230MPG! From Chevy!

Some viral advertisement was going around for the last week with 230 s the only thing on it, with the 0 as an electrical plug. Turns out it was GM touting the Volt's city mileage. Yes, 230MPG. Holy flipping crap.

But the battery will only last 200 miles and the acid is made from baby Jesus' tears

I have high hopes for the Volt. After driving most of their new models over the last few (cough...20...cough) years I should know better, but I'd love to have the home team get this car right. Not for me to drive, but it would be perfect for my Mom.

CNN story

http://www.comcast.net/articles/finance/20090811/US.GM.Volt.Mileage/

It's based on someone driving less than 40 miles a day, apparently. Still pretty damn impressive, unless it winds up with the problems I was mumbling about a while back (okay, you can stop whacking me across the noggin now).

I'm not sure that is an accurate way to measure it - seems to me it would be a bit better if they measured it starting with a completely discharged battery pack.

MadScientistMatt wrote: I'm not sure that is an accurate way to measure it - seems to me it would be a bit better if they measured it starting with a completely discharged battery pack.

Should they do that with all hybrids? Doesn't that negate the whole point of the technology? If your car comes with special tires that give a boost in mpg, should the tires be emptied of air for fuel economy testing?

The Volt is a new type of concept, and will require a new way of thinking about MPG.

Bryce

I drive 60 some odd miles a day just for work. Will I get any where near 230 miles per gallon? Or should I keep my 23 mpg audi around?

Nashco wrote: The Volt is a new type of concept, and will require a new way of thinking about MPG.

Which is precisely why I don't like that figure - it doesn't reflect the electrical "mileage" of the car, and seems like it's not quite a reasonable way to think about the MPG when a car only partially runs on gasoline.

Nashco wrote:

MadScientistMatt wrote: I'm not sure that is an accurate way to measure it - seems to me it would be a bit better if they measured it starting with a completely discharged battery pack.

Should they do that with all hybrids? Doesn't that negate the whole point of the technology? If your car comes with special tires that give a boost in mpg, should the tires be emptied of air for fuel economy testing?

If the air in the special tires is a consumable with a rapid rate of consumption, then yes. The car should be in the same state at the end of the test as it is in the beginning. If you have to top something up (such as my Cadillac, which requires a quart of oil every 100 miles due to a leaky rear main seal), then this should be figured in the cost of operation. If you have to plug the Volt in every night as part of your sub-40 mile per day operation (which means 6 recharges of the on-board battery per 230 miles), then the cost of the electricity needs to be figured.

The cool thing for GM is that they're only allowed to quote the EPA numbers. Even if they're too high, anything else is illegal. So if the EPA doesn't measure the electricity, then GM wins. And the idea of an electric car that can operate "untethered" using the on-board engine is very cool.

The Volt isn't the perfect zero-pollution vehicle, but it represents an option for folks who have short commutes. Hell, it would work well for me Monday through Friday.

Of course, the too-high pricetag makes keeps it from being an option, and the turbo Miata still makes a decent commuter.

MadScientistMatt wrote:

Nashco wrote: The Volt is a new type of concept, and will require a new way of thinking about MPG.

Which is precisely why I don't like that figure - it doesn't reflect the electrical "mileage" of the car, and seems like it's not quite a reasonable way to think about the MPG when a car only partially runs on gasoline.

Hmmm...good point.

It appears that the test works in GM's favor IF done in 6 days of only 40 miles per day.

It they attempt to generate an mpg figure for a 230 mile trek in 1 day, they will use significantly more gasoline, as the batteries will be dead.

This standard no longer works.

Tom Heath wrote: The Volt isn't the perfect zero-pollution vehicle, but it represents an option for folks who have short commutes. Hell, it would work well for me Monday through Friday. Of course, the too-high pricetag makes keeps it from being an option, and the turbo Miata still makes a decent commuter.

I agree with this wholeheartedly, it makes alot of sense, not for me right this instant, but I won't be in the market for a new DD for several years and by then who knows? Gen 2 may be a whole different ballgame and the time may be right I'll be watching...

Keith wrote:

Nashco wrote:

MadScientistMatt wrote: I'm not sure that is an accurate way to measure it - seems to me it would be a bit better if they measured it starting with a completely discharged battery pack.

Should they do that with all hybrids? Doesn't that negate the whole point of the technology? If your car comes with special tires that give a boost in mpg, should the tires be emptied of air for fuel economy testing?

If the air in the special tires is a consumable with a rapid rate of consumption, then yes. The car should be in the same state at the end of the test as it is in the beginning. If you have to top something up (such as my Cadillac, which requires a quart of oil every 100 miles due to a leaky rear main seal), then this should be figured in the cost of operation. If you have to plug the Volt in every night as part of your sub-40 mile per day operation (which means 6 recharges of the on-board battery per 230 miles), then the cost of the electricity needs to be figured. The cool thing for GM is that they're only allowed to quote the EPA numbers. Even if they're too high, anything else is illegal. So if the EPA doesn't measure the electricity, then GM wins. And the idea of an electric car that can operate "untethered" using the on-board engine is very cool.

Cost of operation and EPA fuel economy are two ENTIRELY different things, obviously. The EPA figures should account for the electricity consumed, and this is fairly straight forward to do using a kW-hours/distance figure with a pure EV. However, things get trickier when you start mixing two different propulsion methods. It took the EPA years to get a more appropriate test method to account for standard hybrids (powered purely by gas with a battery assist), and I think this new way of using gas/batteries will be even more likely to get argued about until the cows come home. Some argue the number given should be expressed as the fuel usage for an infinite period, some say it should reflect the typical commute. The way the fuel economy was calculated was just changed to figure for more aggressive driving and with things like AC usage (read: less efficient driving) to reflect the "typical" driving style, so why not change the figure to reflect the "typical" commute distance between plug ins?

The argument of how the economy should be tested/expressed can go on and on. My point is that the government will eventually come up with a standard for plug-ins like the Volt, and that standard STILL won't be accurate for a lot of people...just like some people never hit EPA ratings for their gas car and some people can easily exceed them. They're only use is to give a basis of comparison, and even then YMMV (ha!). Driving style, commute distance, location, climate, maintenance, etc. all factor in. Even if the Volt is only capable of 230 mpg in perfectly ideal conditions, isn't that still pretty damn good/cool/impressive/noteworthy?

Bryce

PS...seriously, I know it sucks pulling an engine/trans just to do a rear main, but in that big boat of a Caddy it's a pretty easy job. Doesn't a quart every 100 miles make for a hell of a mess on the car/road/parking lot?

...and if you're interested in how they come up with this stuff (and need something technical and boring to read to put yourself to sleep)...

http://www.nrel.gov/vehiclesandfuels/vsa/pdfs/40377.pdf

SO 367mpg Nissan

Grtechguy wrote: SO 367mpg Nissan

Of course the smaller, pure (non-hybrid) EV gets a better fuel economy rating. The issue with Joe America is the refusal to stop and recharge for a few hours every 100 miles instead of stopping to refuel the tank every 300 miles on those weekend trips to visit Grandma or go to the big swap meet two states over. This is why the Volt has been created...EVs are great if you don't mind that limited range part, or if you have more than one vehicle to rely on, the Volt fills the gap for others.

Bryce

Nashco wrote:

Grtechguy wrote: SO 367mpg Nissan

Of course the smaller, pure (non-hybrid) EV gets a better fuel economy rating. The issue with Joe America is that noone is going to pay $40,000 for a damn car the size of a cobalt from "New GM" .

fixed it for you.

I haven't baught a "new*" car since 1991. Everything I buy is a few years old, at least.

I will buy a NEW car if it gets a verified 100 mpg. I don't care who makes it.

*Caveat, when we adopted our daughter, and grew to a family of 5, I did buy a brand spanking new minivan in 2005.

Keith wrote: The cool thing for GM is that they're only allowed to quote the EPA numbers. Even if they're too high, anything else is illegal. So if the EPA doesn't measure the electricity, then GM wins.

Ooooh! That's sneaky. Luckily, though, the EPA realizes that the numbers are bogus and that they can't use them:

http://blogs.edmunds.com/greencaradvisor/2009/08/epa-applauds-gm-effort-but-says-it-cannot-confirm-volts-claimed-230-mpg.html

EPA said: the agency issued the following statement: "EPA has not tested a Chevy Volt and therefore cannot confirm the fuel economy values claimed by GM.

It's still a good idea for a car, and one that can significantly reduce the use of foreign oil. (My local powerplant runs on domestically mined coal.) I only travel distances on weekends, which means that I could go through weeks of daily driving without evern having to use gasoline in that car....

See, my beef with the EPA and their regulated window stickers is that they report out units of "MPG". As soon as the consumer sees that, they start thinking, I can measure miles, I can measure gallons, so I can calculate that exact number under any scenario. Everyone gets upset.

If the EPA would force window stickers to be in units of EPAs or Carrots or Breadsticks (am I posting while hungry?) then people might see it for what it is- a means of comparing products against each other while shopping, not a guarantee of performance under all operating conditions.

My same gripe applies to the topic at hand, the advertised city mileage of the Chevy Volt. The EPA now has a draft standard (Bryce, thanks for linking above) on how to come up with this MPG measure of comparison for a vehicle that no longer has just one energy input. The EPA solution seems to be a somewhat complex calculation that yields two figures. One is a MPG number - 230 in this case. The other is a KwH/Miles number- 25 in this example. Both can be used by people that buy new cars for comparing between this product and competing products before plunking down their hard earned cash.

Let me drive home the point with an extreme example. See below for the EPA's take on a 2003 Toyota Rav4 EV. http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/2008car1tablef.jsp?id=19296 Its an electric vehicle. Try as you may, you won't find a tank to pump gas into on this, yet the EPA has assigned it a MPG value of 112 combined MPG. Gallons of electrons? Gallons of Gasoline? It doesn't matter, its a unit for the consumer to use as a comparison shopping tool, not to compare to the gas pump when filling up.

As for the EPA announcement late today, it doesn't read to me that they are saying GM is stating inaccuracies, they're stating that the EPA has not yet verified GM's numbers.

Hey, when you make the car, and you write the test, voila!, you get a really good rating!

Duh!

David

Should be fairly easy. Get a car in a starting condition. Drive it through a drive cycle. Return the car to the starting condition. What had to be added? That's your consumption.

Of course, defining the drive cycle is the really hard part. Make it a bunch of short hops and the plug-in hybrid will consume almost no gasoline but a bunch of electrons. Make it longer and the plug-in will see far less of a benefit. What's typical? Ah, there's the problem.

As for the leaking rear main in the Caddy, it only leaks when the car is running. And it hasn't run for a while, not since it came back from the last long trip where I discovered the problem. Someday I'll fix it. Right after I fix everything else...

It would simplify a lot of things if they would just rate it by miles per mega-Joule

MadScientistMatt wrote:

Nashco wrote: The Volt is a new type of concept, and will require a new way of thinking about MPG.

Which is precisely why I don't like that figure - it doesn't reflect the electrical "mileage" of the car, and seems like it's not quite a reasonable way to think about the MPG when a car only partially runs on gasoline.

But electricity is free and clean and comes out of the wall!

I'll believe all of the hype about the Volt when it's actually on the road.

Shawn