Volt to achieve 230 miles per gallon in the city
So now its all about city fuel economy?230 miles per gallon. That's an impressive number for the Chevy Volt's city fuel economy. Still, I can't help but ask, Why is it when GM markets the fuel economy of all its other 30 mpg vehicles, it's always highway fuel economy that is the standard?
Nonetheless, there was never a doubt that the Volt would achieve stellar numbers on the EPA's city cycle. In the city, the Chevy Volt is essentially an electric vehicle. Makes me wonder, what's the fuel economy of the Tesla Roadster, since it NEVER uses gasoline?
Unlimited miles per gallon?
Inevitably, as electric vehicles become more common, it seems the EPA's methodology becomes more and more obsolete - if it already isn't obsolete.
Regardless, a consumer can still buy a 50 mpg Toyota Prius, pay for its lifetime fuel use, and still save thousands compared to the Volt - and that's after a $7500 tax credit. If the government doesn't extend tax credits for the Volt, it's cost-effectiveness becomes, well, nonexistent.
Hopefully, by the second or third generation Volt, GM will be able to bring down the costs of the Volt to make it more cost-effective for average Americans. In the interim 230 mpg will still provide a lot of bragging rights for Volt early adopters.
posted by Dahcredyns at
7:06 AM
40 Comments:
I used to be a big fan of the Volt. I wanted an American plug-in vehicle, but I think the Volt has become a joke.
If a $7500 tax credit can't make the Volt cost-effective, why so much hype?
I remember a few months ago Obama's task force claiming that the Volt won't be profitable until sometime in the 2020's at the earliest?
It seems to me the government is trying too hard to pick favorite technologies when it all comes down to energy costs. Create a gas tax that makes alternative technologies more cost-competitive and then let them compete. Give the gas tax revenues to the people and let them pick the winners.
230 mpg--wow! Gee, I'd get all excited if the Volt were actually EVER going to hit the market. :P
anon-
Well, I'm definitely a big fan of the gas tax idea, although I've been more supportive of converting that money into tax incentives for fuel efficient vehicles.
However, I've come across the idea of just returning that gas tax income to the citizens based upon income a few times, and I'm starting to warm to the idea.
Why force Americans to buy new cars if they can't afford them? Let them pay off bills. Let them buy a subway pass or a bus pass if they want. Let them choose how they want to deal with higher gas prices.
I'm not fully convinced yet, but I'm definitely warming to that idea. Inevitably, it seems that we can't always rely on gross consumerism to keep the US economy afloat.
las794 - just heard a little about this from Global Insight this morning. According to GI, GM is hoping to ramp Volt production up to 60,000 vehicles per year by around 2013.
i guess we'll see how that plays out.
Why all the negative comments?
Let's focus on the fact that Chevy has produced an electric car that will actually go on the market in the very near future.
This is great news.
All I can say is; what a sexy looking car. $40K is a bit much but not outlandish when you consider that it's comparable to a Cadillac.
Chris-
Every automaker is going to have an electric vehicle out the same time as the Volt or within a year or two. Many automakers are rolling out numerous EVs and PHEVs.
Why is the Volt so special?
It will be a limited production vehicle for as much as a decade. GM is selling each Volt at a loss and that DOESN'T include production costs.
Thus, we the taxpayers are funding GM's survival, GMAC's survival. We're funding the incentives that still don't make the Volt cost-effective, even at $7500.
Sure, it's great to see GM roll out an EV, but this is far more about marketing than reality. Moreover, independent analysis has brought up many questions about the viability and cost-effectiveness of the Volt's drivetrain.
In my opinion the Volt has become an excuse. It says look, we don't have a Prius. We don't need one because 50,000 Volts per year that achieve 230 miles per gallon is all we need.
GM might be right, but that's a huge bet being made on taxpayer money. Personally, I think GM needs for more than the Volt, and I just don't see it coming.
------
Also, I've sat in the finished Volt, and it didn't feel like a Cadillac to me.
Someone can correct my numbers, but at 10kWh for 40 miles of electric driving that would equate to 34,120 btu per charge.
Electricity is roughly 30% efficient as most of the energy is lost in distribution so you would actually need 113,700 btu of energy to generate enough kWh at the house to charge the Volt. That is just under the energy in a gallon of gas (125,000).
Essentially, even running on all electric power, the Volt would average about 44 miles per gge of energy.
For some reason people think that because it's electric and you plug it into the wall there are no emissions and it's cheap energy. They forget about all the coal fired electric plants that will be running to charge these vehicles.
last anon-
that's interesting and a very good point. eventually not only our grid itself needs a serious update, but so too does its power generation - which has to make EV energy cost go up. otherwise, taxpayers are just indirectly subsidizing the costs.
in theory, i would defend the volt and other grid-powered vehicles as vehicles that fight foreign oil dependency. if we could spend the tens of billions we spend every year on securing OPEC shipping lanes on making our grid more clean...that would be a good thing.
nonetheless, great point.
230 mpg is a meaningless number. I need to know what the mpg is after the battery runs down and I need to know how far I can get on electric power.
Another good measurement would be how much electricity I need to use to charge the vehicle.
Converting the energy I need to use to drive the Volt to mpgs is meaningless.
Tesla advertises a wheel-to-wheel efficiency: http://www.teslamotors.com/efficiency/well_to_wheel.php. According to it it is twice as efficient as Prius. The wheel to wheel efficiency of Volt is a big question. They should also advertise miles per Kwh.
Mike-
And those are good points.
Along those lines, a while back some battery experts questioned the Volt's 40 miles of EV range claiming that in many conditions it would be far less. In fact, one expert claimed that in the real world, the Volt's EV range would probably be more like 28 -32 miles, but could even drop as low as 15 or 10 miles in other conditions.
Chevy Volt fuel economy in question
in terms of the fuel economy of a purely gas powered Volt, it seems the number would have to be much lower than a prius, as the Volt is carrying around a lot more weight.
in terms of the fuel economy of a purely gas powered Volt, it seems the number would have to be much lower than a prius, as the Volt is carrying around a lot more weight.
That might be a false statement. On one hand, battery does not add that much (don't forget that they are lithium, not NiMh). On the other hand, if I understand this correctly, Volt is smaller than Prius. Last, but not least: it uses Lithium batteries, which are more efficient even in gasoline mode.
BTW,
Chevy Volt has not achieved it yet. It is viral marketing campaign.
LB-
I have the weight of the Volt pack written down somewhere, and I know it's more than the Prius. I've seen the battery packs next to each other and there is a huge difference.
Back in 2007, when the Volt debuted, GM predicted about 40 - 45 mpg using just gas. That still seems high to me, especially in the real world, but GM did invest a massive amount of effort on the Volt's aerodynamics.
Like any new technology, the PHEVs will mostly be purchased by the wealthy and the upper middle-class. But after about a decade, economies of mass production will reduce the price of PHEVs to a point where most Americans will be able to afford them.
This is going to be the beginning of a new era that is going to eventually end America's dependence of foreign oil and domestic oil well before the middle of the century.
What do you mean by more than Prius? More than Prius battery? Yes, it is true. It should be around 300 kg (Prius has 70kg). This means extra 230kg. But don't forget that Volt is smaller. So that will make the weight approximately equal. In addition, as remarked, hybrid with lithium battery has higher fuel efficiency, because the battery has higher fuel efficiency.
Does anyone know how much energy it takes to move the Prius down a level highway at 50, 60, & 70 MPH under standard day conditions?
If anyone knows please e-mail me at: tomgarven@hotmail.com. Please put PRIUS in subject line.
Thank you
The "standard day" model of the atmosphere is defined at sea level.
* Density (ρ): 1.229 kg/m³
* Pressure (p): 101.3 kPa
* Temperature (T): 15 °C
* Viscosity (μ): 17.3 µPa·s
I was speaking to weight, LB.
I don't have any data to refute your suggestion. I'm purely speculating. However, I do know that GM predicted 40's when I was first primed on the Volt, but that was before the Volt had ever even been in a wind tunnel.
Marcel-
According to a number of studies that I've seen PHEVs aren't going to be able end foreign oil dependency until 2040 or 2050 at the earliest without serious changes in policy and incentives.
What will prove these studies wrong? What critical factor do you believe they are over-looking, underestimating, etc?
I agree,
Let's wait until more details are available.
For me the 230 mpg number might actually fit.
I drive 12 miles to work each day, all city miles.
As for the 40-mile LA commute..... I'm thinking 100 mpg might be more realistic.
Tom G,
For Prius:
50 MPH - 190.8 Wh
60 MPH - 215.5 Wh
70 MPH - 250.3 Wh
http://privatenrg.com/#Bill_Moores
That's 400 ft above sea level for Iconic model Prius. 2010 model should require less energy with 0.25 Cd.
Smurf - And you can probably help offset your solar investment. In fact, I'd love to see a special tax credit/incentive for those that go solar and plug-in.
Still, would a Volt be more cost-effective for you versus a plug-in Prius? I don't think so, however, you would reduce your foreign oil footprint more, but how much more for the additional cost?
Likewise, for your situation, a Leaf might even be far more cost-effective than both a plug-in Prius and a Volt.
Even if the Volt is less cost-effective, many will still go with the Volt because it's American, because it's a step closer to pure EVs, because of its greater foreign-oil dependency-reducing footprint.
That might be enough to achieve scalability, but I really worry that other products are just going to be more cost-effective and profitable.
Kudos for providing that data, Dennis! As soon as Tom asked that question I immediately thought of you. Your expertise is very much appreciated.
After the bankruptcy GM had to come out with a game changer.
Yes thank you very much Dennis. Now I have something to play with after dinner tonight, LOL
For Prius:
50 MPH - 190.8 Wh
60 MPH - 215.5 Wh
70 MPH - 250.3 Wh
http://privatenrg.com/#Bill_Moores
Drag really counts doesn't it.
Anonymous said...
Someone can correct my numbers.
Electricity is roughly 30% efficient as most of the energy is lost in distribution so you would actually need 113,700 btu
Tom G. said:
I worked for a public utility for about 20 years at both their power stations and in their tower, substation and engineering design groups.
Your statement that power stations are about 30% efficient is generally a true statement.
If for example you were to take a nuclear reactor that produced about 3500 MW thermal and after losses you would get about 1100MW electric output. So generally about 30% efficiency is correct.
Transmission losses on the other hand are quite low and are in the area of 2% to 4% depending on many different factors. I think the best way to understand transmission losses is to guide anyone who is interested in such information to a very good MIT lecture by Prof. Walter Lewin. Here is the link:
http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/Physics/8-02Electricity-and-MagnetismSpring2002/VideoAndCaptions/detail/embed14.htm
The area of the lecture where Prof. Lewin discusses High Voltage Power Line losses is between 21 minutes and 32 minutes into the lecture.
tomgarven@hotmail.com
Sure,
30% is blatantly incorrect. Losses are under 10%:
http://climatetechnology.gov/library/2003/tech-options/tech-options-1-3-2.pdf
Tom -
This does seem to underscore the need for a better way of labeling 'energy economy' versus just 'fuel economy'.
Likewise, while reducing foreign oil dependency with grid energy versus petroleum energy sounds great in theory, I cannot help but wonder about the law of unintended consequences.
It often seems the paper-based theory world always has a way of appearing much simpler than the confounding variable-filled real world.
Dahcredyns said...
"Tom - This does seem to underscore the need for a better way of labeling 'energy economy' versus just 'fuel economy'."
Tom Said:
Exactly and to the point. Best example I can think of is hydro power vs nuclear, coal or natural gas.
Several years ago I was visiting a hydro plant in the mountains of CA when it started to rain. The plant operator who was giving me the tour looked over at me and said - we are getting a fuel delivery today. Of course I had to chuckle.
Everyone knows that hydro is a very simple way of producing electrical energy and only involves about two very basic steps to get the desired end product. You build the dam, it rains and the water turn the generator which makes Kilowatts.
Now lets compare this to some other energy sources like coal.
To use coal we have to dig it up, transport it to the power station, grind it, treat it, burn it, pump chemicals into the flue, clear the ash, treat the water, clean the bag houses and precipators and very soon capture the CO2 and pump that back into the ground.
So which source of energy should we label as 'energy economy' versus just 'fuel economy'."
Just a no brainer don't you think? If we are going to get serious about using plug-in hybrids or electric vehicles then we also need to get serious about finding energy sources which are renewable or at least have free fuel as the energy source.
Just saying
Tom G.
Indigo Incarnates
The fuel economy of the Volt isn't anything close to 230 MPG. It actually gets 1/10 that much.
Cruising range: 300 miles
EV Range: 40 miles
Gasoline range: 260 miles
gase tank: likely to be 8 gallons
Divide 260 miles by 8 gallons and you get 28.75 MPG.
230 MPG is just another GM lie.
and it was worth saying, Tom.
@Dahcredyns
I agree the PHEVs and EVs can't do it alone. But the US produces enough rural and urban biowaste to totally end our dependence of fossil fuels, if the 80% excess carbon dioxide is utilized with hydrogen from nuclear reactors to produce synfuels.
i don't disagree.
that's why i've been advocating a line in the sand on foreign oil dependency, even at the expense of cap and trade.
by 2025, for instance, the US is committed to end foreign oil dependency. Period. forgot assumptions and hope, what gets us there by then?
such a goal would have a huge impact on CO2 emissions. us innovation and manufacturing, etc, and it would all be driven by a simple, transparent goal - a goal that most Americans agree with.
i really believe that America can be selfish on this issue. let's not be defined solely by carbon emissions.
ultimately, ending US dependence on foreign oil as soon as possible is probably the best thing the US could do for the world, and the US.
Right! That description sounds really good. Line in the sand. End foreign oil imports by 2025.
It has a real good ring to it. Like Kennedy's well get to the moon in 10 years challenge. And it is totally open to contributions from every industry and corner of the country.
I can just see each state stepping up to the plate and vowing to help the nation displace X barrels of oil by 2025. Kansas commits to wind farms. Arizon to solar farms. Texas to drilling more. California could promise efficiency improvements to reduce its massive energy use.
Even the oil companies could shift investments from foreign oil fields to domestic sources, especially natural gas.
@Dahcredyns
You'd be surprised how much some folks would be willing to spend for total independence from fossil fuels. I did a poll on the Daily Kos on this subject at:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/6/1/737461/-US-Federal-support-for-non-carbon-dioxide-polluting-energy-technologies
I don't agree Marcel.
There have been a many, many polls carried out amongst potential new car buyers and the results are black and white. The far majority of Americans will not pay extra to fight foreign oil dependence.
I've even seen polls in Britain that provide largely the same results.
People want to pay as little up front as possible. Even if payback is in 5 years, most Americans still won't buy. If there is no payback, just the benefit of knowing that you paid several thousand more to end foreign oil dependency, most Americans won't even consider that path.
In my opinion, the data on this is irrefutable. I wish that were not the case, but only by addressing that reality and figuring out how to change it can we achieve real change.
alcatholic - and i think Americans might respond well to such a goal. give them something tangible and transparent to buy into.
Post a Comment
<< Home