Chevy Volt rated at 230mpg
Trending Topics
08-11-2009, 11:23 AM
#8
TECH Enthusiast
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 612
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
yup and most ppl coomute less than 40 miles per day so esentially you wouldnt charge it till the weekend when you wanted to go out for a cruise. its definitely a game changer. anyone got an idea on the MSRP yet?
08-11-2009, 01:58 PM
#9
TECH Senior Member
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Here and sometimes there too.
Posts: 13,845
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't see how they claim that it will also get triple digits on highway driving though...
They say it has a range of 300 miles on the engine but their fuel tank is bigger than 3 gallons I'm pretty sure!! 
This is great news and hope to buy one but I think those numbers are completely misleading! The EPA's testing of this car is based on average commute for the typical person. Since when is fuel efficiency dependent on the average commute? They need to come up with a completely new way to measure hybrid and electric vehicles efficiency.
They say it has a range of 300 miles on the engine but their fuel tank is bigger than 3 gallons I'm pretty sure!! This is great news and hope to buy one but I think those numbers are completely misleading! The EPA's testing of this car is based on average commute for the typical person. Since when is fuel efficiency dependent on the average commute? They need to come up with a completely new way to measure hybrid and electric vehicles efficiency.
08-11-2009, 05:39 PM
#12
It gets such good gas mileage becuase the gas engine doesnt drive anything, it just powers a geberator. The car is always 100% electric. Imagine a Hydrogen powered car but instead of the hydrogen cell it has a small gas engine. Imagine haveing something like a Geo metro only idle whenever you drive it. And 40 miles before it even starts just lengthens it more. And i think the gas tank is only going to be 4.2 gallons. PLUS it will have a solar panel roof to charge the battery while its parked in 8 hours it will give you back your 40 mile range so throw all that in the mix and it makes sense.
08-11-2009, 09:29 PM
#14
Battery powered vehicles are not the answer. Hydrogen-electric vehicles are the future of electric powered cars. Battery powered vehicles suck. Unfortuneately, Honda is the only car manufacturer to have released a FAMILY hydrogen-electric powered car & it's only available in the **** State of California. The car is called the Honda FCX Clarity. The car has it's own on board electric generator fed by a hydrogen fuel cell, no batteries. The hydrogen-electric generator feeds electricity to the electric motor. 270 miles on a tank of hydogen. There are hydrogen pumps @ the gas stations & you simply fill her up similar to filling up with gasoline.
Who knows if the Obama clan will allow this. No big Corporate battery contracts & Hydrogen is an abundent resource that will never run out. Although, I don't see why the oil companies wouldn't be interested in supplying the compressed Hydrogen @ their pumps. Currently, the hydrogen costs about the same as gas per gallon.
It's the lack of battery contracts & "clean burning coal plants" to power the batteries that may kill the concept in Washington. We all know that Washington & London, for that matter, have to operate within the guidelines set forth by the true World powers, large banks & corporations. So we will see how this ends up; battery contracts & power plants vs hydrogen-electric; hmmmmmm.
Who knows if the Obama clan will allow this. No big Corporate battery contracts & Hydrogen is an abundent resource that will never run out. Although, I don't see why the oil companies wouldn't be interested in supplying the compressed Hydrogen @ their pumps. Currently, the hydrogen costs about the same as gas per gallon.
It's the lack of battery contracts & "clean burning coal plants" to power the batteries that may kill the concept in Washington. We all know that Washington & London, for that matter, have to operate within the guidelines set forth by the true World powers, large banks & corporations. So we will see how this ends up; battery contracts & power plants vs hydrogen-electric; hmmmmmm.
08-11-2009, 11:31 PM
#15
TECH Senior Member
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Here and sometimes there too.
Posts: 13,845
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thought I would share what someone on the other side of the forum was saying concerning this...
I like the idea, and wouldn't mind having a coupe like the cadillac converj concept rolling on the voltec drivetrain for a DD in the future, but there is some serious fuzzy math going on here to get to the 230 MPG figure. This is not to put down GM's technology, just to try and educate people on the meaning of the 230 MPG number. Let me explain, the EPA tests on a 11 mile urban cycle, under those tests the Volt has 40 miles of range from being purely electric, and the other 11 come from the operation of the supplemental FlexFuel generator. During the 11 miles of operation, the generator consumed .2217 gallons of fuel. If you add up the math of it all, you would need 4.51 recharges, and 1 gallon of fuel to get you the 230 MPG.
That's how I have seen it explained.
Another thing to take into account, GM said that they estimate it would use 25 kWh of electricity over 100 miles of ELECTRIC mode driving. Well, that's fine and dandy but the $$ figures they threw out there don't make sense. Let's just assume some figures, I will use my typical driving habits (what I would drive this vehicle at least) as an example: I drive about 32 miles round trip to work 5 days a week + about 12 miles of weekend driving for errands. That equates to 172 miles per week, @ 52 weeks per year = 8,944 miles annually. So for the 8,994 miles driven, 2,248.5 kWh of electricity would be consumed charging the vehicle. At my baseline rate annual average of $.1157 that would equal an extra $260.15 to "fuel" the vehicle.
That is an AWESOME FUEL BILL, but wait, curb your enthusiasm, I live in the state of Kalifornia. Electric rates have been de-regulated, and with that, baseline consumption allocations have been reduced to the point where, if you run any sort of Cooling or Heating to cool below 85, and heat above 64, IN MY HOUSE, you will run right through the baseline allowance! So, now I have established that in order to recharge my vehicle I will be utilizing more than my baseline allowance each month, lets run the numbers on the tiers PG&E uses (Note, all rates have been averaged for a year). 101-130% of basline allowance gets you $.1388 per kWh, 131-200% of baseline allowance gets you $.2575, and 201-300% of baseline allowance gets you $.3755. Now, my total annual basline allowance is 5,009.2 kWh, I already use all of the baseline for my house, as well as the 101-130% catagory for the existing loads in my house, as well as have already tried reducing consumption to the best of my abilities.
With that in mind, were into the second tier over baseline (the 131-200%) would be 3,506.44 kWh, which when allocated annually would cover the 2,248.5 kWh to charge the volt. So, that 2,248.5 kWh @ .2575 will cost $579.98, really not bad for the near 9,000 miles traveled, but I live in a 1,200 square foot town house, and during a minimum of 4 months of the year I get into the 201-300% category just using my A/C unit, yes I have had it serviced. That means the actual electrical rate used to charge the volt will be even HIGHER than what I have shown here, that is, unless you do not use your A/C!
I forgot to mention, my total consumption is around 7,300 kWh per year, for Two people! The California Average per capita hovers around 7,500 kWh per D.O.E. research, other states in the nation see as high as 15,000 kWh per capita! So my specific power consumption density is about 48% of your average Califonian, and I am still bumping the 131-200% rate to charge the Volt on a Good weather month! Think about all the poor bastards whose households actually use 7,500 kWh per capita already, keeping in mind basline allowances adjust for square footage of residence as well as climate zone.
It's Nuts I tell you!
To add a comparison to this long *** post, I have a daily driver '94 Acura Integra that gets me an average 29.7 mpg, over the 8,994 miles I travel for work/errands annually @ $2.70 per gallon I net a $817.63 fuel bill. In fuel costs alone the Volt would save me $237.64 annually, from an increase in my electrical bill of $579.98. That's not even taking into acount the amount I would have to pay for the car payments, the increased registration costs, and increased insurance costs!
I'll keep my 1994 Integra, for now!
That's how I have seen it explained.
Another thing to take into account, GM said that they estimate it would use 25 kWh of electricity over 100 miles of ELECTRIC mode driving. Well, that's fine and dandy but the $$ figures they threw out there don't make sense. Let's just assume some figures, I will use my typical driving habits (what I would drive this vehicle at least) as an example: I drive about 32 miles round trip to work 5 days a week + about 12 miles of weekend driving for errands. That equates to 172 miles per week, @ 52 weeks per year = 8,944 miles annually. So for the 8,994 miles driven, 2,248.5 kWh of electricity would be consumed charging the vehicle. At my baseline rate annual average of $.1157 that would equal an extra $260.15 to "fuel" the vehicle.
That is an AWESOME FUEL BILL, but wait, curb your enthusiasm, I live in the state of Kalifornia. Electric rates have been de-regulated, and with that, baseline consumption allocations have been reduced to the point where, if you run any sort of Cooling or Heating to cool below 85, and heat above 64, IN MY HOUSE, you will run right through the baseline allowance! So, now I have established that in order to recharge my vehicle I will be utilizing more than my baseline allowance each month, lets run the numbers on the tiers PG&E uses (Note, all rates have been averaged for a year). 101-130% of basline allowance gets you $.1388 per kWh, 131-200% of baseline allowance gets you $.2575, and 201-300% of baseline allowance gets you $.3755. Now, my total annual basline allowance is 5,009.2 kWh, I already use all of the baseline for my house, as well as the 101-130% catagory for the existing loads in my house, as well as have already tried reducing consumption to the best of my abilities.
With that in mind, were into the second tier over baseline (the 131-200%) would be 3,506.44 kWh, which when allocated annually would cover the 2,248.5 kWh to charge the volt. So, that 2,248.5 kWh @ .2575 will cost $579.98, really not bad for the near 9,000 miles traveled, but I live in a 1,200 square foot town house, and during a minimum of 4 months of the year I get into the 201-300% category just using my A/C unit, yes I have had it serviced. That means the actual electrical rate used to charge the volt will be even HIGHER than what I have shown here, that is, unless you do not use your A/C!
I forgot to mention, my total consumption is around 7,300 kWh per year, for Two people! The California Average per capita hovers around 7,500 kWh per D.O.E. research, other states in the nation see as high as 15,000 kWh per capita! So my specific power consumption density is about 48% of your average Califonian, and I am still bumping the 131-200% rate to charge the Volt on a Good weather month! Think about all the poor bastards whose households actually use 7,500 kWh per capita already, keeping in mind basline allowances adjust for square footage of residence as well as climate zone.
It's Nuts I tell you!
To add a comparison to this long *** post, I have a daily driver '94 Acura Integra that gets me an average 29.7 mpg, over the 8,994 miles I travel for work/errands annually @ $2.70 per gallon I net a $817.63 fuel bill. In fuel costs alone the Volt would save me $237.64 annually, from an increase in my electrical bill of $579.98. That's not even taking into acount the amount I would have to pay for the car payments, the increased registration costs, and increased insurance costs!
I'll keep my 1994 Integra, for now!
08-12-2009, 09:24 AM
#16
TECH Enthusiast
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Orlando, FL
Posts: 564
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To add to the post above without quoting that long post lol....i read that these batteries are being tested to have a life of 10 years. battery replacements after that I read cost upwards of 8k. I'm with Spoolin. I'd rather get a cheap dd. Doesn't seem cost effective at the moment.
08-12-2009, 10:10 AM
#17
To add to the post above without quoting that long post lol....i read that these batteries are being tested to have a life of 10 years. battery replacements after that I read cost upwards of 8k. I'm with Spoolin. I'd rather get a cheap dd. Doesn't seem cost effective at the moment.
So after ten years in the average car you won't need:
new engine
new tranny
new axles
new radiator
??
All of that adds up to something.
Factor in the lower cost of operation and that fact that someone will probably come out with a cheaper aftermarket battery replacement and the picture isn't so dismal.
08-12-2009, 12:38 PM
#18
TECH Senior Member
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Here and sometimes there too.
Posts: 13,845
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To add to the post above without quoting that long post lol....i read that these batteries are being tested to have a life of 10 years. battery replacements after that I read cost upwards of 8k. I'm with Spoolin. I'd rather get a cheap dd. Doesn't seem cost effective at the moment.
I really like this car, but I'm not gonna be BS'ed into thinking it's some f'ing world saver that will solve global warming, feed the hungry and bring about world peace. It DOES NOT get 230 mpg. If you drive it from a stop with a full tank of gas and run it till your out of gas you get about 58mpg's or so. If your doing daily jaunts and just commuting than yeah, your gas mileage will go much much higher.
08-12-2009, 01:18 PM
#19
TECH Apprentice
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 362
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So after ten years in the average car you won't need:
new engine
new tranny
new axles
new radiator
??
All of that adds up to something.
Factor in the lower cost of operation and that fact that someone will probably come out with a cheaper aftermarket battery replacement and the picture isn't so dismal.
new engine
new tranny
new axles
new radiator
??
All of that adds up to something.
Factor in the lower cost of operation and that fact that someone will probably come out with a cheaper aftermarket battery replacement and the picture isn't so dismal.
It still has a transmission-- doesn't it?
It still has axles doesn't it?
Doesn't the onboard generator/engine require a radiator?
08-12-2009, 01:27 PM
#20
Launching!
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Wilmington, NC
Posts: 236
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So after ten years in the average car you won't need:
new engine
new tranny
new axles
new radiator
??
All of that adds up to something.
Factor in the lower cost of operation and that fact that someone will probably come out with a cheaper aftermarket battery replacement and the picture isn't so dismal.
new engine
new tranny
new axles
new radiator
??
All of that adds up to something.
Factor in the lower cost of operation and that fact that someone will probably come out with a cheaper aftermarket battery replacement and the picture isn't so dismal.
damn you must destroy vehicles. My 'newest' vehicle is 9 years old, while my oldest is over 20 years old. None of em need anything more than fluid changes, perhaps a seal or bushing replacement at most.
I like where chevy was trying to go with this volt. But cost wise this is complete crap.