For the last 100 years, calculating a car’s efficiency was easy, one determined how many miles a car could travel under certain standardized conditions on one gallon of gasoline.
However, the new era of electric and partially electric cars is turning that convention on its head.
This was too brought to a head earlier this month when GM announced that Volt would get 230 MPG in typical city driving, and later that day Nissan tweeted that its LEAF would get 367 MPG.
In the case of the Volt, that number was arrived at by looking at the average amount of driving a cohort of city drivers did, presuming they were driving Volts and charging daily, and determined a total of 230 miles of driving would be covered over time for every one gallon of gas used.
Nissan’s number was based on a completely unrelated measure of the petroleum equivalence factor, which converts electric consumption into an equivalent amount of fossil fuel.
These numbers aren’t the end, but the beginning of a potential list of numbers that if displayed on window stickers may make it hard for consumers to compare and choose vehicles. Some even argue that a dollars per mile measurement should be adopted, but due to volatility of energy prices and wide variability among different energy sources this method is insufficient as well.
Progressive Automotive X Prize is a marketing-neutral organization which will award $10 million to the winner of a competition among vehicles for the one that will get at least 100 MPG.
They are promoting the widespread adoption of a measure known as mile per gallon equivalents (MPGe), determined by the following formula:
MPGe = (miles driven) / [(total energy of all fuels consumed)/(energy of one gallon of gasoline)])
This system essentially levels the playing field for all energy sources propelling the car including electricity, gas, or alternative fuels.
As examples, using these methods, the Tesla Roadster consuming 53 kwh over 244 miles of driving would get an MPGe of 158. The Nissan LEAF traveling 100 miles on 24 kwh of charge would get 142 MPGe.
And what about the Volt?
Well the calculator found here would work for it too, but still missing is the value for the Volt’s MPG in charge-sustaining mode, Another problem is the fact that MPGe will vary as a function of range, from 170 MPGe for trips under 40 miles down to 58.2 MPGe on a 200 mile drive (assuming 50 MPG in generator mode.)
I asked John Shore who is Senior Advisor of Progressive Automotive X PRIZE what total driving distance he believes the Volt should be analyzed over.
He wrote:
Two relevant data points are the MPGe achieved at the 100 mile and 200 mile range requirements of the Alternative and Mainstream Classes, respectively. But it’s very important to note that the overall MPGe value used for scoring our competition will likely be considerably higher than these values, since MPGe over shorter ranges will contribute more to the overall value. Thus you might want to estimate the Volt’s MPGe at the various trip lengths listed in the table on page 36 of the Competition Guidelines – current version available here. You could then estimate a combined MPGe by taking a weighted average with the distribution weights shown in the table.
If we do the math he suggests up to 100 miles (99% of trips), the Volt then gets 167 MPGe, beating both the LEAF and the Roadster.
[NOTE: Graphic above is from Wall Street Journal article and illustrates yet another efficiency measurement, gallons per mile]
This entry was posted on Friday, August 28th, 2009 at 6:04 am and is filed under Efficiency. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
Aug 28th, 2009 (6:13 am)In the end the Volt appears to be the one that will most fulfill people’s needs and and get high numbers no matter what system is used to calculate MPGe!
+2
Aug 28th, 2009 (6:14 am)Leaf would be a great second car though!
Aug 28th, 2009 (6:17 am)No one measure will ever suffice.
Electric cars should have their range stated in miles for a full charge and a cost per mile to operate based on some stardard price of electricity used by all EVs on their sticker (with the note that electricity prices may vary).
A car like the Volt or the Fisker should have two ratings: One for the EV range, and one for MPG in charge-sustaining mode. A standard methodology would have to be developed to measure the latter, perhaps incorprating some hills etc to provide a realistic sample.
This ulitmately would be less confusing and more transparent to the public.
+4
Aug 28th, 2009 (6:31 am)I just think it is silly to try to gauge a BEV or an E-REV using the rating for an ICE. And MPGe is just too complicated.
These cars are different, so it is time for a new rating system. Why is everyone so afraid of that? Are we really that stupid that we can’t adjust to anything new?
It could be done as a “cost to fuel for a year”, like they do with appliances. This could be used for ICE, BEV, and E-REV vehicles.
If you want to rate the actual efficiency of the electric vehicles, it could be done as a “KWh per mile” rating. But this causes confusion with ICE based vehicles.
Or it could be done as we have said here many times as simply a “miles per charge” for electric driving, with a rating for both city and highway driving, along with a city/highway MPG rating for ICE based vehicles.
But whatever rating is used, it has to be something that average drivers will expect to be close to when they look at the ratings.
Personally, I think the Volt’s “230″ number is a mistake. When people start to take a 1000 mile trip and do not get “230″, I think it will do more harm than good.
JMHO
+6
Aug 28th, 2009 (6:35 am)The objective information that we need as customers is EV range and mpg in charge sustaining mode. But objectivity gets mixed up in a fun sort of way with the marketing need to compare cars combined and the limited knowledge of the general public about what it all is about, and we get these fantastics like 230 mpg. The good part is that once there are EVs and EREVs on the road people will figure it all out. Here the Volt will come out fine.
+3
Aug 28th, 2009 (6:42 am)I’m for any system that makes sense to the average auto consumer.
Perhaps the 230 mpg PR stunt was just to get people talking about the issue. If so, mission accomplished!
BTY, it’s silly to talk about mpg for a BEV that does not even use gasoline. It’s like saying, “Yo dude, what mpg do you get while using that fancy iPhone?”
Aug 28th, 2009 (6:43 am)40 m AER / 50 mpg combined city/hwy
+2
Aug 28th, 2009 (6:52 am)Miles per charge. Followed by cost per mile. Dual Fuel cars like the Volt should have three. Cost per mile electric. Miles per charge. Cost per mile Gas.
Let the public decide which fuel is right for them.
As for me my next car will be electric.
Take Care,
TED
+3
Aug 28th, 2009 (6:54 am)In the case of the Volt, that number was arrived at by looking at the average amount of driving a cohort of city drivers did, presuming they were driving Volts and charging daily, and determined a total of 230 miles of driving would be covered over time for every one gallon of gas used.
——————-
Some favorable group in some favorable patterns —- really one can prove anything this way — “my doctor told me….”.
A better way to say it is that if you fully charge the Volt then 230 mpg is about what you get over the first 50 miles thereafter. You’ll get a higher number with a shorter trip and a lower number with a longer one. This way does not have the pseudo-scientific marketing mystique surrounding it but allows people to much more easily compare the 230 number to what they might do themselves.
+1
Aug 28th, 2009 (6:57 am)I have never purchased a vehicle based on MPG alone. I have had dozens over the years.
Using 100 mile and 200 mile benchmarks is not real. No EV is designed for these every-day totals. (200 x 365 is 73k) If you drive that much, a 2-mode hybrid or diesel would be your choice.
I think there will be some push-back on MPG stickers and this will cause some changes in the EPA methodology. Ultimately, the window sticker is the benchmark that calculates CAFE, so, the method needs to be realistic to the goal of reducing fuel consumption.
Since GM has already announced 250 city, this is likely the EPA method that will be approved. It would be incredibly stupid to announce 250 and not get that on the sticker.
Personally, it doesn’t matter to me. 100, 167, 250mpg are all less than my drive cycle. Likely I will be getting > 250 driving the Volt.
Even that doesn’t matter because buying a new car (Volt or otherwise) is way more costly than keeping my 27Mpg (real-world combined) Intrepid until it’s wheels fall off.
Aug 28th, 2009 (7:02 am)I agree but would add a 3rd (very important) stat to the Volt EPA sticker.
Charge Sustaining Mode – Full Tank Range in Miles / km.
-3
Aug 28th, 2009 (7:03 am)230mpg the way the EPA tests it. 70mpg the way I would use it. MPG is a rate. It should not change depending on how far one drives it.
Of course, if GM and the EPA want to go through with this 230mpg silliness, they are welcome to do so. “230MPG and the More You Drive it, the Lower it Goes!” That will make a great slogan.
-1
Aug 28th, 2009 (7:04 am)Now let’s use a fuel cell for the range extender in the Volt, add another fuel (besides gasoline and electricity), and try to come up with another rating system!
No matter what you do, it’s going to be confusing for the average consumer.
-13
Aug 28th, 2009 (7:10 am)(click to show comment)
+4
Aug 28th, 2009 (7:15 am)I would like the EPA to tell me:
1. How many miles will the car go in electric mode while running the heater (cold weather)
2. How many miles will the car go in electric mode while running the AC (hot weather)
3. What is the MPG while driving at highway speeds on gas only.
4. How many KW to charge the battery
-1
Aug 28th, 2009 (7:20 am)That’s what everybody wants to know and GM has evaded that question many times.
+4
Aug 28th, 2009 (7:21 am)Repost from yesterday. I am fuming over this:
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE57P5C220090826.
What suckers the Japanese and Koreans must think we are – using our taxpayers money to pay for sales of their cars.
I just want to throw up.
Aug 28th, 2009 (7:22 am)The first thing we have to do is to figure out an average of how Americans put miles on their cars in a years time. Do we put most miles going back and forth to work and around town, or do we put most of it from long trips? Once that is figured out, then it should be much easier to come out with a formula.
Aug 28th, 2009 (7:29 am)I hear you. UFB!
Aug 28th, 2009 (7:33 am)I’m sorry but this doesn’t pass the sniff test. How can the bigger EREV that was quoted at 100 miles on 25KWh have a better MPGe than a pure EV that is quoted above at 100 miles on 24KWh? And does anyone really believe the EV Tesla will use les enegery per mile than the Leaf? Really? Either the MPGe formula is useless or it has not been applied properly.
The Volt is a great concept and a great vehicle. I want one. Making up a formula or numbers so that the Volt seems to have the “best” values when it is obvious that it can’t, does the Volt a disservice in the long run, especially if it makes people doubt other valid claims. Let the Volt stand on its own merits. It will come out just fine.
+3
Aug 28th, 2009 (7:41 am)texas,
I agree, BUT try explaining MPGe to Joe Sixpack who wants to compare vehicles. The Leaf appears to use no energy using mpg’s. Your electric bill will rise with any plugin, so it has to be considered somewhere pre-purchase.
Be well,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The Volts’ Wheels On The Road!!**********NPNS
Aug 28th, 2009 (7:42 am)Cost per mile electric
Cost per mile gasoline
Usable Battery capacity
Gasoline Tank capacity
Electric range on one charge
Gasoline range on one tank
Miles per grid kWh in CD mode
Miles per gallon in CS mode
Then leave out one category if your car doesn’t use both.
If you have a plug-in parallel hybrid count only the kWh from the grid.
If your hybrid runs only on gasoline or diesel treat it as you would and ICE vehicle and calculate only with the fuel.
Calculate the numbers for CITY and HWY
+1
Aug 28th, 2009 (7:44 am)Jim I
I’ve been pushing for a similar Energy Star sticker with the cost to operate as a basis.
Be well,
Tagamet
/The public isn’t stupid, but are largely ignorant in this area.
Let’s Just Get The Volts’ Wheels On The Road!!**********NPNS
+1
Aug 28th, 2009 (7:47 am)Considering that cars will increasingly be fueled by things other than gasoline (e.g., natural gas, electricity, etc.), the “gallons-of-gasoline” concept will cease to be a useful measure and just cause confusion–trying to figure out how many gallons of gasoline an electric car consumes is going to stump most people… and it should because it really doesn’t make sense.
When it comes to the “miles” part of the MPG equation, the meaning is clear and it continues to be relevant, but providing the car-purchaser with a number that will be accurate for them is impossible when you consider all the different driving conditions and styles out there.
Maybe what is needed is a standard that is detached from miles and gallons. It would only be meaningful in relation to other vehicles and it wouldn’t try to provide any real-world measurement. Ultimately, it would be still be based on energy usage per mile driven (in a very precise laboratory setting), but it would obscure that fact so that people wouldn’t complain and argue when they don’t get the exact results “promised” by the manufacturer.
+3
Aug 28th, 2009 (7:48 am)zipdrive —>The purpose of cash for clunkers was to improve average fuel efficiency and, as a secondary purpose, to give the economy of each local community a slap on the bottom to get them jumping, at least a step or two, with some auto sales. Both goals were achieved. Be happy
+4
Aug 28th, 2009 (7:48 am)Charlie H,
Hint: stay away from a career in marketing. (g).
Be well,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The Volts’ Wheels On The Road!!**********NPNS
Aug 28th, 2009 (7:51 am)Mike A
All good info, but you let some “interpretable terms” slip in there. My wife runs the heater on full @ 65 degrees and I use the AC at the same temp.
Be well,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The Volts’ Wheels On The Road!!**********NPNS
Aug 28th, 2009 (7:54 am)I have thought more about my post…..
I think we must all be that stupid and can’t change.
We still rate our electic motors and ICE engines by horsepower, don’t we?????
And don’t even get me started on weights and measures…..
Aug 28th, 2009 (8:00 am)What matters most to people is dollars/mile (well, and for some of us lowering CO2 emissions and environmental damage). Comparing energy equivalents isn’t really that useful since energy costs vary.
Aug 28th, 2009 (8:01 am)Average Joe, 80% of us, drives < 40 miles/diem…
Aug 28th, 2009 (8:02 am)Jim I
Not stupid, but definitely human. It’s institutional inertia. It’s not “in motion, so it “wants” to stay still. These new technologies may provide the necessary tipping point for change.
Be well,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The Volts’ Wheels On The Road!!**********NPNS
Aug 28th, 2009 (8:03 am)A better way to say it is that if you fully charge the Volt then 230 mpg is about what you get over the first 50 miles thereafter. You’ll get a higher number with a shorter trip and a lower number with a longer one. This way does not have the pseudo-scientific marketing mystique surrounding it but allows people to much more easily compare the 230 number to what they might do themselves.
As I stated in several previous threads, the arguments could easily be avoided by basing the mpg values on miles driven and the amount of gas consumed between recharges currently once a day.Recharging has the greatest effect on the GM published numbers. Your 50 miles range value is exactly right for what we know of the Volt today.In fact with standard recharge this could be considered 50 miles daily driving.
Your ability to recharge more frequently would clearly change this value on a per day basis.
+1
Aug 28th, 2009 (8:16 am)Perhaps the ONE number method doesn’t apply anymore? Use MPGe or whatever formula works to account for all fuels and then the sticker would show:
DIstance – MPGe
24 miles – 230
50 miles – 220
100 miles – 137
250 miles – 83
or something that would allow you to see what your expected MPGe would be for your average driving distance.
+1
Aug 28th, 2009 (8:27 am)I like Tagamets idea.
Post it as follows:
Estimated cost per year based on a fixed price for the fuel. Set these prices once every year for each fuel type and keep them consistent for that year. Then the consumer can really compare the average cost per year to operate. They need to post these static fuel costs so we can compare against our regional costs.
It’s not going to be perfect, since in the case of the Volt some drivers will use more gas then electricity and vice versa, but it should be good enough.
+6
Aug 28th, 2009 (8:30 am)Exactly and… that has already been done by ANL (A DOE Lab study) and a typical driving pattern can be obtained from this.
This is the basis, more or less, for the 230 mpg number.
Everyones mileage will vary by a lot with these electric/gas vehicles. We need a single number for comparison purposes so people can make a rational decision on which car is more efficient. Using a statistical average of driving patterns as ANL did makes the most sense if you are looking for a single comparison number.
If you want multiple numbers, how many do you want? 2 ratings, 3 ratings, 4 ratings, 5 ratings.
For aggressive city driving…… All you would need is…
XX electric range
XY electric range carrying fat people.
XZ electric range in a head wind with the radio and heater running
YY electric range with AC and no luggage
YZ electric range wirh a roof rack
Now give me the same set of numbers for gentle city driving.
Now give me the same numbers for aggresive city driving with a dead battery
Now repeat for passive driving and a dead battery.
Now I want to know all of this for starting out with my battery at 43%
Repeat..
Now lets do all of this for highway driving..
72 more numbers.
Now lets repeat all of this for blended highway and city driving.
144 more numbers.
Lets put a huge spreadsheet of tiny numbers on the windsheild (it won’t fit on the side window) of new E-Revs so that everyone can find their driving style and get a mileage number for comparison purposes.
No thankyou.
I’ll take the one number on the window as good enough information.
Onc can always read some 3rd party reviews to make a decision clearer.
Mileage is not really that important for high mileage cars anyway.
The difference between 100 mpg and 150 mpg is only 40 gallons of gas in a typical 12000 mile per year scenario. At that point, I am going to start to look at other features of the car to make my final decision.
-4
Aug 28th, 2009 (8:43 am)Joe Sixpack should not buy this car, as he will not remember to plug it in. Kinda like when you call his cell and it goes straight to voicemail cause he forgot to plug it in!
Aug 28th, 2009 (8:45 am)For me as energy guy would be obvious to use kWh for everything – gasoline, ethanol, diesel, CNG, LNG or coal and electricity. Normally we operate on those terms not to confuse things. Gallons, barrels, tones, bttu, cubic foots or meters are for traders not for engineers.
Aug 28th, 2009 (8:47 am)and he forgot to define the average speed of these ratings.. everyone forgets that and it is the MOST important factor. EPA hwy and city cycles are designed using statistics of actual drivers.
So what is the average temperature a driver likes?.. and what is the average temperature in their city?
-1
Aug 28th, 2009 (8:50 am)Q>How to Calculate Efficiency of New Technology Cars?
A>In an honest, straightforward, and understandable manner.
The EPA sticker should reflect liquid fuel use measured in miles per gallon. Listed in both Highway and City numbers based on moderate temperature conditions and moderate degree of work load (at sea level?).
Under this main “liquid” listing should be an “other” rating. This will cover battery, fuel cell, or direct power from other sources.
The Volt for example may look like this:
EPA
liquid fuel city: 50mpg ~ liquid fuel highway: 40mpg
Other:
battery range city: 50 ~ battery range highway: 40
solar city: n/a ~ solar highway: n/a
hydrogen city: n/a ~ hydrogen highway: n/a
compressed air city: n/a ~ compressed air highway: n/a
230 mpg of what? The public will view this as being a liquid gallon.
Manufacturer advertising may be used to demonstrate consumer savings via opportunity plug in, solar assist, back yard turbine and several other means. The EPA sticker is not an advertisement, it is a buying guide. The manufacturer can boast about battery size and weight. About total available range. And about wind tunnel testing.
The Volt is what it is and will stand on it’s own.
=D~
+3
Aug 28th, 2009 (8:59 am)zipdrive, I couldn’t agree with you more. Our representatives think nothing of borrowing a trillion a year and supporting foreign industries with some of that money. Who elected these guys????
Chris
+2
Aug 28th, 2009 (8:59 am)Agree with RB … give the consumer numbers they can USE.
Give a single MPG and people with an 80+ mi commute will buy one without understanding how it works – and expect to save tons on gas. 230 MPG is simply not useful in trying to calculate one’s actual fuel usage due to the bi-modal functioning of the car, unless you exactly match the characteristics of the ‘average American’ … which very few people do.
Of course, the whole 230MPG ad has brought up a lot of needed discussion around the topic, which is good whether you agree with using the number or not.
-1
Aug 28th, 2009 (9:00 am)THIS would be best. I mean EVERY person would fit in this. EVERY person would know what their miles per day usage is or equate to miles per week or month. But this would work well for ER-EVs with different numbers AND for EVs with static numbers across the board.
I think this model is best as it offers a solution for any and all drive trains. Nice job.
Aug 28th, 2009 (9:01 am)This is WHY I like the Volt!
During the week in the commute cycle I’ll do very close to that 230 mpg.
But the Volt’s range extender saves me another $25-40k for a highway capable car because it already is!
As for how to calculate average mileage, that is very tough because its so incredibly personal habit driven.
I think we still need an “EPA” type standard test with an added longer distance test. Yes it will be fiction much like current test results are, but at least it will be a consistant fiction that the consumer can use to compare model to model.
You still get a ‘city’ and ‘highway’ rating because that’s how people use cars.
The Volt will be super efficent in the city, and somewhat less so on the highway. For someone who drives to work 5 days a week this could be a very good thing, one car that does it all.
+1
Aug 28th, 2009 (9:02 am)Agreed. But this is something that everyone can understand.
The marketing people won’t allow that.
But I think Statik was correct with his break down.
I think he showed AER based on driving style.
It went something like this:
40 miles AER Slow driving
30 miles AER Moderate driving
20 miles AER Aggressive driving.
Then I would add 50 MPG. But then again, driving style matters here too.
Aug 28th, 2009 (9:02 am)In Electric mode we could rate it like an appliance. You go to a store and look at all the Fridges and there average yearly consumption. We are used to that which means it would not be that big a change. That would mean we could keep MPG for charge sustaining mode and even Joe Sixpack could figure it out.
+7
Aug 28th, 2009 (9:03 am)I must be the only person in the world that thinks the methodology they used to come up with the 230 MPG number is just fine the way it is. (Obviously GM cherry picked the number — the Highway and Combined numbers will give a more complete picture — but that’s a different question). Let’s start by recognizing that the solution to a problem can’t be any less complex than the problem, and comparing PHEVs, EVs, and conventional ICE cars is a complex problem.
Then let’s recognize that the primary purpose of the methodology is to compare PHEVs to one another. Here’s the problem. You have three plug-in cars which all use 25 kWh / 100 miles and get 50 MPG when in charge sustaining mode (when they use the internal combustion engine). But each car has a different EV range — say 10 miles, 50 miles, and 100 miles. If you just look at the MPG in charge sustaining mode, which many have suggested, then all the cars would get identical ratings. In this case they’d be rated at 25 kWh / 100 miles and 50 MPG. That would obviously be misleading.
Let’s also recognize that you want numbers that are at least somewhat consistent with the numbers you publish now at fueleconomy.gov. That means that, at the end of the day, you want to tell the consumer how much it will cost to fuel the car and the number of barrels of oil used by the vehicle over the course of the year.
The suggested EPA methodology addresses both issues admirably. It uses real world data to create a Utility Factor, a simple a ratio of the EV miles expected to be driven in a day divided by all the miles expected to be driven in a day based on the EV range of the PHEV. By using the UF you can show how much gas each vehicle will use ON AVERAGE over the course of a year, which allows an easy comparison between the PHEVs. Now our three vehicles in our example will have different MPG ratings, say 75 MPG, 200 MPG, and 350 MPG (totally random numbers).
The methodology also allows a simple cost number to be presented to consumers. By first dividing the number of miles expected to be driven over the course of a year by the MPG for the PHEV and then multiplying that number by the price of a gallon of gas, and by then adding to this number the number of kWh needed for the EV miles (the EV miles will be given by the Utility Factor) the DOE will be able to give the consumer both the cost of fueling the vehicle and the number of barrels of oil needed to run the vehicle over the course of a year. This means that the information given to consumers will be consistent and presumably easy to understand.
Aug 28th, 2009 (9:06 am)Lyle,
If your MPGe number for the Leaf is based on 24kWh of charge, it’s incorrect. Nissan has already announced that the Leaf will only use a subset of the pack to extend its life, but they have not settled on a final number. I’d guess about 18kWh.
-3
Aug 28th, 2009 (9:07 am)I ahve purchased a car based on fuel usage much. You buy the car you need and the fuel mileage comes with it.
I buy cars based on performance and the fun to drive feeling. If I wanted a commuter car (ie, lousy car to drive for fun or on trips) that is what an old beater is for. You could buy a Geo Metro for $500-1000 and get 40-50MPG and save about $20k over its LIFE SPAN when compared to a Volt.
So is car to drive or to just exist inside of while commuting to work? The Volt satisfies neither $$$ wise or fun wise, so why bother?
+2
Aug 28th, 2009 (9:08 am)FME III – I really agree with your points above. My ideal sticker:
– AER (miles)
– Miles/kWHr (electric efficiency)
– Post-AER MPG (charge sustain MPG – gas efficiency)
– Full Range (AER + Gas miles – to address ‘range anxiety’)
– Average cost for 30 miles / day: (use avg electric & gas costs)
– Average cost for 60 miles / day
Clearly this would be a lot to swallow, but at least would give people the information to understand their own cost of driving.
Aug 28th, 2009 (9:08 am)Hey Tag,
Terrific term: “Institutional Inertia”. That was the very one that I’ve been trying to capture in a “nutshell” for quite some time.
“Institutional Inertia” also applies to all other highly technical things!!
This concept is precisely the definition that a new thread topic should explore (for anything technical).
Institutional Inertia worked against my efforts this month, where I placed a bit to the State of Texas for 4 Genisys diagnostic scanners along with a proven value of $1600 in ASE-L-1-recognized and job-specific/highly-customized training, and a full year of Statewide telephone support specific-to-need.
The training value however, was not apparently able to be technically-recognized as being any different than anything else out there, so, apparently, I lost the bid, just merely due to the bottom line, with the training value, unrecognized, and subtracted from the value of the bid. Non-technical decision-making regarding technical decisions happens every second. It’s just simply the way it is.
This is the only reason I am not generally chosen to serve big chains, because the technical-explanation time-load is equal or greater than what it would take to close a contract with a smaller (chain of 3 shops) individual owner.
In my Austin 50 mile radius alone, there are 1,800 auto servicing facilities that definitely would benefit from my courses with immediate ROI. I have trained only 145 of them in 4 and a half years. Plenty remain certainly, but the lesson here is that the insufficiently-technical-decision-making of those in large organizations who “are too big to fail”, are the very ones who unintentionally may be allowing for too much of their own failures. (I could spend the rest of my life attempting to close contracting with any of them, but, I would likely certainly starve, because the fact is, Institutional Inertia is a “front and center” roadblock in my ability for contractual-closure to assist those large organizations, even though I can easily perform with military precision for them, given an honest and fair chance the first time.
Institutional Inertia (just approving the lowest bottom line cost), has possibly just cost the State of Texas the practicable usage and an entire year of telephone support for all of the extremely serious confounding usage variables that the offices will absolutely need to be worked-through.
But, due to Institutional Inertia (not anyone’s individual fault, by the way), inefficiencies for their critical missions will not be eliminated, due to an unrecognizable technical set of differences causing this technical impasse.
Aug 28th, 2009 (9:08 am)The proposed methodology makes it easy to show the two numbers that consumers really want to know about: cost and gallons of gas consumed. If you go on fueleconomy.gov those are the two featured numbers. The Volt will have the same numbers, only there won’t be that many little red and black barrels of oil!
-8
Aug 28th, 2009 (9:09 am)Give fuel cells or straight Hydrogen gas 5 years and it will begin to push the gasoline motor away.
Then the big VHS-Beta or HD-DVD versus Blu ray (for you young people) style battle will begin between hydrogen and electric.
-1
Aug 28th, 2009 (9:10 am)On an E85 engine (which is what the Volt has), your mileage will vary wildly if you buy pure gas (10% alcohol) verses 85% alcohol.
+1
Aug 28th, 2009 (9:10 am)The 230 number was refering to gasoline use on the city cycle using ‘normal’ commute distances and charging each night.
Of COURSE the highway number will be less, it is with most hybrid type vehicles.
I still think the mpg in CS mode is going to be very good.
-1
Aug 28th, 2009 (9:13 am)The single biggest issue is the ~11 mile city driving course used to develop the rating. The biggest issue is who drives only 11 miles (round trip) to work in big cities? Not many people I know, at least not in Chicago. The average time to go one way to work was ~35 minutes over 10 miles, one way.
Update the course, and yes change the miles per gallon rating to something per mile.
+1
Aug 28th, 2009 (9:15 am)Dave K is correct. How about me, I have 5000 watts of solar to charge my EV with. How many MPGe’s do I make. Off the scale :>). You going to book keep the gals of fuel used to manufacturer the PV cells? How about numbers of mpg on IC only at highway and city, MPGe on electric only (someone has to establish the nominal watts per gal of petro power plants). It is going to be an advertising blitz like we haven’t had on auto efficiency yet!
Aug 28th, 2009 (9:15 am)The Volt actually claims 100 miles on 20kWh. The Leaf range is probably not based on using all 24 kWh in its battery, so an exact comparison is difficult.
Aug 28th, 2009 (9:15 am)A better way to say it is that if you fully charge the Volt then 230 mpg is about what you get over the first 50 miles thereafter.
Even better would be to think of it as what you will get ON AVERAGE during the COURSE OF A YEAR during CITY DRIVING. The City number is cherry picked, which is distracting. If you had the Combined number you’d probably be more comfortable.
Some days you’ll drive all EV. Some days mostly EV. And a few days mostly Charge Sustaining. Over the course of a year all this will average out and the average driver will get the Combined MPG.
What confuses people is that the current MPG is actually an average but it can be used as a more instantaneous measure and people have come to think of it this way. But it’s really an average over a given course driven over a given amount of time. It’s just that the distances and time frames used for PHEV comparisons will be longer … a lot longer!
+1
Aug 28th, 2009 (9:18 am)You’re absolutely right that opportunistic recharging can really move the MPG needle. The committee recognized that, but, without any real world data, it’s hard to figure out how to incorporate this type of charging into the MPG number.
-2
Aug 28th, 2009 (9:19 am)What will be initially frustrating is since the US is a state run country (or at least it should be), every state is starting their own projects. CA is building/funding Hydrogen highways already. So these changes need to happen fast. It would be nice to see the car companies dictate what the sticker should read. Having to depend on a ineffective unelected federal government agency isn’t the way to handle this anyway. We will end up with the worst option and be stuck with it.
So GM, Ford, Toyota, etc… time to step up and get this done.
+2
Aug 28th, 2009 (9:19 am)1,2,3, The car is still in development and they haven’t shared that information as yet, were I Frank and team I wouldn’t either!
The EPA likely has preliminary numbers.
But really guys they haven’t finished BUILDING the car yet, they will have ballpark numbers now but they can’t be final until the car is!
Since every rumour is taken as hard fact they MUST be very careful releasing anything.
4, the battery is 16 kw and they will use roughly half so that means 8 to 8.5 kw to charge from ‘depleted’.
+2
Aug 28th, 2009 (9:23 am)Yeah, let’s see. You have a 230 MPG number and a 145 MPG number so you use the 145 MPG number. Not!
Every manufacturer has a handle. The Ford Fusion has the “best fuel economy for a full sized car” and Chevy has “the SUV with the best Highway mileage” and so on and so forth. Some of it is a stretch, but it’s kinda what you do in sales and marketing.
Charlie is just sore that 230 MPG makes 50 MPG look pale. LOL
+1
Aug 28th, 2009 (9:23 am)I disagree. The 1000 mile figure clearly implies mileage over time rather than in one continuous run. Who drives 1000 miles in a single go? I’d stop for the night before 1000 miles on a long trip. In my normal driving it takes me a couple months to do 1000 miles.
+5
Aug 28th, 2009 (9:24 am)I want a Viper with a V10 and a blower
+1
Aug 28th, 2009 (9:24 am)I am fine with it too, but if they are going to change it, then I recommend:
40 miles AER, 50 mpg combined city/hwy
+2
Aug 28th, 2009 (9:26 am)I don’t agree with the 30 and 20 numbers. The 50 mpg city/hwy already uses a grandma driving style, so the 40 mile AER should too. We all know we get less, because of our driving style – that offset is already built into our thinking.
Aug 28th, 2009 (9:26 am)It seems to me that anyone who buys a plug-in car will be reasonably diligent in plugging it in.
I already check the cars to ensure the windows are rolled up and the sunroofs closed before bed, an unplugged Volt would get juiced then anyway.
+1
Aug 28th, 2009 (9:26 am)You don’t get this information now and you’re not going to get it for the Volt so you probably need to move on. The Ford Fusion got 38 MPG in California and 28 MPG in Michigan last winter — same testers. Yes cold weather makes a big difference in MPG.
You get averages. The EPA is not giving you a personal report for what mileage you will get driving any car.
+1
Aug 28th, 2009 (9:29 am)If you go to fueleconomy.gov you’ll find that’s more or less what they do now. The DOE even goes a step further and gives you one number for the cost of fueling the vehicle.
Your government at work.
Aug 28th, 2009 (9:29 am)I think you’ve got it. Things are getting too complex to try to list the efficiency of each type or combination of power sources. The “best” bottom line report would be:
– Annual cost of ownership for 25 miles / day
– Annual cost of ownership for 50 miles / day
– Annual cost of ownership for 75 miles / day
Include average cost of electricity, gasoline, LNG, hydrogen, etc.
Use average standard driving patterns for City / Highway
*Include average costs of maintenance and depreciation as well.
This would clearly show how a $40K Volt could be cheaper to own after 10 years than, say, a Honda Accord. People would be far less likely to buy SUV-like vehicles when they see the annual costs.
-3
Aug 28th, 2009 (9:31 am)What the hell for? As long as we are still tied to that Internal Combustion Engine that has been so well placed in the Volt that burns fuel, I want to know when I use that engine how many miles I can get per gallon of fuel that I will be purchasing. Otherwise, MPG.
This question goes right along with the other stupidy so recently put out to the public about a ridiculous MPG the Volt will get and, the media just put that crap out like it was the truth.
Dosen’t GM have their plate full in getting this Volt out to the public versus somebody eating up the valuable funds available setting around thinking up some new way to screw with the public?
As an old GM man seeing the company grow out of World War II, I am supprised how the NEW GM is so ladened with stupidity. Obviously! this is how they got in this mess to start with.
My support for GM is fading rapidly.
+1
Aug 28th, 2009 (9:34 am)The MPGe idea is fine from an engineering standpoint but not from the standpoint of what consumers care about: cost or oil consumption. On the cost front, it may be nice to know that a gallon of gas contains 34 kWh of energy — or 88 kWh as Nissan would say — but if that gallon of gas costs $10 and the 34 kWh costs $.34 then telling a consumer that the cars use the equivalent amount of energy is meaningless. The consumer will be far more interested in looking at the difference between the ten bucks and the thirty cents. MPGe ignores the cost difference, making it less than useful from the standpoint of what most consumers care most about. (Note that from an economic standpoint cost represents the burden imposed on society of producing the energy, so these costs should be critical in determining which energy source is used).
Likewise it doesn’t tell anyone how much gas they’d consumer, only the energy equivalent of that gas.
Finally there is a substantial question if you can use the MPGe numbers with a straight face. The intellectual arguments for using MPGe leads to the conclusion that you have to calculate it, not tank to wheels or even plug to wheels, but throughout the entire process of moving the energy to the wheels. This leads to speculative and difficult to measure numbers which are informed more by politics than science. CARB has run into these issues when trying to quantify the amount of energy used to produce ethanol, and the process is frightfully messy. If you can’t use good numbers sometimes it’s best not to use them at all.
+1
Aug 28th, 2009 (9:37 am)Running heater and a/c and other accessories is already part of the EPA drive cycles. If the EPA allows you to toss in a couple of KWh in an onboard battery and count that as zero gallons, then, so be it.
The sticker is the sticker. It’s only one thing to check while making a purchase decision.
Nobody makes a decision to spend $40k without checking more sources for information. What the sales guy tells you is totally ignored if you’re smart!
Tagamet is right. We need a sticker that says ‘here’s how much it will cost you per year’ to operate. Just like a refrigerator. It wouldn’t matter if you used gasoline, electricity, CNG, hydrogen, diesel or camel farts.
Trust, but verify.
-3
Aug 28th, 2009 (9:37 am)So based on that graphic the Volt gets 192 Mpg in generator mode??? 1000 miles – 40 on electric= 960 miles/5 gallons=192
I think we have some more funny math going on here!
Aug 28th, 2009 (9:38 am)Just my opinion, but the Volt gets brownie points for being the sexiest car in that illustration. Of course that is the pre- design change as Statik pointed out earlier, so we’ll see… We all know the mileage for the Volt is a YMMV type of thing (ha ha, that fits well here), so it’s a bit of a waste of time arguing about the MPG, isn’t it?
In other useless news, reporting from central China, in two weeks here I’ve seen a grand total of two BYD cars, and I daresay neither were electric. Quite a few Audis, VWs, and Citroens though. Ho hum.
Aug 28th, 2009 (9:44 am)No.
From http://gm-volt.com/2009/08/13/gm-still-claims-volt-will-get-40-all-electric-miles-both-highway-and-city-but-under-what-conditions/
Per GM’s press release, “applying EPA’s methodology, GM expects the Volt to consume as little as 25 kilowatt hours per 100 miles in city driving.”
So 100 miles on 25KWh is a best case scenario.
-1
Aug 28th, 2009 (9:45 am)Sort of on Topic: HybridCars has posted a story that suggests GM’s 230 MPG claim served the purpose of drowning out the story of GM’s toxic legacy.
http://www.hybridcars.com/environment/new-gm-shirks-responsibility-toxic-dumps-and-mercury-disposal-26044.html
+2
Aug 28th, 2009 (9:49 am)The problem with the cost of fuel per year measure is that electricty rates vary too much according to region and even time of year. And we need one nation-wide rating. For comparison purposes. And cafe purposes.
I actually like MPGe. For one thing–it hammers home the idea of how much more efficient electric cars (and plug-in hybrids) are than conventional cars. Secondly, it enables you to compare efficiency even among BEVs. Electricity use is not a free ride. It’s better than gasoline. But it’s not free either.
+4
Aug 28th, 2009 (9:54 am)Actually, it was billed as a stimulus measure first, and improving fuel efficiency second.
The point is that we used taxpayer dollars in a way that will hurt us in the long run. That’s not a good thing.
+1
Aug 28th, 2009 (9:56 am)Achieved? Maybe. It’s arguable. But at an utterly absurd cost!
Aug 28th, 2009 (9:58 am)Very interesting report, Lyle. It would seem the Volt still shows up as a very economical vehicle. I wish GM would go ahead and release their determined MPG under generator operation and lets be done with it. Come on, GM. Fess up.
Aug 28th, 2009 (10:01 am)Herm,
And if it’s a couple, who gets to pick the temp?
Be well,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The Volts’ Wheels On The Road!!**********NPNS
Aug 28th, 2009 (10:04 am)I don’t like the idea of seeing anything to do with gallons when it comes to an EV, especially a BEV.
I think it needs to be separated. Keep MPG or L/100KM or whatever for the ICE and give us an average electrice range.
Aug 28th, 2009 (10:04 am)Dan,
Maybe you can use the phrase in your next bid. Just a thought.
Be well,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The Volts’ Wheels On The Road!!**********NPNS
+3
Aug 28th, 2009 (10:07 am)DonC,
God willing, 50 mpg will look pale in the very near future. Soooo many neat options coming down the road!
Be well,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The Volts’ Wheels On The Road!!**********NPNS
+1
Aug 28th, 2009 (10:10 am)Muddy,
I’m guessing CS at 60 mpg (and a very small gas tank). Just a hope, time will tell.
Be well,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The Volts’ Wheels On The Road!!**********NPNS
Aug 28th, 2009 (10:11 am)I’d say your support has already gone from the sounds of things.
The 230 mpg number will absolutely be achiveable in a sub 40 mile commute cycle. (Assuming I can get my hands on a Volt I’ll see ‘mileage’ much like that.) It’s an average over time and distance, which will be padded nicely with the plug.
When you are talking about your work do you not point out the ‘best’ numbers to your clients?
If you don’t then you are VERY unusual.
The Voltec system could use any number of possible genset engines, they picked an existing 1.4 litre gas engine to reduce costs and ensure fuel supply (there are gas stations everywhere) for the first generation car.
They haven’t shared the CS mode (genset running) mileage as yet because the car isn’t finished so they DO NOT yet have the final number.
+1
Aug 28th, 2009 (10:12 am)Landkurt,
I totally agree that the numbers have to have SOMETHING(s) that relate to real life behavior. Driving a thousand miles continuously just ain’t done.
Be well,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The Volts’ Wheels On The Road!!**********NPNS
Aug 28th, 2009 (10:14 am)My solution.
1. Obtain typical driving statistics for the American public and publish them for nerds to ready. Done. ANL has these.
2. Run each car through these numbers and get gallons and kW-hrs used.
3. Publish Gas used and yearly gas cost along with kWhrs used and yearly electric cost.
Now the average consumer can compare vehicles with simple numbers. This is similar to big appliance purchases. They tell you home much energy they use and an estimated yearly cost based on some generic use standard. This works out well to determine how much your fridge costs to operate and would work well with cars too.
+1
Aug 28th, 2009 (10:16 am)RB:
I agree. Well said.
Aug 28th, 2009 (10:17 am)No, 25 kWh per 100 miles is not a best case. The 8 kWh for 40 miles that GM claims, i.e. 20 kWh per 100 miles, is clearly a better case. The 24 kWh for 100 miles for the Leaf is not comparable to either number, so it’s all quite pointless.
+3
Aug 28th, 2009 (10:19 am)Jason, I agree. First state the AER, then state the CS mileage for ER-Ev’s. No comparing apples to oranges to bananas. I think discussions like this will inform more and more people over the next 14 months and by the time the Volt and other ER-EV’s come out it will be generally understood by the people that are interested in buying this type of car. But trying to compare the Prius to the Volt to the Leaf is not going to done effectively if we try to use a one size fits all approach. I understand why GM used the 230 mpg number, and after looking at my mileage over the past year, I found that my mileage would have been more than 300 mpg. But I don’t think that that is what everyone would get. I drive fairly conservatively because I often have clients in the car, and I don’t have many days where I drive more than 35 miles.
+2
Aug 28th, 2009 (10:20 am)Dave99 says:
“unless you exactly match the characteristics of the ‘average American’ … which very few people do.”
Actually, that is not true. This being AVERAGE does indeed mean that a large amount of people DO match these characteristics, or at least very close to it.
I know for sure that I match the characteristics.
Aug 28th, 2009 (10:26 am)A gallon per miles really irritates me and confuses all things. That is really marketing stuff. May be it is time getting to basics and recalling secondary school physics. Can everybody get to the international units and calculate how much energy (kWh or MJ) should use vehicle to travel 1 mile. Each type of fuel can be expressed in kWh and that really matters how long you can travel on 1 gallon of fuel. In case it is not satisfactory indicator, you can add CO2 emissions per mile. Please have information on fuel calorific values calculated per gallon.
kWh/gallon
Ethanol 24,89
Methanol 19,14
Diesel fuel 39,75
Kerosine 38,86
Petrol 33,27
LPG 28,83
Otherwise we shall invent some new international energy unit “gas equivalent”. “Coal equiivalent” and “oil equivalent” I heard about, but gas – not existing yet.
Aug 28th, 2009 (10:28 am)zipdrive:
Amen. Everybody I’ve talked to, from my wife to the teenager next door, thinks it’s the dumbest thing they ever heard of. We own GM, and we are subsidizing the competition? If we never get our money out, it will be nobody’s fault but our own.
I heard a bit on NPR last week about the Cash for Clunkers program in Russia(!) They interviewed a Russian in Moscow who was furious. He said that it only applies if you buy a Russian car, and that everybody wants a BMW or a Mercedes because Russian cars are junk, LOL. Sound familiar?
Aug 28th, 2009 (10:34 am)For some it could be.
+1
Aug 28th, 2009 (10:35 am)>> Your chart is crap!
It’s not GM-Volt’s chart. It’s the Wall Street Journal’s chart. Why don’t you complain to them, instead?
+3
Aug 28th, 2009 (10:36 am)I’m with you Zip. The program should have always been domestics only or no program at all. In addition, I think we will now see a really poor forth quarter in auto sales not sustained sales. Silly and wasteful.
Aug 28th, 2009 (10:38 am)GM should go out of its way to educate the public on 230 MPG claim…or the general public will have good reason to complain about misinformation. Car salespeople can do the most damage to an auto company…due to their lack of knowledge or even caring to know techincal details about a vehicle.
Everyone cares about “Joe Six Pack”. Why? Because everyone can be a “Joe Six Pack” depending on their knowledge of a product. I have no doubt that the 230 MPG claim is practically the only info some people have about the Volt. And good percentage of them are probably car salespeople…the so-called experts of cars.
Aug 28th, 2009 (10:38 am)I live in CA, and I don’t see any “hydrogen highways”. Spin and ‘greenwash” from the Governator, yes. Facts on the ground? None that I can see.
+1
Aug 28th, 2009 (10:40 am)Joe Sixpack’s gonna have to get an equity loan off his double wide to buy this car. Probably not a good idea.
Financial planning rule of thumb is that you spend no more than 20% of your annual income to purchase a car. This would mean that the $40,000+ volt (when the rebates die out) is a reasonable financial decision only for buyers with income of over $200,000.
The people that make over $200,000 (i.e top 2% of wage earners) don’t have much trouble with basic math. Just give them the AER city/hwy and the CS mpg city/hwy. They can figure it out from there.
Aug 28th, 2009 (10:41 am)Loboc,
I think I’ll take a er, pass, on the camel farts, but point well taken. Jim I is also of this opinion (I mean the cost to operate bit, not the camel farts).
Be well,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The Volts’ Wheels On The Road!!**********NPNS
Aug 28th, 2009 (10:45 am)10-88. LJGT!@#$%VWOTR!!
Aug 28th, 2009 (10:46 am)nuclearboy,
You forgot the set of numbers for ancient citizens. We never drive over 35 and that’s only downhill with a tailwind. (g).
Be well,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The Volts’ Wheels On The Road!!**********NPNS
Aug 28th, 2009 (10:46 am)She does if you know whats good for you!
+1
Aug 28th, 2009 (10:47 am)That’s an excellent point, which people definitely should keep in mind. However, to some extent, it’s also a moot point. Nobody with a calculator and/or a brain buys E-85 right now. It is not cost effective for the consumer, despite being subsidized.
I have a flex-fuel Sierra, and E-85 has cost more per mile driven, compared to gasoline, for a couple of years now (Southeast Wisconsin). Add in the shorter per-tank range (read: more frequent fill-ups) and E-85 has been a real non-starter for me. I think I’ve used maybe five tanks of it in the past five years.
Actually that ‘more frequent fill-ups’ part doesn’t bother me too much, if E-85 were price competitive. So I sure hope inexpensive, cellulosic ethanol scales up quickly. Anything to reduce foreign oil demand!
+1
Aug 28th, 2009 (10:50 am)How about a website that has a calculator where you plug in all of your personal profile information and then it crunches numerous simultaneous polynomial equations and produces a multi-color X-Y chart of your carbon footprint per inch driven? Man, I’m getting sick of all of this talk. What’s wrong with MPGe?
+2
Aug 28th, 2009 (10:50 am)Once again, DonC, you have presented some very interesting points. I am not in disagreement with you or even with Jason M Hendler’s point of view. I am fine with whatever “sticks” as the final number for the Volt or the other vehicles presented in the graph above. I do find that the Honda Accord’s 21 MPG city number shown is not what I am getting with my 2009 Accord V6. I am getting 22.9. That is not much difference and I bring it up only to point out as many of us have that the “average” driver is only a guide to be used to compare similar vehicles. No one in their right minds really expects to match the stated MPG figures exactly because we all drive different enough to get different results. But it is an indication of what each vehicle will do on average and can be an indication how a single vehicle compares to others in the same class with the similar engines and transmissions.
I agree it is going to be confusing for most buyers until a new standard is determined and published. The MPGe, your example above and the EPA’s calculation for the Volt are the beginnings of determining just what that new methodology will be. Interesting time for mathematicians.
+2
Aug 28th, 2009 (10:51 am)I agree NP… the direction we are headed is battery powered. The local buzz is building. I have heard several people ask, “How much are they and where can I buy a Volt?”.
BTW: A car like the Volt which attains 40 miles per charge is a very good thing. It doesn’t need to be advertised as 230mpg for people to understand that very little liquid fuel will be needed. The number “230mpg” is desired by NGMCO because this offsets the heavier gasoline vehicles in their model line up. Just be honest. We all understand this and realize that the farmers, landscapers, and boat owners need a 200+ hp gasoline engine at this time.
Give me all the -1 scores you like, this is the truth.
=D~
+1
Aug 28th, 2009 (10:53 am)Muddy,
UNCONTESTED.
Be well,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The Volts’ Wheels On The Road!!**********NPNS
+1
Aug 28th, 2009 (10:54 am)In that last comparison of a trip of 100 miles for Volt and Leaf. We must always call attention to that fact that Leaf’s charge will be completely depleated at or before 100 miles, and then you’ll have an 8 hour charge, and that’s after the 1 or 2 hour wait for the auto club with the tow truck to bring you back home. No road trips to Disney World in a Leaf!
In the end it comes down to range and range anxiety. Volt has LOTS of range and ZERO anxiety.
Aug 28th, 2009 (10:55 am)You are not wrong, and as long as there were a chart to cross reference more familiar terms such as mpg this could be fine.
This should reference operating costs gas/electric which will be important comparison tools for later generation buyers.
First gen Volt buyers will buy as much on emotion as on facts, and that’s OK so this information although interesting will not be critical.
+2
Aug 28th, 2009 (10:56 am)I agree, Muddy. I think most of us will be very diligent in plugging in – especially at first. It won’t take but a time or two of not plugging in a full BEV before you start remembering to do it as part of getting out of the vehicle at night, closing the door, locking/setting the alarm and plugging-in. We sometimes learn best by making mistakes that hurt. The old saying “If there’s not pain, there’s no gain” holds true much more than we realize.
Aug 28th, 2009 (10:57 am)Don C –You are right on. Why start trying to change how you compute MPG City and Hway now that the Volt is about to kick some A–.
I think we should stay with the Dept of Energy program so that all electric plugins are treated the same.
Go to the following link and it shows how plug ins are to be checked and that is where Gm got their 230MPG
http://avt.inel.gov/pdf/phev/phevtestplan.pdf
Read and understand!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Aug 28th, 2009 (10:59 am)Joe,
That’s such an excellent idea that they have already gathered the info (seriously, it’s a great idea).
Be well,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The Volts’ Wheels On The Road!!**********NPNS
+4
Aug 28th, 2009 (11:01 am)Join the party, Zipdrive. One thing you can do is to keep a watchful eye on your senator and congressman and if the vote for things you don’t agree with, vote against them in the next election. Along the way and until you get that voting chance, let them know about your displeasure. Until we, the voters, let them know that they are OUR servants they will continue to believe that WE are THEIR servants. Our elected officials have begun thinking of themselves as the Princes of the Ruling Class in America. It is about high time that they learn the truth once and for all. IMO.
Aug 28th, 2009 (11:04 am)MDDave,
Kinda like an energy Star scale?
Be well,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The Volts’ Wheels On The Road!!**********NPNS
+3
Aug 28th, 2009 (11:07 am)RB–
Agree except for one thing–Not a single Prius is built in the US and the “Cash” should not apply to Vehicles built outside of North America.
+2
Aug 28th, 2009 (11:07 am)I have to agree and disagree with you on this one, RB. I agree the auto companies needed the boost as did the dealers and suppliers. The thing I disagreed with about this bill (other than the idea itself) is that it should have been limited to vehicles purchased from Ford, GM and Chrysler. That is one thing I did not like about the bill in particular. No amount of discussion or justification will change my mind on that one point. The American taxpayer was used to send money directly to foreign companies and that sucks.
Now, those of you who took part in the C4C program hopefully you realize that the IRS will collect taxes from you for the amount you received off on your clunker trade-in. The tax man awaits.
+2
Aug 28th, 2009 (11:08 am)nuclearboy,
Best idea I have seen. Good idea.
Whoops! Forgot to sign on as another userID.
Aug 28th, 2009 (11:09 am)Laura:
But “Big Iron” appliances use a cost per year, and they are nationwide. They just take an average of electric rate costs.
Just something else to consider!
Aug 28th, 2009 (11:10 am)NR.. my gut feeling is that the longer it takes to provide a working GO number. The lower it may be. Why not just say, “The IVER GO number is 50 mpg at this time. We expect improvement in the Volt”.
I agree, let’s be done with the “38mpg-58mpg” rumor factory. What are we waiting 1.5 years to buy? Is is best to buy a Fusion or a Prius now?
=D~
Aug 28th, 2009 (11:10 am)Ditto
Aug 28th, 2009 (11:12 am)They haven’t shared the CS mode (genset running) mileage as yet because the car isn’t finished so they DO NOT yet have the final number.
———————————————————
I agree…but GM would look significantly more transparent if their executives would say “The Volt team is working hard to meet all project completion dates including tests to determine the Charge Sustaining Mode (CSM) MPG. As we have stated in the past, we believe that the Charge Sustaining Mode allows the Volt driver to take advantage of the positive aspects of both the conventional ICE vehicle and electric vehicle with little or no sacrifice on the driver. We encourage everyone to learn about the Volt’s EV Mode and Charge Sustaining Mode as more details become available. Focusing on only one of the many aspects of the Volt limits your ability to understand how VoltTec technology might have a place in your parking spot.”
+4
Aug 28th, 2009 (11:13 am)We elected them! And the sad part of it is that we continue electing the same bastards election after election even while we fuss about what congress is doing to our country. We all think that our congressman and senator is not part of the problem. Well, they are all part of the problem. It is as simple as that. It is about time we cleaned up our mess.
Aug 28th, 2009 (11:13 am)Tag:
HAHAHAHAHA!
Great Politically Correct Term!
Maybe stupid is not correct. Fear of change probably fits better here….
+3
Aug 28th, 2009 (11:14 am)I agree with the Russian government on this one. Taxpayers should not subsidize the competition from foreign countries.
Aug 28th, 2009 (11:16 am)If the window sticker is the answer, what is the question? Why to we look to the sticker to compare vehicles? What do we really want to know? (“We” meaning the average consumer).
Do we want to know how much it will cost to operate the vehicle? Are we looking to get a sense of how much we’ll pollute the air while driving this vehicle? Do we just want to “use less gas”?
It seems like there are so many different ways to label it, that if we can figure out what question the average consumer is asking when looking at the window sticker, we might get some direction on where to even start.
Aug 28th, 2009 (11:20 am)KUD,
Not just electric mode, but all modes. Kinda like an Energy Star rating.
Be well,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The Volts’ Wheels On The Road!!**********NPNS
+1
Aug 28th, 2009 (11:22 am)I want 6 numbers for an EREV like the Volt, all measured to a consistent and realistic standard:
-AER city/hwy
-kwhrs per 100 miles city/hwy
-mpg city/hwy in charge sustaining mode
From these, anything can be calculated for a person’s individual circumstances.
I’d want different numbers for a BEV.
Aug 28th, 2009 (11:24 am)For some and for others it could be a great first car. For others, not so much. The good thing here is that there will be plenty of choice for the buyer. With a little time spent looking and thinking about the various options available and how they would apply to their situation, the buyer can make a purchase that will fit their needs.
+1
Aug 28th, 2009 (11:25 am)You are likely quite right on the demographic of the Gen 1 buyers.
Although I personally know a couple Joe six-pack types that make very good money, well into 6 figures.
Looks can be deceiving.
-3
Aug 28th, 2009 (11:28 am)It would seem that if we assume the Volt gets 50 MPG in gen mode it would take the Volt 19.2 Gallons of gas to go 1,000 miles.
I’m not sure where they are getting the 5 gallons either but the graphic appears to be wrong.
+1
Aug 28th, 2009 (11:39 am)That’s because Russia doesn’t care about world opinion or protectionist measures. But then again, they don’t have to. Their major exports are oil and natural gas. And people have to buy those.
America, on the other hand, just got badly burned in our last “go it alone” move. And while we are a major net importer, many of our corporations do very well in other countries. And, unfortunately, our goverment cares more about catering to them than the overall health of our economy.
Aug 28th, 2009 (11:45 am)I don’t think that anyone’s suggesting replacing MPG with MPGe. It’s just one more item of information for consumers to take into account while considering their purchase.
At some point, we’re going to need a way to compare the electric mode of various plug-ins. (And BEVs.) MPGe seems like a good way to do that. Unless I’m missing something?
Aug 28th, 2009 (11:46 am)I’m starting to think as the conversation preceeds that KW/100km might be the way to go.
It’s no problem to rate gas engines by KW output (It is used in Europe for sure.)
Obviously this works for electrics as well.
Working out the ratio in an EREV is the tricky bit.
Aug 28th, 2009 (11:49 am)Tag—Are you a physics teacher????
Always logical.
Aug 28th, 2009 (11:51 am)Fair enough.
A Volt still uses no gas in this scenario, unless it’s REALLY hot or cold and you are stuck in traffic for a very long time. (At which point you will be VERY happy to have a genset to get you home!)
Aug 28th, 2009 (11:58 am)My medium term goal is moving out of the city and setting up a wind/solar power system with some nice sodium/sulfur batteries in the shed.
You really need to take into account the cost of purchasing and setting up that power system in your ‘free’ fueling offset to be truly fair though. I’m still onside with ‘self powering’ the farm but am trying to be realistic about the ‘free’ power generated by the system.
+1
Aug 28th, 2009 (11:59 am)LOL!
Aug 28th, 2009 (12:09 pm)I don’t see why it’s impossible to have a standard of wH/mile + MPG of gas generator while in charge sustain mode.
They’re two exclusive numbers because you’re using two different types of fuel, it’s impossible to throw out MPG altogether.
Aug 28th, 2009 (12:09 pm)E.P.A. Stickers
I do not think it is doable with one sticker.
We need 4 maybe 5 different stickers, one for each type of car. examples below.
BEV=so many miles per charge, cost per charge@ average KW cost.
HYBRED=mpg, and cost to be calulated time of sale. based on current price of fuel.
GAS/DIESEL= mpg, and cost calulated at time of sale. based on current price of fuel.
E-REV= miles on full charge [40 miles for Volt], cost per charge @ average KW cost.
E-REV during charge sustaining mode= mpg. [50mpg for the Volt] And cost to be caculated at time of sale. based on current price of fuel.
-1
Aug 28th, 2009 (12:22 pm)PIAXP Guidelines read plain. BEV’s & EREV’s are going to be at a disadvantage. A 4% grade at 65 mph for 30 minutes is an EV barrier. PIAXP at p.33. Maybe Tesla could. EREV depends of course on where its gen set enables. I would lobby the PIAX folks to reset the schedule – which might be able to be redone without being unfair to already registered entries. There are very strong indications of a game-changing development in late ’09-Q1’10. Whatever … today’s discussion deals with reducing gas consumption performance to a number. Its not so much that GM threw the dice first, many wannabees have made outrageous claims – its that GM’s claim is by GM. OK. So now GM has our attention. Take 10 Volts. Driver by random selection, SOC & fuel 100%. Drive a fixed course of combined city-road 500 miles with no stops obeying all traffic signs and then fuel 100%. The amount of fuel to re-fuel determines the mileage.
+1
Aug 28th, 2009 (12:26 pm)I think that question is:
“Will this vehicle get me laid?”
But the answer is complicated and dependent on nearly every aspect of the reader’s life, so I guess they just leave that off of the sticker….
Since I’m married, the question now takes the form: “would my wife stop sleeping with me if I were to buy this car and, if so, for how many years?”
+4
Aug 28th, 2009 (12:34 pm)LauraM,
What “go it alone” venture did we get badly burned doing? I know what you are going to say, but I want you to actually “put your thoughts into words” so they can be placed into the “light”. So to speak.
I am sorry, but I do not agree that we as taxpayers should sit quietly and see our hard earned tax money being spent willy-nilly to fund foreign auto companies. I see nothing wrong with international trade where consumers are free to purchase domestic or foreign products. That is not anything like what the congress and the president did with the C4C bill. Our tax money should have been spent to aid domestically owned auto companies, not foreign owned auto companies. Using your logic we should export larger and larger chunks of taxpayer money (real or borrowed) to prop up foreign companies and governments in the name of international trade. Get a grip, lady! We have to look after our own interest first before we go trying to solve the rest of the world’s problems.
I would also like to see our local, state and national governments stop buying foreign owned autos for use. I see more and more Toyota, Nissan and other foreign vehicles being purchased for government use. Our tax money should be used to support our own companies’ products. I know that you and others will say that the purchase of the Toyotas, Nissans and other foreign owned vehicles support American workers. Sure, it does, but not as much as purchasing from Ford or GM, for instance. Most of the income from purchasing a Toyota, Nissan or other foreign owned vehicle goes to the foreign company in its home country. Some of it is re-invested here, yes, but not as much as if the purchase was a Ford or GM vehicle. I rest my case. Let the cross arguments begin. Our internationalist friends should have a field day with me today. But you know what? I don’t give a darn either way. I have an opinion and I will use it. If you don’t speak up for what you believe you will live the life fashioned by someone else’s beliefs. Enough said?
+2
Aug 28th, 2009 (12:40 pm)Now, those of you who took part in the C4C program hopefully you realize that the IRS will collect taxes from you for the amount you received off on your clunker trade-in.
Uh-oh. Don’t go getting people upset unnecessarily. I think you’re confusing buyers with dealers. The kerfuffle was that the dealers didn’t realize that the check they get from the government was taxable. Duh! They get $25K from the buyer and $4.5K from the government and they obviously realize $29.5K of income. Hard to imagine they couldn’t figure that one out.
There is no income to the buyer. They just got a lower price. If it were otherwise you’d have to declare income everytime you bought something “on sale”.
Aug 28th, 2009 (12:40 pm)Interesting article on Fisker. Looks like they will claim the prize as first to market with an EREV. Deliveries are set to begin June 2010.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2009-08-26-plug-in-hybrid-car-fisker-karma_N.htm
+1
Aug 28th, 2009 (12:41 pm)It makes one wonder, just how often that actually happens. Not nuclearboy specifically, mind you, but in general.
I confess, I have voted +1 to my own posts a time or two… but only when I thought I was really onto something that deserved attention from the “skimmers” who only read +x posts.
Kind of like jumping up and down and yelling, “ooo! ooOO!! Mr Kotter!!”
Aug 28th, 2009 (12:43 pm)I think we should be moving toward gallons/100miles and KWH/100miles — or Liters/100km and KWH/100km.
That would more accurately reflect the fuel saved by large vehicles, and also show the asymptotic nature of fuel saved by small vehicles.
It’s way too easy to keep score just for the sake of points with a number whose upper bound is infinite, when the real game is to save fuel. The real game is to get as close to zero fuel usage — which is probably going to happen asymptoticly in real life. It’s way too easy to claim to get a bajillion miles per gallon.
The 230MPG claim is a perfect example of this — wouldn’t it be better to say “we put the car on a test-stand, drove it for 51 miles, and it only used a pint of fuel”? It’s the same as what I think the 230mpg claim means, but there’s nothing particularly controversial about it.
I’m as guilty as anyone of not looking at the reciprocal of MPG. I’m trying to get used to thinking of the Prius as 2gal/100miles. When comparing a 50mpg Prius to, say, a 31mpg Lexus 450h, it’s really easy to be nonplussed. OTOH, that 31mpg Lexus 450h that I was so nonplussed by uses about 3.23 gallons/100 miles. That’s the beginnings of a mathematically-credible sales-pitch right there: “you get this massive luxury vehicle, and it only costs an extra 5 quarts of fuel per 100 miles! That and $50k, of course.” It seems that car companies who make money from big vehicles would be jumping all over this… Even though there are many reasons why I don’t want a Lexus 450h, I’d have to agree that it’s much easier for most people to wrap their head around the actual fuel savings tradeoff between these two vehicles using gal/100miles.
Aug 28th, 2009 (12:45 pm)http://www.keloland.com/NewsDetail6162.cfm?Id=0,89084
Some are getting a tax bill
Aug 28th, 2009 (12:46 pm)Most consumers will be concerned about two figures. First, how far will it travel in EV mode. Secondly, what MPG will it get in charge sustaining mode. When trying to calculate a dollar amount for annual usage, the numbers will not mean a lot. Fuel prices will vary a lot during the year and during the period used to determine the cost per gallon. Plus, what I pay per gallon does not come close to what someone in California might pay per gallon.
No, I think a simple figure of range in EV mode city/highway and a MPG in city/highway would tell most people all they need to know. Most of us are pretty simple minded when it comes to comparing vehicles. We really decide well in advance what we want to purchase then we go and look around to self-justify our decision.
+1
Aug 28th, 2009 (12:47 pm)“I agree it is going to be confusing for most buyers until a new standard is determined and published. The MPGe, your example above and the EPA’s calculation for the Volt are the beginnings of determining just what that new methodology will be. ”
SAE J1711 lays a good foundation for comparion of many different types of cars. MPGe is great for people who want the most efficient car, but I think we can all agree there is a significant difference between 1 gallon of Gasoline Energy and 8 kWh of Solar from your Solar array. MPGe Well to Wheels is a little better (in my mind) since it will allow some of the benifits of electricity over Gasoline (Pumped, Shipped, Refined, Shipped again before it gets into your tank).
I agree with the fundamental though of SAE J1711
Create a Pattern and asses each fuel’s use over this pattern. I think it should be taken further. Since the Volt’s Gen-set is E85 capable I would like
230 MPG 87 Octance Gasoline
OR
180 MPG E85
AND
25 kWh/100 miles
Aug 28th, 2009 (12:53 pm)That’s just a relic of you refusing to switch to metric :p
The rest of the world uses kW in place of HP.
Except us to the north. We still have HP on car spec sheets as they either come from the US or are sold to the US.
+1
Aug 28th, 2009 (12:54 pm)In the scheme of things CARS wasn’t the big of a deal. Obviously its popularity was underestimated. It did improve fleet mileage and it did provide a stimulus. Both good things.
The issue would be on the cost side. In addition to questions relating to the fuel efficiency or stimulus return on the dollar, the money for CARS was pulled from a loan pool which would have required matching private capital. Taxpayers would have gotten more bang for the buck from the loans — perhaps 10X — than from CARS.
But let’s keep this in perspective. Every year Congress spends billions on defense projects that we don’t need and the Pentagon doesn’t want, all because some representative wants to save jobs in their districts. At least Americans WANT and CAN USE the vehicles purchased under CARS. I’d have been 100% in favor of CARS if the spending had been pulled from one or more of those programs. As a side benefit, had this happened, CARS would have had a whole lot more funding.
Aug 28th, 2009 (12:55 pm)I agee with you about the MPGe. And as Jim I says about using an average cost of electricity. That makes sense. What ever form the final results are given, it must be very clear to the average buyer as well as to the less educated buyer. It needs to be easily understood. Not an easy proposition, as we have seen here lately, with a lot of opinions being voiced about how best to achieve this. Good luck to all and I hope we can achieve our goal.
+1
Aug 28th, 2009 (12:56 pm)More like battery vs fuel cell.
Deep down, they’re both electric cars.
There won’t be a need to choose between the two.
-1
Aug 28th, 2009 (12:56 pm)Are the writers at WSJ really dumb enough to create this ridiculous chart, or are they just hoping that Americans are dumb enough to believe it? Their bias against the Volt is already well known.
Either way, they are doing a great dis-service to public perception of electric and E-REV cars.
+1
Aug 28th, 2009 (12:58 pm)::Blink::
1.) Rebates will not run out before Gen II. 250,000 is alot of electric plug-ins.
2.) Sound Financial planning would say you should consider the entire cost of the car, not just a purchase cost
3.) Since roughly 75% of US tax filers file with a Household income less than 80,000…. the 20% rule would suggest that most people can’t even afford a Civic, let alone 2 cars.
I think its much more reasonable to say
Around 10% of your gross income should be the target to spend Transportation. Car, Insurance, Fuel, etc.
Using this number, a Single Car household should make around 65,000 to afford a no rebate Volt. A Dual Car household should be more in than 115,000 range. A Volt + SUV type should be more like 140,000 range.
Remember, a no rebate Volt is roughly the same 10 year price as a V6 Accord/Camry
Aug 28th, 2009 (1:00 pm)Ted,
Maybe if you used a flat rate for calculating the cost per mile it would help to value each vehicle that way. When trying to use an average cost per gallon for gas it gets a little more complicated when using a number like $3.25 per gallon versus a number like $1.00 per gallon. Then a person could extrapolate from that base cost of one dollar a gallon to today’s actual price at the pump. So, if today’s price was $2.50 per gallon a simple calculation of 2.5 times the annual cost would give the buyer what the vehicle would cost per year at the time of purchase. I don’t know if this makes any sense to any of you. It has got to be simple, yet clear.
Aug 28th, 2009 (1:00 pm)Why is the number 100? Why is that more useful to people? The larger the number you use, the more accurate you will be from a scientific perspective. The Article asks for 1000. I think 10,000 would be better. I believe 12000 or something like that is average miles/year.
I don’t mean to pick on you Luke. I agree that miles/gallon is the wrong way to look at the problem. Some sort of variant on gallons/mile. But even this is really not terribly useful, especially with dual mode vehicles to consider. People really want other numbers as well.
Lots of people would like to know something like “Tons of CO2/year” produced.
Most people are only going to care about the bottom line. How much am I going to spend per year in fuels costs. Of course, this is much more complicated, because fuel prices vary greatly.
This is a hard problem. that is why no one has solved it yet.
Aug 28th, 2009 (1:01 pm)In Ontario, you can sell your power back to the grid and recoup the cost of solar panels within 5 years. After that you could choose to cut the grid tie and just pump the power into your car and drive for free. Or continue to sell power at one rate and drive on the power that costs you 1/10 as much
Aug 28th, 2009 (1:01 pm)Off topic, Leaf prediction:
Here’s my guess on what Nissan could do with the Leaf.
Leaf purchase price: $17,950.00
Battery lease: $149.00/mo
/Personally, I hate the idea of a battery lease. But if I were on the other side (i.e. Nissan accounts receivable) . . . .
//I’m thinking the Leaf sans battery break even point for Nissan is around $12,000, the battery . .. something less than $10,000.
-2
Aug 28th, 2009 (1:02 pm)The Volt looks good in white.
Aug 28th, 2009 (1:05 pm)8 kWHr Battery Capacity.
5 miles / kWHr : Ellectric Efficiency
10 kWHr / Gallon: Generator Efficiency.
or
40 miles AER
8kWHr Battery Capacity (okay its 16 but only half capacity is used on any one charge.)
50 miles / gallon : Generator Efficiency.
Either one is much clearer than the deceptive 230MPG number.
+1
Aug 28th, 2009 (1:05 pm)Carcus1,
I make far less than $200,000 a year and I will pay cash for a Volt. What does the rule of thumb say to that?
Aug 28th, 2009 (1:05 pm)It looks to me like the people at “Progressive Automotive X Prize” should come up with a SUITE of MPGe benchmarks like you see on computer hardware analysis websites like Tom’s Hardware:
http://www.tomshardware.com/us/
Maybe they can have have MPGe benchmarks that vary according to the number of miles traveled. You could have separate benchmarks on the sticker in dealerships like MPGe – 50 (for 50 miles), MPGe – 100 (for 100 miles) …. then MPGe – 200, MPG – 300, etc.
Another suite of benchmarks could throw in other variables to account for different driving conditions such as cold weather, hot weather, warm weather, mountain driving, etc.
There’s all sorts of benchmarks that people could come up with. All sorts of benchmarks for EACH component of the car too … such as battery only benchmarks, IC engine benchmarks, etc.
Not ALL of these benchmarks will go onto the dealership sticker, but I’m sure the dealer could get a brochure full of benchmarks of the car a customer is looking at vs. the main competitors in the same market segment. GM could put detailed ones on their website for everyone to see for each car.
Computer processor companies like Intel and AMD do this now. Sometimes they “tweak” the numbers (or the hardware setup or whatever) in order to make their products look better though. Sometimes it is difficult to have true “apples to apples” kinds of comparisons of different products by different competitors. That’s why you need INDEPENDENT analysis & review websites like Tom’s Hardware and Anandtech to try to make logical sense of it all.
Aug 28th, 2009 (1:10 pm)No.
25 KWh per 100 miles is the best case for a 100 mile trip without recharging, which is what the 167 MPGe calculation was supposedly based on. 20 KWh per 100 miles for the Volt would require three charges – one before and two during the 100 mile trip (at 40 and 80 miles). In this case (100 mile trip without recharging), 8 KWh for 40 miles (a best case) does not equal 20 KWh per 100 miles.
You are correct when you wrote “The Leaf range is probably not based on using all 24 kWh in its battery”. If the heavier Volt can get 40 miles on 8KWh, then the Leaf should be able to do at least as well. Since the Leaf is lighter and is expected to go 100 miles between charges, it would not surprise me if it could get 100 miles on less than 20 KWh. That way the battery would not be fully discharged at the end of 100 miles. All of that 100 miles would be on the initial charge and at a rate equal to or better than 20 KWh per 100 miles.
The Volt is a great vehicle and has a number of advantages over a BEV like the Leaf, but MPGe cannot be one of them. It doesn’t make sense to claim that it does. Doing so is detrimental to the Volt cause in my opinion, because doing so will be used as a justification to discount the real Vot message.
Aug 28th, 2009 (1:11 pm)Given that the running costs on an EV are so low, who cares what the rate per kWh is? Double it. Doesn’t matter. Triple it. It still doesn’t really matter. Ten cents a kWh is a good guess. That means you use $.025 per mile to power the car. Double would be $.05 and triple would be all of $.075. At best, gas costs more like $.15.
At the very high rate of $.20 you’re paying a little more than $40/month. Big deal. You’d spend that taking a few taxi rides where you live.Basically the cost of running an EV just aren’t high enough to worry about.
Moreover, from personal experience, I’d be willing to bet that most US household could save almost all the kWh they’d need to power an EV by taking a few steps to conserve. Replace a few incandescent bulbs with compact florescent bulbs, turn the AC down a couple of degrees, get rid of a few of those orphan power bricks, turn off the computer at night, and viola, you’re there.
-5
Aug 28th, 2009 (1:12 pm)Forget all this Volt Fuzzy Math. It’s like soooooo simple even a caveman can figure this one out.
Volt Maximum Mileage: 40
LEAF Minimum Mileage: 100
The Nissan LEAF cost half the price of a Volt but get more than twice the mileage. woot.
I will now retreat to my Man Cave. No charge for this lesson. I consider it a public service.
Aug 28th, 2009 (1:12 pm)That’s what I was thinking… in fact, I was going to use that as an example, but I’m not that clear on how the energy star rating is calculated, so I figured it would be better not to reference it.
+2
Aug 28th, 2009 (1:13 pm)If you’re asking me, I’d say, “Hey, it’s a free . . ., er ah, it used to be a free country. . smoke ‘em if you got ‘em!”
If you’re asking a financial planner, I think the response would be quite different.
Aug 28th, 2009 (1:23 pm)I mentioned this yesterday but in case you didn’t see it, welcome back! You’ve been missed.
Not trying to be a PITA, but I think you are missing a couple of somethings. First would be that the methodology that GM used to come up with the 230 MPG number is really for comparing PHEVs. It’s not really designed to compare PHEVs to BEVs or conventionally powered vehicles. it works well for what it’s intended for. Not so well for other comparisons.
Second would be that the comparison between BEVs, PHEVs, and conventional ICE cars would ultimately have to be done using dollars. IOW Car 1 costs $2420 per year to drive 15K miles, Car 2 $634, Car 2 $375, etc. etc. All methodologies will make this easy. Just like you can compare E85 with gasoline now, you’ll be able to compare PHEVs, BEVs, ICEs, and any number of derivatives on the basis of running costs.
As an economist you should appreciate the beauty of this!
Aug 28th, 2009 (1:23 pm)If you mean hurt us by holding us in a stalemate situation while the Asia based automakers move forward, because so many of the cars were made in the US with profits along with knowledge and capabilities retained by the home countries, I agree.
Aug 28th, 2009 (1:25 pm)Since I’m married, the question now takes the form: “would my wife stop sleeping with me if I were to buy this car and, if so, for how many years?”
Many things depends on price! This might be one of those things …
-3
Aug 28th, 2009 (1:29 pm)You conveniently left out the word “gas” in your description. The proper phrase would be “Volt has LOTS of gas range and ZERO anxiety”. I would say 200+ million other gas cars have ZERO anxiety as well. Hardly unique. And the most important point of all that you alway forget to mention is the Volt is NOT a zero-emissions vehicle. In fact it will be the most polluting EV in history. Just goes to show that anyone can twist the facts to support their agenda. I am beginning to smell that pungent GM sheep odor once again.
+1
Aug 28th, 2009 (1:32 pm)N. Riley,
The clunkers program rightly or wrong was put out in a nation-of-origin neutral way. It’s your countrymen who decided to use it to buy foreign cars. And it’s our industrial and union leaders who created an auto industry loaded with great trucks and SUV’s that gave buyers the impression that the only way clunkers would work for them would be to get a foreign car.
Perhaps the restructured US auto companies won’t make the same mistakes in terms of product mix and inventory in the future, and we won’t have to participate in all out trade wars just to get US cars sold in the US.
Aug 28th, 2009 (1:32 pm)You will have to wait until November 2010 and prolly 2012 before someone of your stature will be able to get their hands on one.
-4
Aug 28th, 2009 (1:32 pm)Posted in error
Aug 28th, 2009 (1:33 pm)Drive a fixed course of combined city-road 500 miles with no stops obeying all traffic signs and then fuel 100%.
This illustrates the issue. The City Cycle has an average MPH of 21.2 (or something like that). At that speed you’d just make 500 miles driving for 24 hours without stopping to eat or pee. Now that might happen if you were an astronaut stalking a rival but its not normal driving behavior.
More than likely the MPG numbers for PHEVs will overstate the amount of gas used because people will use opportunities to recharge during the day. A real actual MPG number for city driving might be closer to 350 MPG or 500 MPG. Many unknown factors …
-6
Aug 28th, 2009 (1:36 pm)Combining MPG with Electric Range is just a marketing ploy dreamed up by Government Motors and their government brothers. It is a sorry (and rather obvious) attempt to keep the Volt relevant against the tidal wave of serious competition that will spank this failed corporation silly. Get ready we are coming…
-6
Aug 28th, 2009 (1:39 pm)Drop your racist attitude. It has no place on this blog or anywher else in the blogosphere for that matter.
reported
Aug 28th, 2009 (1:40 pm)To continue. . .
Nissan would be making $5,950 on the car itself (no battery), this is quite a bit better than the typical $2,000 to $4,000 numbers that I’ve seen tossed around on a car in this price range.
But the real long term money is likely in the battery lease. In order to maintain the lease on your leaf battery, you would likely have to come in for scheduled checks (not free) to check the health of the battery and the car’s systems. If there’s a problem they’ll be able to swap packs/repair cells at their discretion. Some repair fees may be required . . .unless of course you opt for the extra $29.95 per month advanced warranty program. etc… etc…. (the battery contract will specify that only offical Nissan service centers will be able to work on the car)
You get the point.
If this type of program were to catch on, the car manufacturers that were directly tied to or owned their own battery manufacturing would have quite an advantage (i.e. all the Japanese, none of the U.S.).
-2
Aug 28th, 2009 (1:44 pm)One thing the highly successful Cash for Clunkers program has show is the huge appetite for Quality Cars from the Americans. Witness the top sellers are Toyota, Honda,Nissan and Hyundai. Yes, Hyundai. Even Hyundai Quality now far exceeds that of GM. I am embarrassed for the once proud American makers. How could you have fallen so far so fast ?
Aug 28th, 2009 (1:50 pm)I do not find anything where I can disagree with your comments. I agree that it really doesn’t matter what the annual cost of operating a BEV is. The same is somewhat true for an ER-EV like the Volt, in my thinking. What does matter with a BEV or an ER-REV is the miles per charge. If you are purchasing a BEV or an ER-EV you want as many miles per charge as you can get. After that nothing else matters with the BEV. And, if you really think about it, it doesn’t matter what MPG you get with an ER-REV on charge sustaining mode. What most of us are really after is the EV mode of the ER-EV. We know the MPG on charge sustaining mode will be at least equal to what the average ICE only car delivers today, what else matters. Not much except what do I have to pay for the vehicle at the dealership. To me those are the two most important factors: What is the price of the vehicle and how far does it go on a charge. I guess you could add one other. How long does it take to recharge at 110V. What else do we need to know? Really.
+1
Aug 28th, 2009 (1:51 pm)The 230MPG number is nearly useless in informing any given driver what they can expect. The ‘average american’ does’t know what is ‘average’, or how the deviate from average. Even if they did know, they have no way of determining how that deviation would affect their MPG.
I’m pretty sure I would get 2000+ MPG out of a Volt, but I can only calculate that because I have an idea of the electric range and the MPG on the generator. Neither of those are apparent in the 230MPG number.
Aug 28th, 2009 (1:57 pm)But like I said in a reply to DonC: Annual cost to drive a vehicle means absolutely nothing to me. I don’t care one bit what they stick on the window. I ignore it. What I want to know is how far will it go in EV mode. City and highway miles per charge. After that each person can decide what suits his or her needs best. A BEV with whatever the MPC or an ER-EV with whatever MPC with a generator to continue until you can plug-in to recharge. The MPG the ER-EV gets means nothing to me. Unless of course some company stuck a generator in the vehicle that causes you to get less than 20 MPG or something like that. It would need to be a reasonable MPG when compared to ICE only vehicles in its same class.
Personally, I would be looking at MPC only. That is what I want to see. All else is necessary only if you are interested in those sorts of numbers. I don’t see where I would be. But that’s me.
Aug 28th, 2009 (1:59 pm)Alas, too true. 2012 if we’re lucky, IMHO. I just like to give them a little encouragement every chance I get, LOL.
So tell me, are you from Boston or vicinity? I am a big fan of the great George V. Higgins. Do your remember his bestseller, “The Friends of Eddie Coyle”, which became a famous film with Robert Mitchum as Eddie Coyle?
Anyway, his cops and robbers characters would very often say “prolly”. I think of him and smile every time I see you use the word.
Aug 28th, 2009 (2:01 pm)LOL. +1
+1
Aug 28th, 2009 (2:02 pm)We only stock size 32 pants. We looked at everyone… size 40s, size 24s… and found the average size to be 32. It is good that we stock only size 32 because it is easy for us and for the consumer. It is consistent.
You weigh 120 lbs? Here are your size 32s.
You weigh 300 lbs? Here are your size 32s.
Will they fit? They are size 32s and that is all I am saying.
No need to thank us for making your life so easy.
+5
Aug 28th, 2009 (2:02 pm)??
-3
Aug 28th, 2009 (2:03 pm)If Volt yields 21-22 mpg city – there’s no hope. This issue was discussed here a few days ago and my feeling was Volt’s ER yield city 30 mpg min. with full air and power assists. An example of what I have in mind is like a test run 550 miles San Francisco to San Diego. Routinely made in less than a day.
It isn’t a rally. Start to finish time is secondary. You pine for every rest stop on US 5 – fine. The first 40 miles (or so) are EV with ER carrying the rest of the way. Naturally to be assured of reaching San Diego the fuel tank needs to be sufficient. Let’s say 30 mpg is applied to size factor a tank – 22 galoons should do it. Want to really really impress … get to SD and drive back without refueling!
+1
Aug 28th, 2009 (2:03 pm)If they are in the top 2% of wage earners then by definition they are not average.
Aug 28th, 2009 (2:06 pm)fredevad:
Reminds me of the old Johnny Carson skit where they would hand him the answer on a card and he would dream up the question, LOL
What was it, Karnak the Great? Karnak the Magnificent? Remember, he had a turban with a great big jewel on the front and a flowing robe?
Where’s Karnak, now that we need him, hehehe.
+1
Aug 28th, 2009 (2:09 pm)We are all saying the same thing. That “thing” is that the Volt will be a game changer if GM delivers what they have been telling us they would deliver. If the Volt is what GM has led us to believe the information printed on the window sticker will have very little bearing on us as individuals. But the Volt and the way we use it could change our lives so much for the better. Game changer and game over.
Chevrolet Volt! Get one and experience the difference! Your life begins a new chapter the moment you take it home. (GM, you are free to use any or all of what I just said in your advertisements for the Volt.)
Aug 28th, 2009 (2:12 pm)Oops, they woke up.
I hit + instead of -, aarrgghhhh!!!
Aug 28th, 2009 (2:13 pm)New thread:
The graphic Driving Range|Number of gallons required to drive 1000 miles points out how well converting over to EV technology will get us off of foreign oil. If we hold to the premise that the rating system is valid, the graphic shows how much better EV technology is over hybrid like the Prius.
Aug 28th, 2009 (2:18 pm)Cute, but not really applicable in this case. You are talking size, but any measure like mpg is talking about averaged usage because it’s a moving target.
ANY automotive economy rating is subject to operator induced variations.
Lets say my wifes Subaru is rated at 8 litres/100km. This is just a reference point to compare with other cars on an imaginary drive.
When my wife drives the car does more like 7 litres/100km, (she is lighter on the pedal) but when I drive (heavier foot) it’s closer to 10 litres/100km…
You don’t really think that whatever car you have gets exactly the advertised to the decimal point fuel economy do you?
It almost certainly does not!
+5
Aug 28th, 2009 (2:18 pm)Great math … EXCEPT after work your Wife calls and tells you to go to store across town and pick up her order and then pick up your sick kid from daycare. On your way home the battery runs out and you sit there with your brilliant math while I drive past on charge sustaining mode.
No Charge for this lesson you pay enough sitting on the side of the road wishing you had bought a VOLT.
Aug 28th, 2009 (2:22 pm)I know a fellow who lives in a “Double wide” on a small acreage who looks a lot like “Cooter” from “The Dukes of Hazard” who is a pressure welder and does well over $150k a year.
He’s a smart guy who is well invested, but definately looks and lives the Joe six-pack life.
+1
Aug 28th, 2009 (2:22 pm)Amen to that……….
Aug 28th, 2009 (2:26 pm)Nope. I from the ginormous state of Tejas. IMO you will have to plunk down a pretty penny to get a Volt in the first two years and that is only IF you can find one available in your area.
Aug 28th, 2009 (2:26 pm)You also can’t do a direct kWh comparison with 34-36kWh in a gallon of gas.
No ICE on this planet is 100% efficient.
You’d be lucky to find one that’s 30% efficient.
So you’re really looking at 10 kWh in that gallon..
Aug 28th, 2009 (2:27 pm)Correct on all four points….
Aug 28th, 2009 (2:28 pm)And lastly….
At the 5 to 7 year point, the battery is probably down to 70 or 80% of its original capacity. Nissan swaps it out for a fresh pack and sends the old one to their “conditioning center” where they analyze the cells and recondition/ change packaging for resale to the utility companies (load balancing for the wind turbines, or whatever).
Nissan probably gets to charge at 1/2 of the original selling price.
At year 7, Nissan is now in the black thusly:
Original sale of car (w/o battery): $5,950
Lease of battery (149x12x7-10,000): $ 2,516
Resale of used battery: $ 5,000
Total $13,466*
*DNI all the little fees, insurance, and maintenance associated with the battery lease.
Advantage for the Leaf owner: he/she doesn’t have to worry about a $10,000 charging glitch/battery failure. Basically you never have to worry about your battery failing, and if it starts to fade Nissan will give you a fresh or reconditioned pack.
Advantage for Nissan: that would be the 13,466 number
Aug 28th, 2009 (2:37 pm)I’ve read most replies to this article, and the majority have it absolutely correct.
Any future EPA “fuel economy” sticker should state:
1) Miles driven (under the most conservative driving conditions reported today with a full charge) in All Electric Range (AER)
2) A separate miles per gallon (mpg) value, if an ICE is included with the vehicle design.
3) TOTAL COMBINED RANGE (Electric + ICE mode) if applicable.
Any references to mpg exclusively, especially for an all-electric vehicle such as a BEV, are deceiving and will be viewed as a gimmick.
The idea of MPGe (miles per gallon equivalent) does NOT serve the consumer trying to concisely determine total (estimated) range of the vehicle.
For clarity, gasoline has an average specific energy of 47 MJ/kg, but an ICE can only convert 20% (maximum) of this energy to torque at the wheels.
So, in realilty the “apples-to-apples” benchmark that an EV must achieve in eletrical energy storage is 9.5 MJ/kg or 2.64 kWh/kg.
Therefore, to match the magic 500 km (or 300 mile) mark, available with today’s ICE vehicles, an EV must be able to store a total of 361 MJ or 100 kWh of energy, assuming electric motor efficiency is 90%.
This also assumes a 45 L (11.9 gallon) tank found in smaller compact automobiles, a weight of 2.86 kg/gallon of gasoline, and rounding to 38 kg of mass after taking into account the motor efficiency.
The total energy required for a 500 km (or 300 mile) trip would drop to 342 MJ or 95 kWh of energy, if the efficiency of the electric motor increases to 96%, as I’ve pointed out in previous blog posts.
Aug 28th, 2009 (2:37 pm)ATTENTION! ATTENTION! MUDDY ROVER BOB:
Check out the hybrid Land Rover on allcarselectric.com.
Aug 28th, 2009 (2:38 pm)What I would like to see is a standardized graph which shows the amount of energy consumed per mile assuming:
> a cold engine in a 32 deg F environment
> a 90 second “buckle up / warm up” period
> one moderate acceleration up to speed (45)
> a constant non-stop 45 MPH for 300 miles
> all lights on and an evironmental control set at 72 deg F
It would be interesting to see how the ICE’s initially spike as the engine warms up, then get more efficient as the miles go by. The EV’s obviously start off with a huge advantage. The graph could present a tremendous amount of information when the lines for various cars are overlaid with one another.
+1
Aug 28th, 2009 (2:47 pm)Exactly.
I am ready to abandon mpg.
Lets just discuss how much fuel the average person would use with the car. I always have to convert mpg to this number anyway so I can decide if the savings is worth it.
When comparing cars A and B, I need to know which one will use more gas and how much more it would use. This type of number cuts right to the point.
I would add that they should also put a $ value on the chart with some assumption of gas price listed. Similar to my note about appliance energy useage tags above.
My Volt sticker (with made up #s)
MPG* equivalents: 230 city/ 130 highway
Energy use ratings for each 1000 miles traveled
5 gallons gas
20000 kW-hrs electricity
Annual costs for 12,000 miles
$180 gas
$120 electricity
$300 total
Fine print.
*based on ANL statistics and 12000 miles annually
*Your costs may vary
*based on $3/ gallon gas and $0.15 per Kwhr electircal cost
Aug 28th, 2009 (2:54 pm)Dave K
I agree with your window sticker, more or less, except for showing power sources the actual vehicle it is displayed on can not use. So, if the car is fueled by battery and gasoline, show only those two fuel sources. The others are just confusing when they are not available on the particular vehicle.
Again, the only thing I am interested in is how many miles will the vehicle travel in city and highway driving. Nothing else on the EPA portion of the sticker matters to me.
Aug 28th, 2009 (2:59 pm)Loboc
I hate to break this news to you, but pure gas is 100% gas. It does not contain 10% alcohol as you stated. And it is true that you get less MPG with gasoline blended with alcohol. The more alcohol, the fewer miles per gallon.
Aug 28th, 2009 (3:02 pm)In a nutshell that is the purpose of Volt. To get you where you are going even if you run out of battery power.
Aug 28th, 2009 (3:13 pm)Jeff,
Very professional sounding. Great job. GM needs to say exactly that and maybe a little more. Something along the line of: “It is our experience testing the IVers to-date that we are experiencing MPG numbers in Charge Sustaining mode exceeding ICE only and hybrid vehicles presently on the market”. If they are actually experiencing such numbers. Maybe that is why they are quite on the subject.
+2
Aug 28th, 2009 (3:15 pm)You’re jumping the gun here. We don’t know how much fun it is to drive a VOLT. Lyle does though!
Aug 28th, 2009 (3:18 pm)Speaking of auto sales people: I have purchased a lot of vehicles in my life. My experience has been that in most cases I knew more about the vehicle than the sales person. Sometimes I just wanted to walk away, but I did not because I had taken a little time and researched the vehicle before coming onto the dealership’s property. Too bad the sales people don’t take a little more time to learn about the vehicles they are trying to sell.
At the same time, I have met a number of highly informed sales people that knew as much and more than I needed to know. And you better believe I used my pre-knowledge of the vehicle to “test” each and every sales person. I bet CorvettGuy has experienced customers like me. And many not like me.
Aug 28th, 2009 (3:20 pm)I agree. Out of all of today’s rants, this one is an east to understand solution. Excellent.
Aug 28th, 2009 (3:20 pm)How about something simple: All electric range (ie 40 miles on single charge in mixed test loop) and MPG when charge sustaining mode (ie 40 city/50 hwy).
-3
Aug 28th, 2009 (3:23 pm)I cannot think of a more useful guide than to know how many gallons of gasoline you would consume in a year, translated into miles per gallon equivalent. And that is essentially what the J1774 EPA standard does. 70% + of American drivers will exceed the 230 miles per gallon of fossil fuel in a year and some 20-25% won’t. The ones who won’t, either drive more miles than average, exceeding 15,000 miles per year, or don’t plug in and recharge, or drive long distances regularly.
From the perspective of wanting to which to find a valid substitute, and to displace oil usage, I can’ think of a better measure than what the EPA is planning to use.
Even if I were an AGW modern Druid dogmatist, I would want that information. Believers in that hoax, still need some information, even if they firmly believe we should mostly all die off, and the remnant live a “natural” life as brutish cave men. That is what the Clueless One’s uber alles Green, John Holdren prescribes for us all.
Aug 28th, 2009 (3:25 pm)I’m not so sure either other than it’s to estimate the “average” amount it costs to run the appliance/year. It’s a little tougher with 2 sources of energy, like the volt, but not undo-able.
Be well,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The Volts’ Wheels On The Road!!**********NPNS
Aug 28th, 2009 (3:27 pm)Even after you have said all that you just pointed out I am still of the opinion that the vast majority of people will be interested in only two things (not considering the cost of the vehicle or what features/options it may have). First, is how far will the vehicle travel in EV mode in city and highway driving. Second, what MPG will it get in Charge Sustaining mode. They want this MPG number to compare against the other vehicles they are aware of that burn gasoline as the only fuel source and they want to be sure they are getting just as good or better than the guy across the street or their brainless brother-in-law.
The more information on the EPA portion of the sticker, the more confusing it will be for most shoppers. The two things I mentioned is what counts. Annual cost to drive the vehicle is absolutely useless to most potential shoppers because they are going to say right off that those numbers are based on cost per gallon that is not what they are going to find during the following year of driving. Period.
+5
Aug 28th, 2009 (3:28 pm)Sigh.
How many times does an average person five 500 miles in a single day? Thats a whole -week- worth of driving.
“Volt’s ER yield city 30 mpg min. with full air and power assists.”
This really confuses me. People can accept that a Prius gets 51 MPG city, heck protest that it gets more. Yet a Volt, which takes many of the same ideas as a Prius, to even further levels, someone will get significantly less. Does not computer. Conclusion. You’re an Astroturfer, getting really sick of this type of crazy uninformed random post.
Aug 28th, 2009 (3:28 pm)A very simple almost trivial principle will explain the Volt mileage.
If your drive is unlimited between charging, your driving more or less a conventional ICE with somewhat better mileage, The mileage will reflect that (~50 mpg). If you drive less than 40 miles a day and you recharge, then you are essentially driving a BEV the gas mileage will reflect that.(infinite mileage with only the electric charge cost.) If you drive in between these to extremes you can get the much maligned GM published 230 mpg-s.
Drive 50 miles a day and recharge, you get about that 230 mpg,
Drive 60 miles a day and recharge you get about 150 mpg.
In this respect the notion of city vs. highway driving has little meaning because charging has much greater effect on these definitions of mpg then has speed etc.
Aug 28th, 2009 (3:28 pm)The answer has been sitting in a mayonnaise jar on the front porch of Funk & Waggonals since 5:00 am this morning!
+2
Aug 28th, 2009 (3:31 pm)Sigh
SAE J1711 requires both
230 MPG and 25 kWh/100 miles.
Aug 28th, 2009 (3:31 pm)I am pretty sure I mentioned this method about 200 posts ago, way up at post #4……………
HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
+1
Aug 28th, 2009 (3:33 pm)Just the troll, nothing to see here…
+1
Aug 28th, 2009 (3:38 pm)Wrong! (insert buzzer sound)
Hyundai got the big bucks because their cars are cheap and their finance division will approve anyone who is breathing, while Obama-run GMAC (aka ‘Ally’) would not even look at an application with less than 720 FICO score.
Just ask any of those buyers if they are happy with the product. They will tell you they’re just happy anyone would take their POS clunker and give them a new car.
Aug 28th, 2009 (3:40 pm)Here is a problem with that methodology
US Electric Prices vary by a factor of 4 (or greater)
Some areas of my state are at less than 0.06/kWh. Some states push well past 0.24/kWh depending on time, etc.
For the 50 miles/day, I need to know how much is electric versus gas to recalculate for my region.
SAE J1711 Sticker (Made Up)
City
230 MPG
+
25 kWh/100 miles
CS Mode
50 MPG
Hwy
130 MPG
+
20 kWh/100 miles
CS Mode
45 MPG
Seems very clear to me
+1
Aug 28th, 2009 (3:42 pm)You are not alone there.
Aug 28th, 2009 (3:43 pm)I agree, Dave. I don’t see what GM is waiting for. I am also of the opinion the reason could be that it does not get great mileage on Charge Sustaining mode. But like I have said several times today already (and some people are tired of me doing so) I don’t really care if the MPG in CS mode is not any better than the Malibu, or Toyota Camry or Honda Accord or even a little less. That is not my primary reason for being interested in the Volt. I don’t expect to purchase more than 20 gallons of gasoline per year. How far it goes per charge and recharge time on a 110-120V circuit is what I care about.
Aug 28th, 2009 (3:44 pm)It seems RickW is the latest incarnation of no name.
Aug 28th, 2009 (3:46 pm)I totally agree. BEVs should have electric range per charge stated and not some “fishy” MPG conversion factor. Most people shopping for a BEV will be looking at MPC and the average cost to fully recharge the battery.
+1
Aug 28th, 2009 (3:49 pm)As if most of us don’t do the same thing, Mike.
Aug 28th, 2009 (3:49 pm)You’ve also missed the complexity and problems of sizes used in clothing merchandising. Sizes differ by age, waistline, inseam length, and often are not standard across all manufacturers. Even in your example of pants some of the best labeled are denims (jeans). Your size 32 could mean waist in inches or inseam. Many different sized people could have a a 32-inch inseam but they differ at the waist measure. So depending on what you determine is a “size” 32 might indeed fit all three but we would be talking about three different yardages of fabric.
A scheme that recognizes the complexity but allows the customer estimate is often the best solution as far as labels. When shopping for clothing as well as cars it is best to know your own needs, habits, and measurements .
Aug 28th, 2009 (3:49 pm)You have a good point there, but litres per 100 km is already used in a good part of the world so precedent is already set.
It’s not a bad system, a lower score is better… just like golf!
Aug 28th, 2009 (3:51 pm)Good blog post by Technology Review’s energy editor:
http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/energy/24055/
“A person considering buying a car would go to a website, something like fueleconomy.gov, and provide a little information: home address, work address, number of days commuting. Total miles traveled per day and per month could be calculated using Google Maps or something like that. Tack on estimates for weekend driving and errands based on surveys. The system would then use data from vehicle tests and from local electricity and fuel prices to calculate cost per month of daily driving and how often refueling will be needed. It would provide numbers for costs using gas or biofuels. It would also automatically provide information about the cost of several longer trips. ”
If other car companies have a GPS system like GM’s OnStar system, I bet a LOT of good “real world” data could be accumulated in databases about how much electricity and gasoline is used. Other things like the environment where the car is being driven, how aggressively it is being driven and so forth could also be monitored by the car’s computer and uploaded to the car company (or whoever) via their satellite system.
Of course, I would only want this to happen WITH the owner’s permission, and all data would be totally anonymous and not tied to a car owner’s name. They should offer the owner a nice DISCOUNT on the price of the car (or ongoing fees) in exchange for their driving data. There should be plenty of people who will take advantage of the discount and aren’t too concerned about GM or whoever being “Big Brother” and all that.
Aug 28th, 2009 (3:52 pm)Luke
Only you can answer the question as to whether it would be a plus or minus if your wife stopped sleeping with you if you were to buy this car. I would not even try to go there, myself. And you better not ask your wife’s opinion and then make the wrong decision.
Aug 28th, 2009 (3:53 pm)Double it? Triple it . It doesn’t matter? Why Clueless with his Cap & Tax will do that and more, at minimum quadruple electric rates automatically. He never met a tax he couldn’t support.
Now when you do double it, or triple it again, after he quadruples it, the cost of electricity will be the same or more as gasoline, and it DOES MATTER.
Aug 28th, 2009 (3:53 pm)He’s also quite likely not upside down on his mortgage.
I used to see this a lot back home. $50,000 worth of house and $40,000 worth of “dualie” pick-em-up truck in the unattached shed of a garage.
Aug 28th, 2009 (3:55 pm)Cool!
Glad to hear they are jumping on the bandwagon!
I DO like the LRX concept.
Thx Noel!
+1
Aug 28th, 2009 (3:58 pm)Its unclear from that link what they are talking about….
Maybe they are expected to pay -auto- sales tax based on the full price of the car before the discount? Or is the registration of the car based on the a “asses value system” rather than an actual sale value?
I see from South Dakota that first time fees include a 3% excise Tax on the purchase price of the car.
Aug 28th, 2009 (3:59 pm)Thanks for the link, Jacob. It is a beautiful car. Now, if I only had a $100,000 to spend on it. Oh, well.
Aug 28th, 2009 (4:01 pm)I meant to say ‘pump gas’. You cannot buy gasoline without alcohol in it unluss you are driving a Cessna.
+1
Aug 28th, 2009 (4:02 pm)The Volt is ALREADY E85 capable…
Aug 28th, 2009 (4:02 pm)Carcus1
Is that lease of $149 per month for how many months? Expected life of the battery – which I think is 5 years? Or as long as you own the vehicle? Nissan has a lot to think about. I hope, for them and the consumers, they make the “right” decision.
Aug 28th, 2009 (4:10 pm)Noel — Thank you.
Aug 28th, 2009 (4:10 pm)Ah, yes, I do remember. The good ‘ole Tonight Show days!
-1
Aug 28th, 2009 (4:12 pm)Chevy Volt is
and it cause
got that !
enc.
+1
Aug 28th, 2009 (4:15 pm)C H E V Y V O L T
+1
Aug 28th, 2009 (4:16 pm)Under EPA methodology, they dock the KWh rating for charging inefficiencies. Typically 5-10%losses while charging.
I don’ t know if the Leaf used the EPA methodology, and docked itself for those charging inefficiencies. So that 40 AER is still possible; and the 25 KWh per 100 miles is also possible, at the same time!
BTW, the faster you charge, the larger the losses ought to be, as well as harming the battery life, even if only marginally at nominal charing rates.
-1
Aug 28th, 2009 (4:28 pm)SteveK9,
The auto makers have succeeded in cleaning the ICE so much, that it can and does achieve a zero pollution vehicle status. That was a rating created by the CARBite idiots to assign to their wished for Fool Cell desires, and to denigrate conventional autos. Lo and Behold, ordinary ICE autos can and do meet the standard, to the CARBites utter surprise.
The Volt more than likely does also, to solve the “stale gas” problem. So genuine toxic emmissions are not an issue, any longer.
As for CO2, I do not feel I need to really worry about your religious dogma concerns. They hav nothing to do with Reality anyway. Conversion of auto fleets to PHEVs and EREVs auto fleets, eliminate your CO2 concerns anyway, long before they would effect anything in two hundred years from now, even if your ideas were valid.
+1
Aug 28th, 2009 (4:28 pm)WOW, I could go 50 miles away from home. [If I dared, you know that range thing]
Aug 28th, 2009 (4:30 pm)When I bought my last new truck, I asked the sales guy where the jack was and he didn’t know.
Sales guys (unless they are car guys as well) tend to be very light on the vehicle’s capabilities and very heavy on closing a sale. Any sale.
When I bought my last new car. Same issue. We were looking for specific make, model, color and trim level. Since they didn’t have that, they tried to direct us to something that ‘almost’ fit the bill.
We left and found a salesman at another dealership that understood what we wanted. You not only have to shop for the car, you have to shop for the dealer that can make it happen.
I am probably the easiest person to sell since I know exactly what I want at least a year before I buy it. Selling on eBay isn’t such a bad idea for people like me.
Aug 28th, 2009 (4:42 pm)I did those speculation numbers on a 7 year lease. But that may be too much commitment for consumers to swallow. A 3 or 5 year lease would probably seem more palatable. The contract would be adjusted accordingly and would surely require some sort of deposit ($750, $1000?) which could be financed with the car purchase.
I’m expecting the batteries to hold 70% or more capacity for 5 to 7 years. I’ve read that the reduced capacity battery could go on to live a useful life for another 10+ years beyond that with utility companies or even back into EV’s for budget shoppers.
Several years into the future, if Nissan were successful with this, they could have a whole “pipeline” of used batteries set up. (i.e. we’re running a special this month on reconditioned battery packs that are guaranteed to x kwh’s).
The budget shopper might be interested in a used leaf and/or battery pack with only a 70 mile range, if that fits into their driving habits. But it would mean a lot more security to them leasing the battery from Nissan, knowing they aren’t going to get stuck with a “lemon” battery.
/again, leasing the battery is not what I personally would want. . but it does seem to me that it could have advantages over outright purchase that would make the electric car more attractive to OEM’s and consumers . . . especially while the mass produced electric car is in it’s genesis.
-2
Aug 28th, 2009 (4:51 pm)First off let me say that I am a Volt fan. I think it is an awesome idea and a great car. But 230 mpg…..come on! That is a bunch of crap no matter how you look at it!
Miles per gallon is used to show the effeciency of a vehicle, and 230 mpg does NOT accurately reflect the effeciency of the Volt! I just hope something else is put on the car at dealerships to represent the effeciency of the car besides that ridiculous number. Such as 25kWh / 100 miles and/or the mpg in charge sustaining mode.
GM, ya’ll made an awesome car, but you are complete idiots expecting people to believe 230 mpg. You would have done better converting 25kWh / 100 miles to mpg and showing mpg in charge sustaining mode and then a combind mpg (like the city/highway and combind mpg).
Aug 28th, 2009 (4:55 pm)Then you should buy a Leaf. What are you doing here?
Or are you hedging your bets since Nissan may not escape ths auto recession without undergoing a BK experience of its own…
What about the cost for mile 101? Where do I add the 150 dollar tow charge?
Aug 28th, 2009 (4:59 pm)Rambling on,. . .
The battery lease would have terms regarding age of battery and capacity that would affect the $ at termination of contract.
The Nissan shop would have some type of “load checker” that in a few hours would analyze the battery’s capacity under a load and charging to determine its status.
Likely these “load checkers” would have to undergo periodic testing/calibration for certification.
-2
Aug 28th, 2009 (5:09 pm)So with the standard edition 10 or so gallon tank you could conceivably drive cross country on a full tank! I can’t wait to see this on the commercial (with the caveat “if you recharge the battery every 1/2 hour for 6 hours along the way”. )
Pretty sad I’m part owner of this company and this is the best America can do. No wonder the rest of the world has got us beat in math and sciences!
-1
Aug 28th, 2009 (5:32 pm)Sure ask me, I’m a Hyundai buyer. My wife has a Santa Fe that is a great car. Its rock solid, never had any troubles. Oh and we paid cash for it.
Hyundai makes a great product with a great warranty. We could afford a much more expensive car but we prefer to spend our money on other things that cars.
-3
Aug 28th, 2009 (5:59 pm)Why not just do Gallons per hour of operation. This works for almost any kind of device that has an engine any type of engine. For example the care would be given 0 GPH while under electric power or could include GPH energy equivalent from a generation station. Total GPH would be given for a full tank of fuel used.
Aug 28th, 2009 (6:25 pm)The $7.5K rebates will probably die out by 2014.
There will be 130,000 Volts sold by then (10, 60, 60 is the projected production numbers, in thousands, for 2011, 2012, 2013).
I figure other cars will get the other 120,000 rebates.
By 2014, the li-ion batteries will be much better understood. GM is being very conservative with the warranty costs for 10-years/150,000-miles, based on two years of laboratory tests of the batteries. After 3 more years of testing, plus 10′s of thousands of on the road examples, I bet they can take $thousands off the price (combined with better prices from the battery cell suppliers).
As to all the ‘expensive energy efficient parts’ that were not off the shelf, GM plans to use many on other models like the Chevy Cruze, so economies of scale will kick in much faster than Volt production numbers alone suggest (energy saving radio, headlights, wipers, airconditioning, blinkers, heaters, etc – helping the fuel economy of their other models in a win/win situation).
By 2014, the price will probably be down at least 25%, putting the price of the Volt less than $30K. Gasoline will probably be at least $5/gallon by 2014. “Regular cars” getting 28 mpg will begin to look like horses and buggies by 2020.
Aug 28th, 2009 (6:34 pm)How about just how many gallons per month, and, how many kilowatts per month as rated both in Winter as well as Summer if a difference shows up.
People think in terms of how much a monthly budget must be accommodated. Several columns of various daily driving miles would also help, set up in evenly numbered increments which people can easily process.
If you drive 24 miles a day = ~5killowatts/ 0 Gas.
If you drive 36 miles a day = ~7killowatts/~0 Gas.
If you drive 48 miles a day = ~8killowatts/~.2 to .3 gal Gas.
Total costs per month per the local electric rate might be printed out on the sticker locally if EPA would permit that.
Total costs per month for gasoline in total estimated gallons, the prospective buyer could figure instantly anyway, because that number ought to be a very low number of gallons.
Aug 28th, 2009 (6:39 pm)Tex_Arl,
Naw, I’m a logical retired shrink (oxymoronic too). Spock and I are brothers (veeeeery logical). The only physics I’d be good at are quantum mechanics – wait- that makes no sense (g).
Be well,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The Volts’ Wheels On The Road!!**********NPNS
Aug 28th, 2009 (6:42 pm)nuclearboy,
You are my hero.
nucleargirl
+2
Aug 28th, 2009 (6:42 pm)Down South, they already used taxpayer money to pay for them to set up factories (state taxpayer money).
And then, they complain that American auto manufacturers pay their workers too much, because the Asian factories pay Southerners less (it’s actually similar wages, but much less legacy health-benefit costs, because the factories are much newer than in Detroit).
United we stand, divided we fall – the States compete with each other to offer foreign factories huge tax breaks, for low paying manufacturing jobs.
“Cash for clunkers” is the least of the U.S.’s manufacturing problems.
Luckily, GM now has a fighting chance – McCain would have let Toyota buy GM in bankruptcy court.
-2
Aug 28th, 2009 (8:15 pm)I’ve done over 1000 miles at a clip, stopping only for gas and meals. Twice. We’ve also hit close to 900 miles a couple times and over 600 is fairly routine.
And… on many trips, plugging in overnight wouldn’t be feasible, either.
For some, knowing the fuel economy in charge-depleted mode is going to be important.
But GM is not very forthcoming on that, are they?
Aug 28th, 2009 (8:38 pm)For total electric cars, what about “X Miles per charge” ?
+3
Aug 28th, 2009 (8:48 pm)More relevent to my driving, and probably ~90% of drivers, if we are going to distill down to two numbers:
-AER on combined cty/hwy per current EPA standard
-MPG for CS for current hwy EPA standard
My city CS miles driven would be insignificant. My EV miles would be mixed.
Personally, I think they should put all four numbers on the sticker (city AER, hwy AER, CS MPG city, CS MPG hwy). This will allow everyone to reasonably predict what their fuel usage will be.
Aug 28th, 2009 (8:57 pm)It’s 250k per manufacturer.
Brings up an interesting question. If Opel/Vauxhall “bring” the Ampera to the US, will they also get 250k?
+1
Aug 28th, 2009 (9:14 pm)The loan pool program requires matching private, has no pull to replace old lower milage with new higher milage vehicles, and would be drawn out over a long period of time. Remember the subsequent reduced gasoline consumption will reduce our trade deficit going forward. If the economy stabalizes enough, partly as a result of CARS, there will be sufficient private financing available for new car purchases. I think this and the timing of this economic jolt are worth the expense.
Aug 28th, 2009 (9:21 pm)true dat
+1
Aug 28th, 2009 (9:59 pm)That’s not how averages work. An average by itself tells you nothing about how the population is distributed. You are assuming a certain distribution of people which may or may not be a good assumption.
Maybe there are two types of drivers, grandmas and speed demons and nothing in between.
It could be that only a small sliver of the population matches the average profile and everybody else is distributed to one side or the other.
Aug 28th, 2009 (10:24 pm)I totally agree with you and I like the way GM has calculated the mpg for the Volt or should I say gas consumption for 1000 miles driven. The Leaf’ high rating doesn’t mean much if you can’t take the car on a long trip.
+2
Aug 28th, 2009 (10:27 pm)Trying to compare the various cars is like apples to oranges. But I particularly like the Volt because around town low to no gas consumption and on longer trips great mileage.
Aug 28th, 2009 (10:29 pm)I agree with your BTW comment.
Aug 28th, 2009 (10:35 pm)It doesn’t seem fair but that’s the way of our culture and makes America such a great place to live. We make rules and for the good or bad we stick by them. Besides the government has helped GM and Chrysler much more than foreign car makers that have built assembly plants in America.
Aug 28th, 2009 (10:46 pm)that is why GM came out with 230 mpg for the Volt in an attempt to quantify the average drivers consumption. If your a travelling salesman or a Sunday driver this number isn’t much use. But for average drivers its a good measure of gas consumption. For example I drive about 8000 miles a year and that would approximate 24 gallon of gas a year compared to the 320 gallons I now use per year. It won’t take long for the average driver to get the few thousand extra on purchasing a Volt back. Plus the Volts alleged superior performance will make it fun to drive.
Aug 28th, 2009 (10:49 pm)your a little too intense (same bastards), Do your heart and mind a favor a calm down.
Aug 28th, 2009 (10:58 pm)The price tag of the Volt may seem expensive but as things advance they become cheaper, smaller and more affordable to the public and here is a little known fact that no one hardly knows about electric cars did you know the electric car has been around for over 100 years but on the other hand the Volt is a plug-In Hybrid so of course that mean’s it’s half electric and half gas but don’t be fooled we may finally get full electric cars later in 2010 by some other auto companies but for now the most important thing is to be patient and wait till late 2010 and the rewards will be worth it. I’m glad the future will be a cleaner one for the
earth.
Aug 28th, 2009 (11:00 pm)I’m glad your joking, because after nearly 40 years of using metric, its still a foreign language to me.
Aug 28th, 2009 (11:01 pm)doesn’t that sound like the GM system for the Volt?
Aug 28th, 2009 (11:03 pm)you have a point
Aug 28th, 2009 (11:14 pm)cars are becoming more complicated every year and the one size fits all approach no longer works as well as it used to. If your an average Joe driver the Volt would be the best choice. It gets decent electrical miles per charge with a gas engine to extend trips. If you never go on long trips you can buy an all electric or if you constantly on the road you can buy an all gas vehicle. It’s all a matter of the type of driving you do.
If you have money to burn you can buy one of each. But for the average Joe the Volt is the answer. With the passage of time I expect the Volt to get even better at meeting the average Americans needs. You can be sure that wealthy will be buying something else and so will the poor.
Aug 28th, 2009 (11:25 pm)You could drive the equivalent of driving across the country. Assuming your driving 4000 miles, it would take 100 days at 40 miles a day. Back in the good old days this was the type of mileage drivers got about 100 years ago before there were bridges and roads but now we have airplanes,
Aug 29th, 2009 (12:04 am)The comparison works because you’re ultimately looking at MPG so the efficiency/inefficiency of the ICE engine gets factored in there. For example, if you assume 1 gallon of gasoline contains 34 kWh, then a car that gets 20 MPG would use 170 kWh /100 miles. As opposed to most EVs that get more like 25 kWh to 35 kWh / 100 miles.
Gas engines look better if you consider the entire process of getting energy to the wheels. There a lot of losses before you manage to get the electricity to the battery. There are some losses getting the gasoline to the tank but not nearly as many. So gasoline starts out with something of a lead.
Aug 29th, 2009 (12:23 am)I hadn’t seen this before, but it looks like the first 250,000 plug-in cars sold in the U.S.:
http://gm-volt.com/2008/10/03/along-with-wall-street-bailout-plug-in-car-tax-credit-is-passed-chevy-volt-now-7500-less/
Along With Wall Street Bailout, Plug-in Car Tax Credit is Passed: Chevy Volt Now $7500 Less
October 3rd, 2008
The now passed by the House and signed by Bush $700 Billion Wall Street bailout bill had a few congressional “sweeteners” in it to help get it passed after failing for the first time in the House earlier in the week.
Sweetest for future Volt buyers is what’s called the Transportation and Domestic Fuel Security Provision.
This provision provides a tax credit for buyers of plug-in electric vehicles. It provides a base of $2500 plus an additional $417 per kwh for batteries greater than 4 kwh. For the Chevy Volt, that works out to $7500 per car, a number GM had lobbied for.
The credit will be applied to the first 250,000 plug-in cars sold in the US and will be phased out to 50% for the following two quarters, and 25% for the two quarters after that before ending. The total cost of the credits will be $758 million.
Does that mean Nissan Leaf buyers get $10,840 ? (24 kWh battery)
I would be pretty angered if a Japanese manufacturer swooped in with a shoddy, 3-year lasting battery (they use a very large band of State of Charge, which shortens the life) and took the lion’s share of that $758 million, and killed the Volt incentives…
Can’t the US support GM, Tesla, Fisker, Aptera, etc without giving taxpayer money to Japan ?
Aug 29th, 2009 (12:25 am)I’m assuming he saw the 22 MPH number for the average speed on the City Cycle and thought it meant the Volt would get 22 MPG.
The conceptual problem for many is that they can’t seem to get their heads around the idea that the MPG is always an “average”. City and Highway MPG numbers have always been averages, but for some reason many think that if the sticker says 50 MPG City then for every city mile driven you should use 1/50th of a gallon of gas, even if you’re driving 40 miles uphill at a 6 degree slope in winter with the thermometer reading 15 degrees Fahrenheit in a snowstorm with 35 MPH howling winds.
Wait, they do seem to understand that the 50 MPG number is an average of winter/summer good weather up/down etc. But they can’t seem to apply this concept to a PHEV. If the sticker says 230 MPG City then every mile driven should use 1/230th of a gallon. If it doesn’t then GM is lying and the scientists and engineers at DOE and EPA are crazy idiots.
Aug 29th, 2009 (12:54 am)Tell it to the EPA.
GM was just following the published testing methodology that the EPA is expected to use for plug-in cars.
People had the same complaints about the Prius 10 years ago, thinking that Toyota was “lying” because their friend only got 36 mpg with aggressive driving, whatever…
It is the EPA’s test.
Aug 29th, 2009 (1:04 am)Sorry, no. This one knows how to spell, at least.
Aug 29th, 2009 (1:11 am)Lyle is wrong.
He uses only 8kwh for Volt (and assumes 40 miles) – not 16kwh. But for Nissan Leaf uses all 24kwh. Obviously Nissan won’t use full 100% battery for their 100 miles …
Lyle, pls correct the calculations.
Aug 29th, 2009 (1:27 am)At the heart is miles / kwh. I don’t see how Volt can be assumed to give 5 miles / kwh and Leaf only 4 miles / kwh.
You change this – the results change. For eg. if we assume Leaf uses 20kwh (i.e. 83% of 24kwh), then its mpge goes to 170.
Aug 29th, 2009 (1:55 am)Keep it simple, give the following 3 data;
JOULES/MILE : in battery mode
JOULES/MILE : in engine mode
BATTERY RANGE
This should give enough information to draw comparisons between various cars and for individuals to calculate there own projected fuel costs.
Any calculations as shown in this article will be dependent on formula based on personal judgment and assumed average driving patterns.
Aug 29th, 2009 (5:49 am)It is interesting to see so many different views on looking at mileage from different types of vehicles.
For me .
I want to know how many total miles I will be able to travel in my area (Vancouver) and (Toronto) on a full charge using electricity , and how far I will be able to travel using gasoline in charge sustaining mode .
Hocus pocus mumble jumble numbers don’t mean anything to me and I am not impressed by BS regardless of the source .
+1
Aug 29th, 2009 (7:29 am)So you want a personalized set of numbers and all others are BS? I guess that leaves the job up to you. Please send mine for zip code 17745.
Be well,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The Volts’ Wheels On The Road!!**********NPNS
+1
Aug 29th, 2009 (7:32 am)Sean,
Nicely put.
Be well,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The Volts’ Wheels On The Road!!**********NPNS
Aug 29th, 2009 (7:35 am)Mark,
X miles per charge, @Y temperature, on Z topography (level ground?)
Be well,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The Volts’ Wheels On The Road!!**********NPNS
+1
Aug 29th, 2009 (7:47 am)Mine is 53149.
Can I get mine now?
+1
Aug 29th, 2009 (7:49 am)Sean,
Little known to the general public, but I would guess on this forum, that the majority realize the electric cars have been on the concept and even the road for quite some time.
But, I agree, that in general most would not.
Happy Saturday!
+1
Aug 29th, 2009 (7:51 am)JEC,
Don’t be silly. These things take time and he’s working on mine now.
Be well,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The Volts’ Wheels On The Road!!**********NPNS
Aug 29th, 2009 (7:57 am)Actually for pure electrics, this will likely be the major spec. that they will advertise.
The MPC would be similiar to MPG, and will of course vary depending upon several factors, such as Tag mentioned. But, the same is true with MPG, so I see no issue with using MPC for a BEV.
Now, when you mix in and E-REV the water not only gets murky, it becomes downright black!
Knowing the MPC hwy/cty, and the MPG hwy/cty seems to be the correct answer. Attempting to quantify anything more than this into the equation will just muddy the waters.
I believe people will understand the limitations of the specifications eventually. As more BEV’s and EREV’s make the road, there will be plenty of information on real world performance, and some smart guy, will write a concise article that people will refer to as the “gospel of electric efficiency”, and all will be well in the world.
Aug 29th, 2009 (8:03 am)Let use calories! Then I can directly relate it to how much fat I burn on a 10 mile run.
Everyone understands calories (actually kilo-Cal’s)
Aug 29th, 2009 (8:13 am)OHHHH…I just had a “Gee that sounds simple” moment as I picked up my 3rd cup of coffee.
The issue with Lyle’s blog and having the old “linear” comment model versus this new “indented?” model.
Why not just simply supply a selection to allow switching between the old and new styles!!!! This would make me all tingly! Now, I can view all the latest comments simply, or see specific sub-topics with a simple selection. I find I cannot visit this site as often, since it drives me crazy, that I may have missed an important post, and I have to re-read 200+ posts to find it.
How about it Lyle. I cannot imagine it would be all that difficult (I am not a web-designer, but I do understand programming).
/hmmmm…maybe Statik would even return….
Aug 29th, 2009 (8:27 am)Lease companies capitalizing a 7 year lease is not feasible where interest APR is above about 5.5%. There is a point of diminishing returns literally, and, business risk for 7 years for a 5 year battery might be their “red flag”.
The battery pack degradation-rate would be a known-minimum, but maybe turn out to be far worse. It might not at all be able to be checked by any test method easily except to just drive it in EV mode only. Nissan (et al) already know what the degradation-values ($ and power) of their chemistries will be all during mileage-usages. (Don’t hold your breath hoping they will tell you).
Lease “buyout at end” can be set up for 10%, a dollar, or whatever the parties agree to. But only the OEM is really going to be able to have some slight idea of what those values are possibly going to be. (GM is the only one with the confidence-levels to begin to give us “second-stationary-life value” indications),
Lease companies likely won’t go for a 5 year lease on a 5 year “estimated” MTBF (mean time before failure) (for “fitness of merchantability”) (or “operations within factory range-specifications”), where there are not publicly-established residual values which they can count on, and, OEM warranties that can be trusted and held to fulfillment (for them as well as you).
So, if an OEM is going to “lease” you a car, then they are also leasing you the battery. Depreciation may be co-factored to allow for a completely degraded BEV battery in 3 or 5 years, where upon they just replace that degraded battery (hopefully) before wholesale (which ought to be a legal economic-practicable requirement before) liquidation or retail sale (at their cost plus labor cost). 3 years goes pretty darn fast. 5 years before needing to spend a big chunk of cash at the future full retail price is not appealing at all either if after the payments end, you want a “breather” from vehicle costing. People that have a hybrid traction battery wear out at $2,800 tend to just get disgusted and bail out of the car, no matter who made it, from what I am seeing out here in the field.
But of course, as we all know, when you lease, you can not have the possibility of building any small, moderate, or exceptional equity, especially in conjunction with the likelihood that a battery may not be able to actually be made to last anywhere near the 150,000 miles/10 years like GM warrants.
Aug 29th, 2009 (8:35 am)I would also prefer having all four numbers to compare
City AER
Hwy AER
MPG City
MPG Hwy
It should be accompanied by a chart showing gasoline usage for various miles driven: 10, 20, 40, 50, 70, 90, 100, 120, 150, 200.
This would prevent some vehicles with 10 miles AER from having equal rating with one having 20 miles AER or 40 miles AER. And it would give a person a very clear way to calculate their own gasoline usage across different drive train technologies as well as compare those of similar type.
I have more confidence in a fully informed consumer rather than some egghead fabricating some artificial number based on a dreamed up scenario that may never match my real world driving.
Aug 29th, 2009 (9:12 am)Thank you for playing “Suzie the Seamstress” to help show just how ridiculous having ONE NUMBER to express a very complex situation.
It’s like the Nissan Leaf getting 367 MPG using the same formula that GM uses to get 230 MPG for the Volt. Both numbers are meaningless.
Give me 4 numbers: City AER, Hwy AER, City MPG, Hwy MPG plus a chart showing gasoline usage at 10, 20, 40, 50, 70, 90, 100, 120, 150 and 200 miles. A chart showing kWh used for those same miles traveled would also help.
An example of complex systems that consumers still manage to figure out is computers. You have MHz of the processor, memory and bus. 3 numbers already. Then you add graphics performance, storage size and speed, number of USB ports, etc. Consumers are smarter than they are given credit for. Don’t “dumb down” some bogus number just to make it easier to slap a sticker on the car window! Give us all the info and let US decide what works best for us.
Aug 29th, 2009 (9:26 am)thanks GXT and jscott for the good explanations
so “very few people do (match the average driver)” depends on how close to average you consider acceptable. for example, in the distribution below, the average driver is just under 10 miles. if you consider +/- 2mi an acceptable range for “matching” (aka all of the people within this band will have similar results), you’re only talking about (approx) 20% of the public.
http://gm-volt.com/2007/12/06/how-did-gm-determine-that-78-of-commuters-drive-less-than-40-miles-per-day/
an average would be a good number to look at if you want to take an aggregate of the whole population, say to estimate total gas savings of the entire Volt program. however, if you want an individual’s savings, it varies greatly depending on the distance of his/her daily commute. because of this variation in daily commute, I think the single MPG # is useless.
(I encourage you, MikeG, to ask ten people at work who don’t all live in close proximity to each other how far they drive on a daily basis, then calculate their MPG based on 40AER/50MPG to see what you get)
—
if daily commute > 40 :
(40 electric miles + XX gas miles) / (XX gas miles / 50 MPG) = ?? total MPG
Aug 29th, 2009 (9:38 am)I think you two are on the same wavelength …
GXT says the one-size fits all doesn’t work, while Rob says the variation to the average must be accounted for. I would definitely agree that the variation in the MPG for any individual driver (much larger for the Volt than a traditional car) would make the one-number fits all approach not applicable.
Aug 29th, 2009 (9:47 am)BTU’s….
With all this global warming meltdown, how about a measure of heat produced. My Volt only generates 1200 BTU’s per mile…
Lets see BTUpm?
Well I better put on my BTU resestant suit, not that anyone reads this far down.
+1
Aug 29th, 2009 (11:01 am)The “go-it-alone” venture I was talking about was Iraq. And I think everyone can agree at this point that that was a major fiasco. Not to mention a major waste of the American tax payer’s money.
I happen to agree with you that taxpayer money should have been spent on the domestic auto industry. And state and local governments should not buy foreign automobiles. But it’s not just about the government. Private debt is an even bigger issue for America than our public debt.
My point was that our government cares more about the profits of certain corporations than they do the domestic economy. Which why we have those imbalanced trade agreements. And why we’re so anxious not to be accused of protectionism.
When it comes to trade–there is a big difference between balanced fair trade, and what we have now. Historically, major trade centers have always been hotspots for innovation and wealth. Trade itself can be a powerful tool for innovation and growth. It should be a win win. Not a competition. But what we have now is anything but win-win with most of the benefits going to certain corporations that have a lot of clout in Washington. And the Chinese government.
Aug 29th, 2009 (12:04 pm)I agree that an equivalent MPG formula is needed and think the MPGe formula suggested to calculate the equivalent energy used is the right approach.
I think it would also be nice to know the equivalent carbon footprint per mile of a car. I realize eletricity can also be created by various fuel sources with varying carbon emissions, but it might be nice to know the carbon footprint of a given car, based on current averages and assumptions.
Aug 29th, 2009 (12:30 pm)Post script for EPA and GM.
People think and therefore can far more easily comprehend in terms of a monthly set of costs. Institutional budgets formulate in terms of quarterly and annualized costs, which are too large a set of numbers for most people to process in any kind of personal budgeting relationship.
(Also, don’t use “kilowatt hours” just use “kilowatts”).
(Dealer destination electric-utility-provider ought to be the price-point for the kilowatt hour cost of the formula). Perhaps GM could just pre-load those values from the utilities and apply those specifics to the EPA sticker).
However, *annualized* numbers as to prevention of tonnage of CO2 compared to a similarly weighted ICE, well, there is where the customer can become immediately proud and satisfied with that mathematical formulation for tonnage CO2 prevented.
Please save this very post (and my one immediately above) for your records, because I believe that ultimately, this simple set of explanations is what will have the consumer be best- informed in decision-making.
Aug 29th, 2009 (12:36 pm)I wish we had one +10 vote per thread so that I could have used it for LauraM’s comment above. This has been our single biggest economic problem the past 10 or so years. It has also been one of the most perplexing and frustrating. The should have been more efforts made on all levels (local gov, state gov, federal gov, consumer, industry groups, etc) to keep jobs and operations domestic. Instead we’ve let Wall Street hand out “attaboys” for short term profits and kept the business environment favorable for offshore moves. Our government has also been largely asleep at the wheel with their efforts, or lack thereof, to keep the playing field level.
Aug 29th, 2009 (12:48 pm)steel: My opinion isn’t gospel – so no need to be confused. What I opined is a quick, low-cost simple approach to a difficult calculation; Volt MPG. Nothing more. Argonne Lab is the keystone of the EV-EREV MPG universe.
Aug 29th, 2009 (12:49 pm)It was originally passed that way but was amended this year:
“•Plug-in Electric Drive Motor Vehicles, Section 1141-1144, modifies the qualified plug-in electric drive motor vehicle tax credit. Now, the tax credit will be phased out for each manufacturer after 200,000 qualified plug-in electric drive vehicles have been sold by that manufacturer for use in the U.S., rather than phasing out the credit once the total number of qualified vehicles sold by all manufacturers reaches 250,000. Additionally, a 10% tax credit for qualified low-speed electric vehicles, electric motorcycles, three-wheeled electric vehicles, and electric vehicle conversions has been added.” -http://www.afdc.energy.gov/afdc/incentives_laws_legislation.html
This was an improvement but should have just been an increase from first 250K to first 1M not per mfg. This would have incentivized all manufacturers to get vehicles into production as fast as possible or they would lose out.
Aug 29th, 2009 (2:02 pm)I’m not following you on this one, Dan.
+1
Aug 29th, 2009 (3:05 pm)I agree with Jason…..we should just report the AER and then say once you’ve depleted the AER you get X MPG.
If you wanted to report on the electrical efficiency too, you could say it gets 5 mkwh (miles per kilo watt hour) for 40 miles and then 50mpg after that.
This whole idea of lumping it all together in one MPG based on a slew of assumptions is quite useless since hardly anyone is right on average.
Aug 29th, 2009 (3:16 pm)I would be in favor of ratings for each of several distances traveled, perhaps as follows:
Distance (miles) Equivalent(*) mpg
20 X
40 XX
100 XXX
200 XXXX
full vehicle range XXXXX
The consumer would, then, be in a pretty good position to evaluate a vehicle according to his or her driving needs.
* “Equivalent” – The gasoline energy equivalent of the fuel used to produce the electricity needed to recharge the batteries, in the case of the plug-in vehicles, plus that actually used through the gas tank. Some, nominal, electrical power plant conversion efficiency (say, 33%) and and distribution losses (say, 10%) would have to be agreed upon.
Aug 29th, 2009 (4:17 pm)Of course the thing you are ignoring is people want bragging rights, esp the early adopters. Just see how many arguments there are here when BEVs are brought up.
So logically people will want to compare the MPGe of BEVs with PHEVs. Of course if you want to trace the whole efficiency pipeline, your point about electricity makes sense.
The DOE formula for the CAFE number of a BEV DOES take into account the efficiency of refining gasoline, transporting it, and also the average US efficiency of making electricity from fossil fuels (notice this doesn’t factor in renewables), transporting it, which seems to address the points you mentioned, DonC. However it also boosts the number by 6.67x (1/0.15 “fuel content factor”) for alternative fueled vehicles. So Nissan’s 367mpg DOE number translates to about 55mpg (367 * 0.15) plant-to-wheel. Tesla’s 256mpg translates to about 38mpg plant-to-wheel.
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=2000_register&docid=00-14446-filed.pdf
However, it depends on what you are comparing. If you are comparing fuel prices, MPGe number won’t tell you that. And if you are comparing emissions, the MPGe doesn’t tell you the whole story either. So you can’t take the MPGe number or the plant-to-wheel number and use it for these comparisons. The MPGe number seems to follow the idea of the automaker only being responsible for what comes in and how much is put out; everything before depends on other providers (your local power company for electricity and the oil company for the gasoline).
Sticker wise, I think it is wiser to stick with kWh/100miles like it is currently done. And I agree with the majority of arguments of having the AER range numbers, mpg in charge sustaining mode, on the sticker for a car like the Volt. Ideally, there’s also the kWh/100miles for the AER mode too.
However, advertising-wise automakers will likely be using some form of MPG number just to brag, especially with the Volt taking the first chance to do this with its 230mpg (making Nissan follow up with their 367mpg number).
Aug 29th, 2009 (8:25 pm)I don’t understand why we have to express any bettery powered driving as miles per gallon. It just doesn’t make sense to me.
Aug 29th, 2009 (10:16 pm)Huh, thanks.
I was worried a rushed Nissan Leaf would cut into the early years of Chevy Volt sales by diverting the rebates…
It seems like a lot more money in the amended law: for GM alone, 200,000 $7.5K tax rebates = $1.5 billion. Originally they set aside $0.76 billion while giving $700 billion to Wall St.
“each manufacturer” seems to take in a lot of territory… do they seriously mean Honda, Toyota, Nissan, Subaru, Hyandai, Volkswagen, Saab, BMW, Mercedes, Aptera, Tesla, Fisker, etc….
Or do they expect that only a few manufacturers will make the Dec 31, 2014 deadline ? Five years is a long time.
(Well, maybe they are hoping even $45 billion over five years is a lot cheaper than occupying Iraq for one year, trying to guarantee the oil flow to the US…)
Anyway, it should get the Volt program far along, allowing economies of scale and further R&D to kick in, which is great.
Aug 30th, 2009 (8:44 pm)Yeah, thanks Dave. I do understand statistics. Whereas the data listed on the BTS National Transportation Survey site does not list a distribution as you are saying, so we can’t say what the real distribution is, however let’s use your number of 20%. The NTS says that there are 204million cars used daily in the US. That means 40million people fall in your 20%. I mean, maybe it’s just me, but I consider 40million people more than “very few”. It’s also 500 times more cars than Volts will be produced.
And also, anyone who knows statistics would know that asking 10 people in my office is a pretty horrible way to determine this, as statistically the people I work with are much more likely to be like me. This is the worse kind of anecdotal evidence. However, of the 13 people in my office that I poled, 5 fell into your 2% range and all but 1 fell into 10%. Personally, I would consider 30% to be plenty close for determining something like this anyway, especially since trips like this can vary greatly from week-to-week.
Aug 31st, 2009 (10:30 am)Laura,
I knew the “go it alone” was Iraq. Problem with that is the same with all the people who repeat the very same line. There were over 2 dozen countries supplying troops to the Iraq liberation. That does not look, sound or act like a “go it alone” venture. I did not agree with the war before it started. I thought it was senseless and useless. Same with Afghanistan. Nothing we do will change those people and the way they are controlled by their religion and governments. Only they have the power to do that. And they don’t know anything any better. But I have to disagree with the blaming the U.S. for Iraq. You might spend some time really reviewing the true facts before speaking out.
Aug 31st, 2009 (8:20 pm)OK. Two issues here. The first is Afghanistan. The reason we went in to Afghanistan wasn’t to “change those people” or liberate them, etc. It was because the Taliban sheltered a terrorist group that flew a plane into a building in my city! Killing over 2000 innocent civilians. Not to mention the Pentagon in Washington DC!
When, you’re attacked, you go to war. At least in my book. Or do you think the US shouldn’t have declared war on Japan after they bombed Pearl harbor? Or maybe New York isn’t part of the US? Or Washington? It’s only our nation’s capital.
Personally, I think we should have stayed there until we eradicated the Taliban. Or at least taken most of the key figures prisoner. It’s not about revenge. And it’s not about saving them from themselves. It’s about making sure that no one thinks they can attack the United States (or any place in the free world) and get away with it.
As far as Iraq–those 38 other countries sent their troops because we asked them too. But it is definately a US led coalition. And an unpopular one. Or was. We’re the only ones left there right now. I don’t blame the US. I blame George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. And their associates.
http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/31/ask-john-burns-wobbly-american-allies/?scp=1&sq=iraq%20bush%20unilateral&st=cse
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3873359.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/5197234.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4384952.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/4133345.stm
Aug 31st, 2009 (9:39 pm)Thank you. It’s good to be back.
About the dollar usage–I thought that gas prices and eletricity prices and E85 prices and nat gas prices fluctuated too much to make that a usable measure. But if it works for energy appliances, I suppose it can work here too. And, I agree–it is the simplest and most direct way of doing things.
Aug 31st, 2009 (11:01 pm)Total cost of ownership. What else matters?
Sep 2nd, 2009 (11:01 am)Your personal inexperience is showing.
My monthly electric bill (year over year) went down consistently after I got my BEV.
I’ll let you try to figure out why.
However, on average, folks’ electric bills may increase. Just don’t assume that’s the case or that details won’t affect the results on sub-categories within the entire population. Details and outliers matter.
Sep 2nd, 2009 (11:24 am)That depends much, much more on how you drive than where you live.
Apr 7th, 2010 (6:28 am)check out iron man 2 on-line at http://movies.neverseen.net
Apr 7th, 2010 (7:03 am)watch iron man 2 online at http://movies.neverseen.net