GM Says the Chevrolet Volt Will Return 230MPG in the City - Maybe

Confusing remarks!

@Lutz "As if to underscore the point, GM Vice Chairman Bob Lutz piped up from the audience: "You cannot make a compelling case for diesels in the U.S."

rofl Substitute "GM" for "diesels" and Lutz is on the money.

Personally, I think Lutz hates diesel because the substance reminds him of how his species all died off millions of years ago.

I don't have to read the explanation to be skeptical. If it sounds too good to be true, it usually is.

The more the Volt develops, the more I like it less. And that's NOT a knock on GM...it's a knock on pie-in-the-sky promises that get reined in under the gravity of reality.

I can't see any good way to rate these things in a way that is accurate to all consumers, at least as accurate as current ratings for conventional cars are.

Some drivers will drive the Volt less than 40 miles a day, and will never use gasoline.

Some will drive it on a long roadtrip, and will keep the engine running nearly the whole time.

Your MPG possibilities range from infinite to about what you'd see in a small conventional car. And this isn't just a GM problem. This will affect any advanced, plug-in type hybrid.

If you were trying to decide between a traditional hybrid, a diesel, or any other type of car this rating is useless.

"See, with the volt, your MPG will drop the further you drive it. MPG numbers just don't come into play. The first 40 miles are free, but every mile after that is at whatever the engine is rated (let's say 30 mpg). So if you drive 50 miles, your MPG is like 150 MPG, but when you drive 200 miles, it's more like 37.5 MPG."

It seems pretty sketchy that GM would release this "EPA rating" without even disclosing the actual methodology.

So basically GM is stating that all the components in the Volt add up to 1/5th of a gallon of gas (assuming a 40m range)?

"It seems pretty sketchy that GM would release this "EPA rating" without even disclosing the actual methodology."

The methodolgy is explained. Not sure what you are talking about.

The methodology is explained. It's just odd.

Why such a short range?

Also, how much energy is waste charging this thing? Like the Mini E and Tesla I'm thinking this replacing one devil for another. It's not like we're using "clean" (rofl) nuke energy all over the USA.

Can someone explain the methodology, then? Because it's a bunch of indirect hoopla that distorts the actual figures.

The comments on the article at Green Car Advisor are worth a read-thru. They raise some good questions about this sketchy method of calculation.

Shouldn't the SAE be involved in this calculation somehow? Why only the EPA and GM (the former with blatant environmental leanings, the latter with its personal reputation to regain)?

"it's a bunch of indirect hoopla that distorts the actual figures."

What actual figures? They're measuring fuel usage for a vehicle that's partially powered by your outlet. It's hoopla all right.

I blame GM a little bit for publicly bragging about the 230 figure, but I blame the EPA more for creating the hooey in the first place.

By actual figures, I meant those non-existent numbers that they're trying to figure out.