[obermd]

It will remain dim as long as you're running electric. When the Volt switches to gas it will switch the bright area from the battery status to the gas status. It's to help the driver quickly track which power source is being used. You can see this immediately by putting your Volt into Hold mode.

 

[Random]

... In the bottom right corner of the car dash, where it shows the estimated total range for electric and gas you have in the car is always very dim, even during the day when there are no lights on. It is basically impossible to see during the day. ...

What obermd said, but note that is not the total of electric plus gas, only gas (why it is dim when gas is not in use). The Total range is an option in the center driver information console display (DIC) which you get to by scrolling through the various display pages using the right side steering wheel up-dn buttons. I would prefer to see the total electric and gas as a small number on the DIC all of the time.

The same total also shows on the Onstar mobile app or the My chevrolet app.

 

[llninja]

The dim fuel gauge means you need to take the volt out more. Obermd is correct. Now if only you can get the voltec drivetrain in a BMW 740i sized vehicle.... oh wait, that would be a CT6 Plug-in. You should ditch the BMW for the Caddy CT6 Plug-in.

 

[Random]

related question - gas miles remaining

I have a related question. In Gen 1, the last bar of the gas replaced the gas miles remaining number with something like low fuel. If Gen 2 does that too, does the DIC total range number remain, ticking down to zero? I know it's only an estimate, but the first time (and only time) it happened to me in my 2014, I had sinking feeling (electric 0) when gas miles went from 40 something to "low fuel" and I couldn't see the estimate any longer.

 

[llninja]

I have a related question. In Gen 1, the last bar of the gas replaced the gas miles remaining number with something like low fuel. If Gen 2 does that too, does the DIC total range number remain, ticking down to zero? I know it's only an estimate, but the first time (and only time) it happened to me in my 2014, I had sinking feeling (electric 0) when gas miles went from 40 something to "low fuel" and I couldn't see the estimate any longer.

I'm pretty sure the same thing happens. You probably have a gallon of fuel left, but if they gave you the countdown and you depended on it, then ran out of gas, then there might be lawsuits. By displaying LOW, you have less of a temptation to milk it like Kramer did...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TuEdU_lrtZk

 

[obermd]

I have a related question. In Gen 1, the last bar of the gas replaced the gas miles remaining number with something like low fuel. If Gen 2 does that too, does the DIC total range number remain, ticking down to zero? I know it's only an estimate, but the first time (and only time) it happened to me in my 2014, I had sinking feeling (electric 0) when gas miles went from 40 something to "low fuel" and I couldn't see the estimate any longer.

I'm going to guess your total range estimate will then read "Low". The problem here is the fuel fill level sensor isn't a mathematical point and it's now sitting on the bottom of the tank so it has no idea how much gas is really left. Likewise if you fill your Volt's tank until the fuel is showing at the top of the fill pipe (about an extra gallon to gallon and a half in the 2nd generation Volt) you won't get accurate range estimates until you burn that gas - the fill level sensor will be pressed against the top of the tank so it can't give an accurate reading there either.

In the above, I'm ignoring two facts for clarity.

First, the fill level sensor in GM cars is actually part of the fuel pump assembly and floats up and down on a rail that doesn't quite go from the bottom to the top of the tank - there's about 1 to 2/32" of an inch gap on each end. In addition there is a shroud on this sensor that causes the tank to stop venting air during the fill process, which in turns causes the gas to back up in the fill pipe and into the pump nozzle where the pump cut off sensor is located. The length of this shroud can be used to directly control the "advertised capacity" of the tank, allowing larger tanks to be advertised as smaller tanks.

Second, there is a very remote possibility that filling the tank that far can damage the EPA required evaporative control systems required in all gasoline powered cars sold in the US. The charcoal canister can handle the gasoline, in fact it's designed to be immersed and dried out over and over, but gasoline includes impurities that can get stuck in the charcoal canister, leading to a clogged canister and failed EVAP systems.

 

[llninja]

Second, there is a very remote possibility that filling the tank that far can damage the EPA required evaporative control systems required in all gasoline powered cars sold in the US. The charcoal canister can handle the gasoline, in fact it's designed to be immersed and dried out over and over, but gasoline includes impurities that can get stuck in the charcoal canister, leading to a clogged canister and failed EVAP systems.

So when the fuel dispenser stops, never ever keep pumping to top it off. I see about half the people out there doing it thinking they can eek out a few more miles between fill-ups. Those folks could be prematurely clogging their charcoal canister.

 

[obermd]

So when the fuel dispenser stops, never ever keep pumping to top it off. I see about half the people out there doing it thinking they can eek out a few more miles between fill-ups. Those folks could be prematurely clogging their charcoal canister.

I wouldn't go so far as to say never. My previous car had an extended fuel filler shroud that allowed GM to claim 12.6 gallons vs. the actual 15.6 gallons the tank could hold. This saved 18 lbs of fuel playing a role in increasing the EPA city estimate, which is very heavily weighted towards curb weight. Also for some commutes putting the extra half gallon in after the first click makes the difference between having to stop every day vs every other day for gas.

In general though, it's probably not worth the hassle or low risk of damage to the EVAP system.

 

[llninja]

I wouldn't go so far as to say never. My previous car had an extended fuel filler shroud that allowed GM to claim 12.6 gallons vs. the actual 15.6 gallons the tank could hold. This saved 18 lbs of fuel playing a role in increasing the EPA city estimate, which is very heavily weighted towards curb weight. Also for some commutes putting the extra half gallon in after the first click makes the difference between having to stop every day vs every other day for gas.

In general though, it's probably not worth the hassle or low risk of damage to the EVAP system.

I honestly don't think shedding 18 pounds will make any measurable difference in a car's EPA rating. And I'm sure many of us could stand to lose 18 pounds or more along the waistline.

 

[obermd]

I honestly don't think shedding 18 pounds will make any measurable difference in a car's EPA rating. And I'm sure many of us could stand to lose 18 pounds or more along the waistline.

Tell that to GM. The standard 1st generation Cruze LT had a city EPA of 26 mpg. The ECO manual, which was about 150 lbs lighter had a EPA city rating of 28 MPG. In the automatics the difference was 1 MPG and that was entirely due to weight reduction as the drivetrains, including engines and transmissions, were identical.

 

[llninja]

Tell that to GM. The standard 1st generation Cruze LT had a city EPA of 26 mpg. The ECO manual, which was about 150 lbs lighter had a EPA city rating of 28 MPG. In the automatics the difference was 1 MPG and that was entirely due to weight reduction as the drivetrains, including engines and transmissions, were identical.

But doesn't the ECO model also have a small battery and an alternator which captures some regen upon braking then gives it a little boost while accelerating from stop lights? So it's not just the weight, it's also the manual transmission and the rest of the package. One of my friends has a Cruze ECO and loved it, until I have him a ride in the Volt and told him to punch it.

 

[obermd]

But doesn't the ECO model also have a small battery and an alternator which captures some regen upon braking then gives it a little boost while accelerating from stop lights? So it's not just the weight, it's also the manual transmission and the rest of the package. One of my friends has a Cruze ECO and loved it, until I have him a ride in the Volt and told him to punch it.

Nope. Pure ICE with no start/stop or regenerative braking features. The Eco Manual benefits from a manual transmission with really long highway legs but the ECO AT (Automatic) has the same exact transmission as the LT Automatic and the weight reduction is good for 1 mpg on the EPA city number. The Eco Manual's long 6th gear actually gets better highway fuel economy than the Volt once on ICE. In fact, it gets better fuel economy than a Prius at 75 mph and above.

What it doesn't have is the 7.4 second 0-60 time. It's not a quick car but it's very happy running on the high side of 80 MPH (thankfully it also has cruise control so I kept my license. )

By the way, I happen to agree that weight, while a factor in stop and go traffic which impacts city MPG, it isn't as important as the EPA seems to think. I added a spare tire (~20 lbs) and frequently filled past the artificial tank stop and still managed better than 30 MPG in the city.

 

[llninja]

Nope. Pure ICE with no start/stop or regenerative braking features. The Eco Manual benefits from a manual transmission with really long highway legs but the ECO AT (Automatic) has the same exact transmission as the LT Automatic and the weight reduction is good for 1 mpg on the EPA city number. The Eco Manual's long 6th gear actually gets better highway fuel economy than the Volt once on ICE. In fact, it gets better fuel economy than a Prius at 75 mph and above.

What it doesn't have is the 7.4 second 0-60 time. It's not a quick car but it's very happy running on the high side of 80 MPH (thankfully it also has cruise control so I kept my license. )

By the way, I happen to agree that weight, while a factor in stop and go traffic which impacts city MPG, it isn't as important as the EPA seems to think. I added a spare tire (~20 lbs) and frequently filled past the artificial tank stop and still managed better than 30 MPG in the city.

I wish I could put a really long gear in my CTS. The engine is amazing, I can take off in pretty much any gear I want as opposed to say a Subaru 4 banger where you pretty much need to be in the right gear or you will lug the engine.