEN!

    I’ve never agreed with a gm-volt.com post more.

    Exactly, unequivocally , absolutely perfectly stated!

    ( I wish I could post a +20 )

    RECHARGE!

    James


  208. 208
    Don D.

    -1

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Don D.
     Says

     

    Aug 31st, 2010 (5:15 am)

    What I would like to see is Miles per Kilovolt (MPK). Miles per gallon equivalent is a por choice of units to express efficiency.


  209. 209
    nasaman1

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    nasaman1
     Says

     

    Aug 31st, 2010 (6:13 am)

    DonC: Maybe even better would be: Over 5 years this vehicle will send $6,900 fewer dollars to Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Venezuela and their assorted terrorist groups compared to the average vehicle.

    James: AMEN! I’ve never agreed with a gm-volt.com post more. Exactly, unequivocally , absolutely perfectly stated! ( I wish I could post a +20 )

    RECHARGE!

    James

    I agree, James —but the closest we’re going to come is the way the EPA puts it, “Over
    5 years this vehicle saves $6,900 in fuel costs compared to the average vehicle”.
    …This will help both sell the VOLT & explain the oil crisis! Good ‘nuf for me.


  210. 210
    Malcolm S

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Malcolm S
     Says

     

    Aug 31st, 2010 (6:15 am)

    ‘in fuel costs compared to the average vehicle.’ needs to be corrected to read ‘in fuel costs compared with the average vehicle.’


  211. 211
    Charlie

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Charlie
     Says

     

    Aug 31st, 2010 (6:33 am)

    This might not be the right forum for my comment, but in my opinion GM has missed the boat with the Volt for 2 reasons, the 1st of which will be the Volt killer -
    1. The Volt costs $8K-10K too much.
    2. The gas engine requires premium fuel – what was GM thinking?!?!


  212. 212
    EricLG

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    EricLG
     Says

     

    Aug 31st, 2010 (6:56 am)

    Unless I missed it, these EPA stickers are mashing city and highway into a single number, I presume in an attempt to avoid too many numbers.

    I say get rid of the MPG(e) and blended stuff, and go back to basics:

    EV range in the city per charge,
    EV range on the highway per charge;
    MPG in the city,
    MPG on the highway.

    People who are unable to apply these numbers are not going to be buying these cars. GM wants the blended nonsense for commercials, and has applied a lot of political weight to get them. Unfortunate.


  213. 213
    EricLG

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    EricLG
     Says

     

    Aug 31st, 2010 (6:58 am)

    Charlie: 2. The gas engine requires premium fuel – what was GM thinking?!?!  

    Why is that a big deal ?


  214. 214
    JDan

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    JDan
     Says

     

    Aug 31st, 2010 (7:45 am)

    OK, I’ll put my 2 cents in. First this generated allot of comments, so I didn’t read every one. Sorry if I restated what was already stated. Here is my comment to the EPA:

    I didn’t see the sample label for an EREV vehicle here. For that one my comments refer to the one on the gm-volt.com website. The PHEV sticker (epa.gov) shows annual costs for gas and electricity separately and the one for EREV (gm-volt.com) shows just an overall average. I propose three annual cost estimates for both. One estimate for gas only, one for electric only, and one that combines the two in a way that represents most driving situations. In the blue average bar (gm-volt.com), the left side would be the number for electric only, the middle would be the overall average, and the left would be the gas only. Perhaps there should be a separator between them. I realize the need to balance too much information with what is enough. I think that your examples are very good overall. Thanks for reading my feedback you requested.


  215. 215
    JDan

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    JDan
     Says

     

    Aug 31st, 2010 (7:57 am)

    Here is one more cent worth. This has been said here in other ways. This is an additional comment sent to the EPA:

    OK, I do have one other comment. It seems these samples do away with separate city and highway numbers and combine them. I personally like them separated, and combined. I realize this may be a bit busy and that level of detail may be in the Smartphone interactive “link”. Perhaps a web link as well? Not everyone has a Smartphone (yet). But pretty much anyone can get to an internet connected computer one way or another. I’m not sure you can count on the sales person to allow the use of their Smartphone for this. I like the idea though.


  216. 216
    Jackson

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Jackson
     Says

     

    Aug 31st, 2010 (8:44 am)

    James: By misquoting my post – ( Jackson – post #127 )I’d have to rank you as a real troll. Ranking on me is one thing. Disagreeing with me another.

    But tweaking my “quote” and thinking it’s a laugh. Just plain low.

    Frankly, I’d expected better of you.

    I requested deletion as soon as I wrote it. I’m at a loss to explain how it got “un-modded.”

    But yes, I did write it, and though it’s not because I find you trollish, I do sometimes find you very, very annoying. This is allowed, however; and I’m glad it is: because I do annoy a number of people on the site (perhaps including Lyle himself).


  217. 217
    Mark Wagner

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Mark Wagner
     Says

     

    Aug 31st, 2010 (9:03 am)

    I do think the labels are well thought out and I do like them.

    However I don’t like that it includes tailpipe CO2 emissions which do not account for electric power generation CO2 emissions. I realize that power plant emissions are not controlled by the vehicle and that the labels include a separate number for EV efficiency, I still think this is potentially misleading or confusing and could even lead to backlash by critics. I do think some CO2 emissions assessment is a very good thing, so my suggestion is that an average electric generation CO2 emissions estimate be provided for electricity used (based on typical averages) in addition to the numbers already provided.

    I must say that I am encoraged by these labels! I think they report the right criteria without being overly complex and they help to calibrate consumers to what they are already familiar with. (Personally I would prefer if emphasis were put on the kWh/100 miles and the gallons/100 miles numbers over the MPG number. I also think that I’d rather see kWh/100 miles for both EREV modes rather than using the gallons equivalent conversion. However I think I understand why it was done this way in a world with mostly ICE vehicles). Good job!


  218. 218
    Joe Cascarelli

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Joe Cascarelli
     Says

     

    Aug 31st, 2010 (9:10 am)

    I live in south central Colorado at 8000 feet. To get to my home, I must be able to drive through a pass that is over 10,000 feet in all kinds of weather. We own four horses and need vehicles that can tow a trailer with two 1000 lb. horses up a 8% grade. Our winters are long and in general July and August are the only two months when it will not snow. Finally, our liberal governor and our Democrat controlled assembly has mandated that 30% of the state’s electricity must come from renewables by 2030. Do you know who will pay for all those windmills and solar panels? We consumers will pay through electricity prices that will be 50% higher than they are today. For us here in rural Colorado, your Volt is just a cruel joke.


  219. 219
    Mark Wagner

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Mark Wagner
     Says

     

    Aug 31st, 2010 (9:43 am)

    I do think an equivalent number should be reported to help calibrate EV efficiency to ICE vehicle efficiency. I think kWh / 100 miles is a better method than MPG equivalent. Particularly if we might start using a variety of liquid fuels (including gasoline with varying proportions of ethanol) which all have different amounts of energy per gallon.

    I realize we live in a world dominated by ICE vehicles, but miles per gallon does not provide a good assessment of vehicle efficiency unless we will forever use the exact same type of liquid fuel (i.e. regular gasoline). Basing any efficiency assessment on the volume of a particular liquid fuel seems arbitrary.


  220. 220
    Mark Wagner

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Mark Wagner
     Says

     

    Aug 31st, 2010 (9:54 am)

    While I do think an equivalent vehicle efficiency number should be provided to help calibrate consumers between ICE vehicles and EVs, I don’t agree with using MPG(e).

    I understand that people are already used to MPG and that the world will continue to be dominated by ICE vehicles, but we are already using different liquid fuels (including diesel, ethanol, and gasoline mixed with varying proportions of ethanol, with more to come) and they all will have different amounts of energy per volume (gallon) of fuel. I think the better method is kWh/100 miles. I believe energy efficiency, using metric units, is simply a better method. It may appear to mean converting the countries standards for the sake of a relatively small population of EVs — but it really means getting us onto a real efficiency standard.


  221. 221
    Tall Pete

    +1

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Tall Pete
     Says

     

    Aug 31st, 2010 (10:11 am)

    Jeff: I just think it’s the responsible thing to do for future generations.

    Exactly. It seems that the right-wing crowd has too often a short-term vision of life, as if there would be no tomorrow.

    If there is no tomorrow, you don’t need to pay taxes to maintain infrastructures. You use the existing infrastructure for free and f..k the next generation. You don’t need to not spoil Alaska or the Gulf since no one will suffer : there is no tomorrow, remember ?

    Conspiracy theories for everything cause it makes no sense that someone would think ahead.

    Well, /rant off.


  222. 222
    Tall Pete

    +1

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Tall Pete
     Says

     

    Aug 31st, 2010 (10:16 am)

    pjkPA: First it was the ozone hole…. but that healed up. Now they need more money to fund their “work”… now we have the green house gas theory… it’s making millions at our expense.
    Most of this enviromental BS comes from California where they burn tons of garbage on Hunington beach at night then wake up and blame the cars because they can’t see the mountains through the smoke.

    I don’t know how much education would be required for you to open *a little* your mind. I know I just don’t have that kind of time…


  223. 223
    Constantin

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Constantin
     Says

     

    Aug 31st, 2010 (11:02 am)

    100% ELECTRIC RULES !


  224. 224
    greenWin

    +1

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    greenWin
     Says

     

    Aug 31st, 2010 (12:40 pm)

    Jeff: Am I getting this about right? Or can you not hear me over the crinkling noises from your tin-foil helmet?

    Jeff, clearly you have a limited understanding of tin-foil helmet usage. One does not pull the helmet down over the ears as all the dangerous radiation emanates from above. Thus, the experienced helmet wearer (and survivor of deadly intergalactic rays) can readily hear the critique of conspiracy debunkers. Provided their pulpits are well positioned.


  225. 225
    Truman

    +1

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Truman
     Says

     

    Aug 31st, 2010 (12:54 pm)

    Joe Cascarelli: Finally, our liberal governor and our Democrat controlled assembly has mandated that 30% of the state’s electricity must come from renewables by 2030. Do you know who will pay for all those windmills and solar panels? We consumers will pay through electricity prices that will be 50% higher than they are today. For us here in rural Colorado, your Volt is just a cruel joke.  

    Twenty years is a long time for technology prices to come down – what was the price of a 42″ flat panel TV 20 years ago ? Guessing that electricity prices will be 50% higher because 30% of production is from wind and solar is just a guess. And you have no idea what natural gas, coal and oil prices will do in the next 20 or 40 years – non-renewable electricity prices might double anyway.

    How was your guessing powers in 2008 before oil prices hit $147.27 per barrel on July 11th ? Was that a funny joke, or a cruel one ? Is it OK for you folk in rural Colorado to pay $trillions for oil wars in the Middle East to ensure energy for the next 20 years, and let Wall St. speculators jack up the prices of fossil fuels whenever it looks like the US might invade Iran or Pakistan or Venezuela ? Any complaints about that ?

    Because that was a cruel joke for us here in New York. We’d rather see American hi-tech making electricity for vehicles like the Volt than fighting 30 year Wars in the Middle East to keep the oil flowing at low prices so people can cheaply tow 4 horses or a yacht.


  226. 226
    Greg Schaffer

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Greg Schaffer
     Says

     

    Aug 31st, 2010 (1:24 pm)

    The ratings for electric power are somewhat misleading. At least with gasoline, you know the energy source as well as automobile efficiency. But with electric power, what is the source of the electricity? Suppose it is a coal burning power plant. Then the air pollution may actually be worse than that from running off gasoline. How do you factor in electricity from other sources? It seems that a “one size fits all” is being used here.


  227. 227
    Dan Petit

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Dan Petit
     Says

     

    Aug 31st, 2010 (3:40 pm)

    CorvetteGuy: I walked over to the Parts Department to order up (2) of the 2011 VOLT Owner’s manuals… HolyGuacamoleeee!!! Their $105.00 each… The system says they are not available yet, so I can’t place a pending order. My parts manager is going to let me know when ordering one is allowed.  

    What?? Only 105 bucks??
    I need to get over to the parts department myself to order one.
    I wonder if it will have all those neat “glossies” of the displays like
    you posted for us a few threads back?
    (They might need to print like five times as many as the Volts expected to be made. lol).

    As far as the efficiency label is concerned, I agree that
    just keep it simple for the electric range daily capability, as well as the Charge Sustain mode thereafter the electric range daily. That is what the rest of the populace needs to be able to “benchmark” so they know clearly any differing capabilities (compared to anything else claiming to be a plug-in EREV of very significant ER).


  228. 228
    Denzil Austin

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Denzil Austin
     Says

     

    Aug 31st, 2010 (5:01 pm)

    Sounds like more “USELESS HYPE” to me. most drivers will never know when they are even in an energy saving mode… let alone, take the time to figure out the “ESTIMATED” milage! (which may change in 3 seconds !!!) I remember when the E.P.A. made an estimated M.P.G. table in the 1970′s, and the manufacturers could not meet those standards, either! spend some time on “Conservation-Saving the consumer some money” rather than figuring out how to blow what is left over!!! on useless gimmick/word games about selling points and economy.


  229. 229
    Open-Mind

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Open-Mind
     Says

     

    Aug 31st, 2010 (5:20 pm)

    Truman: You can live there too, if you spend lots of time watching FOX, reading the wingnut blogosphere, and listening to freedom-loving radio for those hidden clues that help you find the magic beans.

    What a classic liberal diatribe. When you can’t refute the message, just attack the messenger. Right out of the Alinsky playbook. Almost funny.

    Let just ignore all the facts that indicate “global cooling”, then “global warming”, and now “climate change” are just three variations of the same con. Interesting that all three cons have the same magic solution: higher taxes and bigger government.


  230. 230
    Truman

    +1

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Truman
     Says

     

    Aug 31st, 2010 (11:34 pm)

    Open-Mind:
    What a classic liberal diatribe. When you can’t refute the message, just attack the messenger. Right out of the Alinsky playbook. Almost funny.Let just ignore all the facts that indicate “global cooling”, then “global warming”, and now “climate change” are just three variations of the same con. Interesting that all three cons have the same magic solution: higher taxes and bigger government.  

    I refute the “message” on other more appropriate blogs.
    Here I just laugh at the clowns.
    Thanks.


  231. 231
    Charlie H

    +1

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Charlie H
     Says

     

    Aug 31st, 2010 (11:39 pm)

    Open-Mind: What a classic liberal diatribe. When you can’t refute the message, just attack the messenger. Right out of the Alinsky playbook. Almost funny.Let just ignore all the facts that indicate “global cooling”, then “global warming”, and now “climate change” are just three variations of the same con. Interesting that all three cons have the same magic solution: higher taxes and bigger government.  (Quote)

    Brlliantly wrong. All the “global cooling” papers were predicated on the notion that we would not control aerosols. We did. “Global warming” is older and people were attempting to quantify the probable effect over sixty years ago. RealcClimate had an excellent article on this a couple weeks back. Do yourself a favor, find it and read it. “Happy Birthday, Global Warming.”

    Fox is an excellent source of half-truths and distortions. Get the science, for a change.

    And just generally get a clue… there’s no political power in the environmental movement. Environmental victories are won slowly and grudgingly and only as we face environmental disasters or other highly obvious evidence of injury to the ecosystem. If you want real political power, you start a war and/or demonize an unpopular minority. Bush started the war, the Tea Party is demonizing the Muslims (when they’re not demonizing Obama).

    Now, as it happens, we face something unique. Atmospheric CO2 has already risen from about 285 to 385ppmv in the last 50 years. If we were to hold atmospheric CO2 at this level (not possible), the Earth’s global temp would rise by another 1-2degF, just on the basis of what’s already in the atmosphere. It’s probably not practical to stop atmospheric CO2 short of 450ppmv and most likely it will go higher. However, we should begin the process of reigning it in today.

    We face a situation where we are going to have to use our intellect to recognize and then coopere to respond to a threat that is not yet obviously disastrous.

    Given the drumbeat of the Morons, this is unlikely to happen. Your children and grandchildren WILL suffer.


  232. 232
    K Newman

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    K Newman
     Says

     

    Sep 2nd, 2010 (1:33 am)

    The Blended Gas plus electric sticker with a COMPARISION RATING ON HOW MANY MILES A VEHICLE CAN TRAVEL ON A ELECTRIC CHARGE (this way a buyer can compare how efficient the electic battery is in order to travel on a 100% electric charge)

    The all Gas sticker with a NOTATION IF THE ENGINE TAKES STANDARD UNLEADED, PREMIUM or E85 BLENDS (this way a buyer can tell if the gas will be at the lower or upper price range) and if the vehicle is allowed to travel in FEDERAL HIGHWAY DESIGNATED CARPOLL LANES

    Thank you


  233. 233
    CM

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    CM
     Says

     

    Sep 2nd, 2010 (1:53 am)

    iroc: “GAS ONLY” mode is good … keep that.-“ELECTRIC ONLY” mode should be MPkWh (Miles Per kiloWatt-hour).-“ELECTRIC + GAS” mode is meaningless … throw it out.  

    Well, the “Gas Only” and “Electric Only” would be used with PHEVs like the Volt that have clearly delineated “Electric” and “extended range gas only” modes. The “Electric + Gas” is for PHEVs like the Plug-in Prius that “blend” gas and electricity before dropping back into regular hybrid “Gas Only” mode. The EPA will use whichever terms are appropriate for each type of vehicle.


  234. 234
    Bruce

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Bruce
     Says

     

    Sep 2nd, 2010 (2:00 pm)

    The Nissan LEAF is better. It can go 100 miles without gas, and it costs less.


  235. 235
    jwcrim

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    jwcrim
     Says

     

    Sep 3rd, 2010 (5:30 pm)

    When you try to simplify you just confuse things much further. Do this:

    Create three user economy oriented fuel-cost graphs:

    Plot “Electrical Fuel Cost” ($/mi):
    Fuel Cost ($/mi) vs. Electricity Cost (Cents/KWH)
    (Two curves – City, Hwy)

    Plot “Gasoline Fuel Cost” ($/mi):
    Fuel Cost ($/mi) vs. Gasoline Cost ($/Gallon)
    (Two Curves – City, Hwy)

    Plot “Hybrid Fuel Cost” $/mi):
    3 axis chart: $/mi vs. Cents/KWH, $/Gallon
    (Two Curves – City, Hwy)


  236. 236
    Erik

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Erik
     Says

     

    Sep 4th, 2010 (8:22 pm)

    Take the MPG off the sticker all together. MPG is inverse consumption (and cost). Spending $6000 more for a car that gets 50 MPG over one that gets 33 MPG is STUPID because your only saving $600 a year. No matter what you say to be PC, you are not going to save any MONEY!
    When you put Annual Fuel Cost on the label most people can begin to do the math but that larger MPG number is clouding the subject. The MPG, GPHM and Annual Cost should be in the SAME SIZE FONT.

    And for all the people that want a Leaf, thanks for not supporting your country. When I see you on the side of the road, I won’t be stopping.