Slashdot Mirror
Chevy Volt Rated At 230 mpg In the City
necro81 writes "General Motors, emerging from bankruptcy, today announced that its upcoming plug-in hybrid vehicle, the Volt, will have an EPA rating of 230 mpg for city driving (about 98 km/L). The unprecedented rating, the first in triple digits, is the result of a new (draft) methodology for calculating the 'gas' mileage for vehicles that operate primarily or extensively on electricity. The Volt, due out late next year, can drive approximately 40 miles on its Li-Ion battery pack, after which a gasoline engine kicks in to provide additional electricity to charge the battery. Running off the gasoline engine yields approximately 50 mpg. Of course, the devil's in the details, because the conversion of grid-based electricity to gasoline-mileage is imprecise." Now we know the meaning of the mysterious "230" viral marketing campaign.
Chevy has been promising the Volt for years now. *IF* it ever does come out, it might be interesting - but by now their marketing campaign seems to be run by Duke Nukem.
One of many BIG questions I have: How does this thing provide heating/cooling and what impact does running these systems have on said MPG performance?
I honestly don't know, but the summary would suggest otherwise. Specifically:
That strongly suggests they ARE accounting for the electricity. The question is, how? Just how "imprecise" is the conversion? I don't doubt that you are right to call BS but unraveling the BS won't be quite as simple as the objection you raised.
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
Look at the testing yourself and see the potential loopholes. There's no reason to guess here. The information is available.
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
How about miles per pound of carbon dioxide emission?
Or, or in addition, miles per PRIMARY unit of energy input?
--PM
The Prius isn't plugin, so it will remain as it was.
As stated in the summary, that's the EPA's rating, not GM's rating. It comes from the same place as the MPG rating on your car right now. GM didn't calculate it, or come up with it. They are just quoting it.
And yes, it's a plug-in. (That's the point.) And that is for driving using the power from the grid. Power plants are much more efficient than the engines in cars, so I assume that's being worked into that somewhere.
That said: This is the first time the EPA has ever tried to rate a plug-in electric vehicle, and their rating system probably has a few bugs to work out...
'Sensible' is a curse word.
According to GM, I guess if I never go on longer trips, my Volt will be getting infinity miles per gallon.
Ahh, only good old GM could make a car that gets 230 mpg when it could be getting infinity mpg!
They forgot to mention the Forward Mounted, Cannon Fired Grappling Hook (TM).
The instructions were a little vauge, but the pictures showed the driver aiming on a HUD at a City Bus....so you fill in the blanks.
WTF? Over?
If you have the cheddar to drop $40k on a commuter car, you probably don't think twice about the price at the pump. Let's hope there are enough people buying this for the novelty value that it will stay afloat long enough that production efficiency can improve to the $25k/unit level.
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
Getting worse mileage than the best in the world isn't exactly something to complain loudly about... Even on the engine, it gets better than a Prius.
'Sensible' is a curse word.
Nissan said last week that its all-electric vehicle, the Leaf, which comes out in late 2010, would get 367 m.p.g., using the same E.P.A. standards. so don't worry, the volt is already 137 mpg behind the competition
Everybody seems to think I'm lazy I don't mind, I think they're crazy
I'm supposed to believe that, in 2 years of hybrid development, you've developed a production vehicle that will get almost *5 TIMES* the gas mileage of Toyota's hybrid model (that they've been developing and improving on for over 12 years)?
No, you're supposed to read the summary at the very least and understand that it's talking about an EPA-established conversion from electricity usage to equivalent gasoline consumption for EVs. Regardless of the particulars of the method, it's no surprise that this number would be much higher for something running purely off an electric motor vs. the Prius which is using its ICE most of the time even for short trips.
So if a guy drives every day back and forth to work, less than 40 miles, he's only using the plug-in electricity. But the GM exec's aren't counting that electricity he's using, only his actual gasoline used on occasional longer trips, towards the "Miles Per Gallon" rating. I guess GM thinks that people don't pay for their electricity, and that electricity doesn't come from power plants that burn fossil fuels too.
According to GM, I guess if I never go on longer trips, my Volt will be getting infinity miles per gallon.
No, Smartiac, they are counting the electricity you use. The value is only for short trips that solely use electricity. It isn't infinity because they are in fact trying to account for that electricity, but put it in terms of the standard MPG. That conversion metric has a whole host of problems with it, but it isn't ludicrous on its face. EVs are extremely efficient, and power plant electricity generation is extremely efficient compared to the ICEs in automobiles. So whatever reasonable conversion you come up with, that's probably in the ballpark.
The MPG will be much lower for longer trips because there they actually have to burn actual gas. But even that is 50mpg (again using the EPA guidelines which aren't perfect for normal cars either).
The enemies of Democracy are
>it has to lug around a heavy internal combustion engine
That tiny 1.0L engine that runs a generator? Id rather be able to put gas in it when I cannot find electricity, thanks. My neighborhood BP hasnt exactly switched over.
>Long range electric or efficient internal combustion. Please, please, pick one.
The battery tech isnt here. Perhaps you can wish for faeries to power the car while youre at it because youre being 100% irrational.
Hell, even if you do this, you still need to convince the gas stations to switch over, because you'll sometimes be in a situation where you need power, now, not overnight. Early adopters appreciate a little convenience.
I would just like to point out that I'm sick of the American auto industry treating us Canadians and the rest of the metric world like second class citizens. You in the US all enjoy your wonderfully efficient 230 mpg, whereas we are stuck with only 98km/L, less than half!! For shame.
I plan to start a boycott until this terrible treatment of the metric world halts.
Who's with me?
How many gallons of electricity does it hold?
My UID is prime. Hah!
As stated in the summary, that's the EPA's rating, not GM's rating.
While I agree with you in your evaluation, keep in mind that detractors can point to the "government" (EPA) and to GM and say they're the same thing.
It doesn't hurt to be nice.
I'm not sure why people are hating on this car so much other than the fact that it's GM and everyone is mad at them for the whole bailout thing right now.
.75 gallons? You're going to complain about that?
The only real difference between this car and previous hybrids is that this one will go 40 (maybe, I'm guessing closer to 30) miles before it kicks into hyrbid mode.
This car is a great concept and for the vast majority of people I know, will provide essentially gas-less lifestyles (except on road trips, but if you're taking THIS little thing on a road trip, you did something else wrong). And if you need to go 70 miles instead of 40 in one day, you spend what?
This is the kind of technology that can break the oil companies hold on the auto industry. yet people continue to bitch about how it's not good enough for them. I say fuck you all and I hope other companies follow in this car's footsteps. All technology has to start somewhere and this is the first version of a gas-free car to hit the market. Give it a few years and we'll be seeing cars that go 60 miles on one charge, then 100, then maybe even more. Give it time, stop bitching and appreciate how far we have come, not how much you still want to happen.
That is not an argument to stop building electric cars. That is an argument to start building more powerplants.
Which is a good idea, and another discussion.
'Sensible' is a curse word.
From The Atlantic: GM's Volt Offers Amazing Mileage, But At What Cost?
Best Slashdot Co
RTFA.
They discuss the electricity consumption/cost in the article, and that the number is an estimate that's hard to calculate since many people will use the battery exclusively about 75% of the time.
I agree, it's hard to calculate to give both an accurate and realistic number. If you drive non stop until the car both runs out of electricity and petrol, then calculate distance/gallons then that's an accurate number. But is it realistic? This car isn't designed for the cross-country road-trip in mind, but even still it would get hybrid (or better) mileage due to charging over nights.
So what number do I care about? Driving cross country or day to day driving?
Similarly I could try driving my hybrid on the highway, flooring it the entire way and I wouldn't get the advertised numbers.
Granted, it would be nicer to know "how many bushels of coal are needed to charge it to capacity" and then try to find an analogy between bushels of coal -> gallons of diesel -> gallons of petrol. Then you can say those 40 miles required so much diesel, which is about so much petrol. Then again, the entire country doesn't use coal-burning-plants so even then it wouldn't be accurate.
> It's just like the people who drive "green" cars like the Prius. Do they not
> realize that the car will only run for about 100,000 miles before they have
> to replace some ridiculously expensive component? "But it's for the
> environment!" they'll claim. So the majority of consumers in the USA are
> concerned with "the environment" over their pocketbook? I think not...
Source please? Our neighbors purchased the first Prius in our metro area, and Toyota gave them a thank-you gift of a lifetime warranty so they have no incentive to under-report problems. Their Prius is around 120k and has had zero major maintenance required. Including batteries. That's pretty typical of Prius experience I have read about.
sPh
I wish they would have kept to their original listing of "40 miles on a single charge, 50 MPG when running off the generator". The EPA needs to come up with some new measuring standard for this type of car, or some idiot is going to put one gallon of gas in his uncharged Volt for a 200 mile trip one day, and bitch and moan when he runs out of gas in the middle of nowhere after 50 miles.
I'd be worried that if all my runs were full-electric, that is to say that my 10 mile commute never required the car to dip into the gasoline, that without treatment, the gasoline could break down and gum up the injectors - like when you store a boat or mower over the winter...but who wants to drive around with a stabilizer-mix full time? that's gotta put a big hit on efficiency and power if you ever need the combustion engine to kick in.
i don't think i've ever seen that issue discussed when hybrids are brought up.
Gray Davis did.
The example that illustrates the point. As the wiki points out, Davis would have been happy to stop the brownouts, only the only clear way he could have done that is by removing price caps on long-term contracts that had been established through California's energy market de-regulation (CA de-regulated its power grid, but established caps as some sort of hedge against.. er... power generation companies and market makers abusing their position by creating artificial scarcity).
It's sort of a bad example, because none of the brownouts at that time were caused by a lack of generator capacity; it was all caused by Enron and Reliant calling up their plants and telling them to call in sick for the day, causing spot prices for power to rise on account of lower supply, and calling their other plants and telling them to ship their capacity to Nevada, so they could (1) arbitrage cheap Nevada power into expensive California power and (2) sell transmission line capacity to themselves, causing the price of transmission capacity to go up and making the cost of piping the California poer to Nevada and back even more profitable.
Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
I bought my 2002 Prius after a six month wait time. I paid more for it then a comparably equiped gas car. There was no economic rationale for my purchase -- I did it because I loved the car, and had the privilege of driving a cutting edge piece of engineering for going on seven years now, with minimum maintenance and hassle. There's something beautiful about driving with virtually no noise and I still smile when I roll up to a stop sign and the engine shuts off.
Moreover, I am willing to pay higher than market rate because of the externalities associated with having the world's first mass-produced electric car:
I am supporting an environmental technology that I believe in.
I am supporting green-tech projects, built in America.
I love driving on electric power only.
I am willing to take a risk on buying the Volt or the Prius or any other quasi-experimental first-generation piece of tech hardware because I have the money.
I am buying it because as a child I wanted to know why I couldn't put a windmill on top of the family car and use wind power to make it go.
...why do these stories about hybrids, fully-electrics, etc. always elicit responses like "but it freezes here, which kills performance" and "but I drive 200 miles every day, will it be able to do that? No."
I don't hear anybody ranting on the Mini for not being able to support a soccer (hockey?) mom with her 3 kids+entourage+equipment.
I don't hear anybody complaining that a Ford Excursion is crap up in northern Alaska because the tires keep sinking into the thawing dirt roads.
Who last complained about a Scuderia Spider (open top car) because they lived in Seattle and, well, dur?
Not every single car is going to fill your specific needs and desires; thank goodness, then, that there is a wide range to choose from.. and with the Volt and other initiatives, those whose desires include having a non-gasoline car to drive short distances regularly in non-extreme (4 months of freezing is extreme enough, tyvm) weather will be having that choice available to them, just as you have had the choice between a myriad of cars that will happily run with little performance loss at 30F and the heater blasting at full.
Peak electric use is during the day. Cars will mostly charge at night.
They're using surplus capacity; no new plants needed.
Welcome to the Turing Tarpit, where everything is possible but nothing interesting is easy.
The SI unit you might be looking for is Joule. Every form of energy can be brought back to Joule - be that electrical energy or chemical (potential) energy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joule
"This new bogus number is because of GM working with/lobbying EPA. I can't believe EPA caved into such a content free meaningless number."
Why not? It's just one federal government agency working with another one!
GM already makes a plethora of small diesel powered cars, just not for the US market. European Opels/Vauxhalls aren't bad at all. As I've said before, my 7 passenger 2008 Vauxhall Zafira 1.9 CDTi would get 35-40mpg (US)when fully loaded on a road trip. That's better than most econoboxes are advertised at here. As an American, I was disgusted that I couldn't legally own that car in the US. Adding insult to injury was seeing all the GM logos on the windows.
Side note: GM has released the Opel/Vauxhall Astra in the US as the Saturn Astra. However, they made it suck by putting the worst engines and transmissions in it and giving it practically no options.
Why are there so many haters on this car? If anyone thinks that this is the end all be all solution to the problem, they are freaking idiots. This is just the first volley across the bow of the PRACTICAL electric car idea. With mass production brings decreased costs and better technology over time. If all car companies waited until the technology were perfect before producing it, it would be another full decade before anything hits the market. Yes, GM has screwed up in the past, but don't hold that against them with this car. THIS IS A GOOD START.
http://www.tomandemily.com