230

[AGR]

Look, I'm as big a Ford fan as anyone, but we need to give GM its due. The Volt is a terrific innovation. As Americans(for those of us who are Americans), we should cheer when one of our companies gives Toyota(especially Toyota) and Honda a big kick in the teeth, even if it's not Ford doing the kicking.

[rmc523]

I smell overpromising underdelivering here. Of course, the GM fanboys will claim they will be able to beat the EPA estimates and can get 400MPG out of it when it comes out in 2030.

 

Agreed.

[twintornados]

Along the lines of CSX rail freight....love the ads that tout that they "get" 420 miles per gallon....it must be 4:20 time for those ad men...LOL

[Mark B. Morrow]

The EPA won't commit to GM's 230 mpg number.

 

http://www.autobloggreen.com/2009/08/11/ep...0-mpg-for-volt/

 

Seems to be some potential for extreme embarassment to GM if the official numbers are much lower after the car hits the street given the money and publicity of the 230 ad campaign. I would think GM would want to be really sure of their numbers on this one. It is going to be a while before the Volt is available. Bad press would be a hell of a way to launch a $40k car.

[Anthony]

Well they can't commit to a car they have not tested yet. Heck, I hope they sell a boatload of them. Someone has to be first. It just means lower costs down the road when everyone else jumps on the bandwagon.

[battyr]

This car is not a hybrid as we think of a Prius or Fusion Hybrid. It works the same way as a modern Train Locomotive - the gas engine generates electricity, and the electric motor power the wheels. The gas engine never directly powers the wheels as it does for a Prius, it just produces the electricity to charge batteries and/or run the electric motor.

This technology is not really new. Submarines in the pre-nuclear era worked this way, and as I said, this is the reason that transportation by rail is so efficient.

This old concept, when perfected for autos (trucks and RV’s hopefully to come) is far better than any “alternative” currently in use.

 

A locomotive is efficient because it has steel wheels riding on steel rails. They use electric motors because it is not practical to build a transmission that has enough gears and can handle the torque required to run a train.

 

Running mechanical energy from an engine through a mechanical transmission to mechanically power wheels should more efficient than converting mechanical energy from the engine to electrical energy, then converting it into chemical energy in a batter, then converting it back to electrical energy to power the wheels.

 

The Volt has an advantage as a battery vehicle, but when the engine in running, I really don't see it's advantage.

[Kev-Mo]

Look, I'm as big a Ford fan as anyone, but we need to give GM its due. The Volt is a terrific innovation. As Americans(for those of us who are Americans), we should cheer when one of our companies gives Toyota(especially Toyota) and Honda a big kick in the teeth, even if it's not Ford doing the kicking.

 

 

+1

Not entirely and innovation, but a new use for WWII boat and RR technology. The folks here who can't get the typical hybrid electric motor giving way to gas motor out of the argument do not understand how this thing works. The gas motor never directly powers the wheels.

Let's see, a small, super efficient, always turning at optimum RPM gasoline engine, It's sole job is running a generator that either directly powers an electric motor to move the car or charges batteries to use the power later...I think this has enormous potential. This technology can re-invent the RV business. Imagine those monstrosities that get 6 mpg and can't get out of their own way, now going down the road like a locomotive at maximum torque and efficiency. Not going to happen tomorrow, but if this can be perfected, it will be awesome.

 

A quick read through this, which mentions the Volt will provide of history of the technology dating back to the early 1900's

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel-electric_transmission

Edited August 12, 2009 by Kev-Mo

[RangerM]

The Volt has an advantage as a battery vehicle, but when the engine in running, I really don't see it's advantage.

There can't be.

 

Let's assume you get the hyped 230 mpg, on the first gallon.

 

According to the press release yesterday, the Volt has a 300-mile range.

 

I'm assuming it has a 2-gallon tank, for a 460-mile range?

nope, it's 8.3.

 

certifying a car like this is very difficult. i assume the math pan's out in the EPA's new test..but being as it's not approved yet and the test parameters aren't yet released..this is still unofficial.

 

if the old test's were used..it would get infinite miles. which is obviously not realistic to the average driver.

 

Assuming you really get that 230mpg on the first gallon, that leaves 7.3 gallons (theoretically) left to travel a remaining 70 miles in the total range (230+70=300)

 

What that would mean is once that battery discharges, you're getting about 10mpg.

 

I doubt that 10 mpg figure is correct, therefore that 230 mpg figure would not be either.

Edited August 12, 2009 by RangerM

[kpc655]

There can't be.

 

Let's assume you get the hyped 230 mpg, on the first gallon.

 

According to the press release yesterday, the Volt has a 300-mile range.

 

 

nope, it's 8.3.

 

certifying a car like this is very difficult. i assume the math pan's out in the EPA's new test..but being as it's not approved yet and the test parameters aren't yet released..this is still unofficial.

 

if the old test's were used..it would get infinite miles. which is obviously not realistic to the average driver.

 

 

Assuming you really get that 230mpg on the first gallon, that leaves 7.3 gallons (theoretically) left to travel a remaining 70 miles in the total range (230+70=300)

 

What that would mean is once that battery discharges, you're getting about 10mpg.

 

I doubt that 10 mpg figure is correct, therefore that 230 mpg figure would not be either.

the range is longer then 300 miles

[RangerM]

the range is longer then 300 miles

Source please?

 

I'm quoting CNBC.

[nelsonlu]

Assuming you really get that 230mpg on the first gallon, that leaves 7.3 gallons (theoretically) left to travel a remaining 70 miles in the total range (230+70=300)

 

What that would mean is once that battery discharges, you're getting about 10mpg.

 

I doubt that 10 mpg figure is correct, therefore that 230 mpg figure would not be either.

 

I don't think how it works. GM was effectively saying that the average city mileage is 230 MPG in regular use; they made no claims with regard to whether that applies to the first gallon or the entire tank, but it has to be as to the entire tank, as they can't really be claiming average of 230 MPG if it only applied to the first gallon.

 

Remember that the Volt allegedly has a 40-mile pure-electric range. So, if it has a 300-mile range overall, the 8.5-gallon tank would only have to average 260 / 8.5 = 30.6 MPG. Given how small the car is, I think this is far, far from undoable, and completely plausible. Indeed, if the Fusion Hybrid had only a 8.5 gallon tank, it would already have that range.

[kpc655]

Source please?

 

I'm quoting CNBC.

 

Unable to divulge my source. But MSNBC is wrong.

 

But this should be obvious...a 300 mile range, or 260 after ev, would man 31 MPG in charge sustaining.

 

This exercise demonstrates the problem of calculating MPG (emphasis on the G) for this type of vehicle. For someone how plugs it in every night and commutes 40ish miles, their MPG will be very high (not infinite, since the engine is designed to run periodically regardless of battery charge). whereas someone who gets on the highway and runs till it's empty will get much worse mileage.

 

This type of vehicle is extremely sensitive to driving cycle (hint there on why the 230 number is so BS). Under no circumstances could someone put a gallon of fuel in and get that number. Unlike a normal vehicle whose engine produces the same power regardless of how full the tank is, an EV does not operate like that.

Edited August 12, 2009 by kpc655

[92merc]

I don't think how it works. GM was effectively saying that the average city mileage is 230 MPG in regular use; they made no claims with regard to whether that applies to the first gallon or the entire tank, but it has to be as to the entire tank, as they can't really be claiming

So that means I can state my 2003 F150 SCREW gets 9999 miles to the gallon. That's what my scan gauge read going down hill while towing a load.

 

What GM should be stating is the Volt has the "potential" to achieve 230 mpg. Not the actual rating...

[RangerM]

I don't think how it works. GM was effectively saying that the average city mileage is 230 MPG in regular use; they made no claims with regard to whether that applies to the first gallon or the entire tank, but it has to be as to the entire tank, as they can't really be claiming average of 230 MPG if it only applied to the first gallon.

 

Remember that the Volt allegedly has a 40-mile pure-electric range. So, if it has a 300-mile range overall, the 8.5-gallon tank would only have to average 260 / 8.5 = 30.6 MPG. Given how small the car is, I think this is far, far from undoable, and completely plausible. Indeed, if the Fusion Hybrid had only a 8.5 gallon tank, it would already have that range.

I'm not doubting your logic here.

 

My only point is that there is a problem, either with the methodology or what is being portrayed.

 

For many people (assuming they are able to charge the car every night), there may be no gasoline used at all. BUT, if you said that then people would know think it's a fantasy.

 

IIRC, GM themselves quoted the actual mpg around 50 in regular driving (with the ICE).

 

"230 mpg" is confusing, and obfuscates the truth. I can see how many people would hear that press release, and immediately expect to get that.

 

[sIDEBAR QUESTION] I'm not a mechanical engineer, but would I be correct is saying that a better (read: more efficient) combination of combustion engine/Electric power generation would be a turbine engine instead of a traditional cylinder engine? The turbine is probably more expensive, though.

Edited August 12, 2009 by RangerM

[jpd80]

Like everyone else, I'm waiting for the big recant.

 

It's a big end run around the EPA testing regimes, the big battery makes it an EV with on board charger.

[92merc]

Simply put, any vehicle that utilizes an electric motor as the sole means for propulsion (excluding gravity), should not be rated in Miles Per Gallon. Some sort of standard needs to be created based on cost per a mile to show the level playing field. That rating would have to also based on non-stop range.

 

So the range is XYZ miles. Within that range, the cost to drive was $XY dollars assuming gas was this much and/or electricity cost $$ per a KWH.

 

Problem is, people would start rating gas engines on the same rating for comparison. Then the greenies will scream murder because everyone will start to see that their beloved electric vehicles cost the ?? times more to drive per a mile than petro based vehicles.

[nelsonlu]

Like everyone else, I'm waiting for the big recant.

 

It's a big end run around the EPA testing regimes, the big battery makes it an EV with on board charger.

 

And I don't see how that is a "big end run around EPA testing regimes." Essentially, if the proper facts are disclosed (and the key metrics here should be average energy cost per mile, maximum range, and optimal range (i.e., range of maximum cost effectiveness)), I don't see anything improper yet with GM's advertising. The key here to the 230 MPG claim is: is the average driver going to get 230 miles per gallon? I don't see it as undoable given the Volt's design philosophy. It has major downsides compared to the Fusion Hybrid (seats only four, less than half of the range as the Fusion, presumably far less cargo space, presumably not quite as safe), for example, but when you're willing to sacrifice on these things to get a more fuel efficient car, the Volt would allow you to do so.

 

The Volt, if it actually does what GM promises, looks like a brilliant idea. Effectively, it's a major game changer because it 1) doesn't have the same range limitations as the Focus EV and the Leaf will and 2) will have far greater fuel efficiency, even when accounting for cost of electricity, than the Prius and other current hybrids. Given its design and the nature of its limitations, if done right, it can be a Prius-killer. I don't think it directly impacts the Focus EV, the Leaf, or the larger hybrids (Fusion, Camry, Altima, &c.) as much, because those who would be going for the Focus and the Leaf are the ones who will be willing to live with the range limitations anyway to get even greater efficiency/zero emissions, and those who need the bigger hybrids will need them anyway. But the Prius, with its current prices, won't be so much lower-priced than the Volt, and while it will presumably still have a large cargo space advantage, it won't have a major interior space advantage or range advantage.

 

(A further thought about range: the range limitations that the Focus and the Leaf will have are there even if/when the nation sets up an extensive work of charging stations -- as the charging stations are not going to be able to charge as instantaneously as gas stations are, even with the "flash chargers.")

 

The Volt isn't going to be for everyone. It might not even be the right car for a large number of people. But if it will do what GM says it will do, it will make a lot of monetary sense for a lot of people, notwithstanding its relative high cost. My guess is that it's going to be optimal for those people whose average commutes are slightly longer than the Volt's EV-only range, particularly if they will have a charging station available at or near work, but it is in any case more versatile than the Focus EV and the Leaf.

 

(For what it's worth, I considered waiting for the Volt myself -- my commute is 85 miles each way, and while there is no charging station at work, the municipal parking garage that I park at does have regular (110V) power supplies that I assume that they would let me use on a first-come-first-served basis -- but ultimately decided not to wait because the Fusion Hybrid makes much more sense for me anyway given the length of the commute and that I don't think GM can make the Volt as nice of a car as the Fusion.)

Edited August 12, 2009 by nelsonlu

[lfeg]

Simply put, any vehicle that utilizes an electric motor as the sole means for propulsion (excluding gravity), should not be rated in Miles Per Gallon. Some sort of standard needs to be created based on cost per a mile to show the level playing field. That rating would have to also based on non-stop range.

 

So the range is XYZ miles. Within that range, the cost to drive was $XY dollars assuming gas was this much and/or electricity cost $$ per a KWH.

 

Problem is, people would start rating gas engines on the same rating for comparison. Then the greenies will scream murder because everyone will start to see that their beloved electric vehicles cost the ?? times more to drive per a mile than petro based vehicles.

 

BINGO! The only way toget a rational comparisin is to put everything into an energy per distance format. kW-hrs per 100 miles is as good as any. The average energy content of gasoline, diesel, ethanol, propane, and so on are all known, so it is not that difficult.

[nelsonlu]

Simply put, any vehicle that utilizes an electric motor as the sole means for propulsion (excluding gravity), should not be rated in Miles Per Gallon. Some sort of standard needs to be created based on cost per a mile to show the level playing field. That rating would have to also based on non-stop range.

 

So the range is XYZ miles. Within that range, the cost to drive was $XY dollars assuming gas was this much and/or electricity cost $$ per a KWH.

 

Problem is, people would start rating gas engines on the same rating for comparison. Then the greenies will scream murder because everyone will start to see that their beloved electric vehicles cost the ?? times more to drive per a mile than petro based vehicles.

 

Hybrids are great time savers, and time is money. If you really want to be accurate, you need to configure that into the equation as well. (Certainly it was a major factor that played into my consideration in getting a Fusion Hybrid.) Assuming that the EV manufacturers do their vehicles right, EVs should cost even less time/money in maintenance, but would "cost" more time in the sense of the need to charge.

 

But if we really, really want to be accurate, the environmental costs of pollution -- particularly, of the "clean diesel" vehicles that really aren't as clean as the manufacturers claim they are -- should be quantified and figured into the equation as well. It might not be a cost borne by only the driver, but we all bear the cost.

[nelsonlu]

BINGO! The only way toget a rational comparisin is to put everything into an energy per distance format. kW-hrs per 100 miles is as good as any. The average energy content of gasoline, diesel, ethanol, propane, and so on are all known, so it is not that difficult.

 

The EPA Web site is already set up to do this. It's not exactly difficult to do.

[old_fairmont_wagon]

Well, in the world of carbon cap and trade, perhaps it will come a time that you have to pay a surcharge on the car you purchase based on its emissions classification. For example, there is the usual EPA Tier/Bin structure, well, there can be a carbon impact rating, say 1 to 5. Vehicle purchasers will have to pay a surcharge based on what classification their vehicle is in. This, if done properly, will do away with the obfuscation that is the "clean diesel" movement.

 

I'm all for a dual label setup on ER-EVs. One section is its dead battery operating efficiency in equivalent miles per gasoline gallon city/highway/combined. The second section is KW/H per 100 miles driven city/highway/combined. Then, there needs to be a summary that spells out maximum vehicle range under optimum conditions and dead battery conditions.

 

That would have to be a noticeably different EPA sticker. A national advertising campaign could educate the public on how to read it. Then, you have a level playing field that's more difficult to game by just lumping in more batteries or going with a smaller gas engine.

 

Yes, a gas turbine engine can be more efficient than a 4 cycle reciprocating engine. Its also mroe expensive. Gas turbines have better power density than their equivalent 4 cycle reciprocating engine (they are smaller in size per a given power output, if optimized for size). For steady state operation, they can also be more efficient, though startup might pose an issue in a regular car. This is one area that I do see where the Mazda Renesis Rotary engine might eventually have an advantage. It is highly power dense as well, producing good HP numbers for its size. Scalled down and with a turbo, I suspect that it could be a very good engine for an ER-EV. Quick startup, doesn't take up a lot of space and isn't especially heavy. Up until its most recent iteration, it hasn't been especially fuel efficient, but if optimized for steady state performance could be made to give decent fuel consumption numbers. The rotary is not ideal by any means, but, it may offer a better than expected set of trade-offs if taken as a whole.

[lfeg]

Just as a point of reference. Using average values for unleaded gasoline, one gallon contains about 33.38 kW-hr of energy per gallon. So a car that gets 30 miles per gallon of gasoline consumes about 110 kW-hr per 100 miles. Long term, the EV I have been driving has averaged about 34 kW-hr per 100 miles.

 

Hey, another option in the mix.

[battyr]

There can't be.

 

Let's assume you get the hyped 230 mpg, on the first gallon.

 

According to the press release yesterday, the Volt has a 300-mile range.

 

 

nope, it's 8.3.

 

certifying a car like this is very difficult. i assume the math pan's out in the EPA's new test..but being as it's not approved yet and the test parameters aren't yet released..this is still unofficial.

 

if the old test's were used..it would get infinite miles. which is obviously not realistic to the average driver.

 

 

Assuming you really get that 230mpg on the first gallon, that leaves 7.3 gallons (theoretically) left to travel a remaining 70 miles in the total range (230+70=300)

 

What that would mean is once that battery discharges, you're getting about 10mpg.

 

I doubt that 10 mpg figure is correct, therefore that 230 mpg figure would not be either.

 

I think your math has proved that the Volt really does not get 230 mpg.

[630land]

When it is out on the street awhile, with no recalls, and making $$$, then GM fanboys can crow. For now, it is still another GM 'wait and see what we got'.

 

 

And one more thing, wait til some greenies see their electric bills! It is not FREE! The power companies are salivating on the planned profits.

Edited August 12, 2009 by 630land

[nelsonlu]

When it is out on the street awhile, with no recalls, and making $$$, then GM fanboys can crow. For now, it is still another GM 'wait and see what we got'.

 

 

And one more thing, wait til some greenies see their electric bills! It is not FREE! The power companies are salivating on the planned profits.

 

No, electricity is not free, but all of the estimates that I've seen (including from BMW, which obviously just recently launched it's all Mini E) indicate that the increase in electric bill is minimal.