2011 Chevrolet Volt: If Not 230 MPG, Then What?

The issue for me, and most others out there is "range," and not so much "mpg." Also, "charging time" is critical. In fact that will be the deal-killer for most people.

We just drove from Maryland to New Hampshire for the Thanksgiving holiday. I put on roughly 1,100 miles on the my WRX. Now if I had to wait 8 or so hours for a full battery recharge (rather than 7 or so minutes to re-fill a gas tank), I'd still be on the road.

Until they can figure out how to quick-charge a Volt, it will never become a "primary family vehicle."

Bob, no one is charging a Volt midway through a trip. Isn't that one of the key points behind an EREV? Your concern is valid for the Mini-e or Leaf, but not so much for the Volt.

Dan, I think 59mpg is a reasonable number, but one can make adjustments and come up with all kinds of results (hence, the 230mpg number). We simply need to stop using mpg numbers for vehicles that are powered from the electrical grid.

rsholland,
Unlike an Electric car like the Mini, the Volt has no down time.

The Mini has to sit idle while it's charging to full.

The Volt charges to save money, but not necessary (71%-100%).
The Volt should run completely on gasoline like a normal car just fine (70%).
Simply don't plug it in and let it run at battery 70% gas mode only.

So plugging the Volt in will save you money, but there's never a need to delay a trip to wait for charging. Just use gas mode.

The Volt has an effective charge time of Zero when it comes to trip planning, or non-planning. Only charge at your convenience while you sleep to save money.
You can drive away with a charge of 70% or 75%, it shouldn't matter, and you'll have infinite range like a normal gasoline car.

By operating the Volt the way as I have described, it's impossible to give a single number mpg.

You'd have to provide an mpg range, from the lowest "all gas mode" mpg, to the highest "40 miles electric + gas mode" mpg. The upper number being Infinite if you drive less than 40 miles and always getting a full charge before leaving the house.

...well the upper number's not infinite once you count the cost of house elctricity, my mistake.

So if indeed the Volt will get around 60 MPG and cost approx 33to 38K tell me again why I would buy it over a Prius that costs 25k? I am sure it looks better and drives better but the cost is a huge issue.

bodyblue, tell me why I'd spend $25K on a Prius when I could buy a Cobalt for $14K? Whatever argument you use to justify that, use it for the Volt.

According to Edmunds's calculations in this post, the
all-electric mode gets 72 "mpg" costwise,
and the all gas mode gets 37 mpg.

So this car should have a tag with the range 37-72 mpg costwise, depending totally on where the buyer lives and how he drives/charges each day.

37/72 mpg? Really? That's lower than what most web sites estimated so far.
What's causing the confusion is probably the CAFE/EPA 2007-/2008+ triple mpg rating schemes, 2 of which are still used today for crazy political reasons.

Another take:

http://www.roadandtrack.com/article.asp?section_id=36&article_id=8378

The Road and Track article's topic is "How to derive the 230 mpg pwnage stat".
As per the R&T's article, EVs get a 6.6667 multiplier stat boost to boost EV sales. Not that it's based on any real world consumption.

This Edmund's post is "How to calculate the Volt's actual mpg", which is a different topic.

I wish I get a stat boost multiplier for my job evaluation. "This employee is worth 7.873x the regular worker's worth!"

Is it a Department of Energy inside joke that they think EVs are the devil?
If it were an asian engineer they'd make it 4.44444 then.

I used to think if i pick up a +10 item, that'd be really cool.
but omg 6.6667x item?
That is uber pwnage. So if I was a 36, then now i'm a 240! OMG! I'm not even going to bother selling the +10, just chunk it. +10 is for kids.

Hey brn, you are almost as obtuse as 1487. The point is that for someone who is shopping for a hybrid has several choices that cost far less than 40K. I doubt Cobalts are cross shopped with hybrids. Toyota has a reputation (deserved or not) for building dependable cars. GM and Chevy dont share such a reputation. So my point is that if the Chevy got 200 MPG then that would be a huge incentive to buy one, even if it cost a lot more. Now if it really gets 60 MPG then there is really no incentive to purchase new tech from a company like GM. Did I type that slowly enough for you to understand the point now?

"Hey brn, you are almost as obtuse as 1487."

followed by

"Did I type that slowly enough for you to understand the point now?"

Not the best way to get taken seriously.

Or it could be 48mpg or 38mpg.
------------------
Per your drive of the Volt:

Volt chief engineer Andrew Farah makes it clear. "The Volt's [battery-only] range is up to 40 miles. Most people will get less than 40 miles. A few people will get more than 40."

Once the gasoline engine is fired up to sustain the charge, Farah reckons the Volt will run completely out of fuel — again, assuming you drive in a way that's similar to the EPA's city driving cycle — in another 300 miles. Since the Volt's fuel tank is presently 8 gallons in volume, this overall mileage expectation equates to more than 38 mpg when driving in this "charge-sustaining" mode.
---------------
340 miles/8 gallons = 47.5 mpg. So, as with the Mini E, to really see the benefits you need to limit yourself to very short trips or you need to find recharging stations that can be used during meal stops or while at work to maximize the electric only time.

Given the cost, why a Volt over a Prius or Fusion Hybrid, both of which are about $10k cheaper than projected price of the Volt, and could come close to matching the Volt's economy depending on the type of driving you do.

brn:

I was thinking the same thing as bodyblue. You can't really say a shopper for a Volt will shoot for a Cobalt instead. A hybrid (the market leading hybrid for that matter) for much less money would be a sensible option.

On another note, I can't help but think Chevy spent a lot of money on the development of a car that isn't going to deliver the benefits for the costs.

inlinesix: "You can't really say a shopper for a Volt will shoot for a Cobalt instead."

That's not what I was trying to say.

Folk that can justify a 60% premium to purchase a Prius over an econobox (choose whichever econobox you think fits) could use those same arguments to justify a 30% premium to purchase a Volt over a Prius.

I'm not saying that I'm one of those people, just the similar arguments would apply.

The key to the Volt is two things.

First is the all electric range. If it does get the 40 miles or really close to it, then GM is ok. If it turns out to be 20-25 miles in normal driving, ie city, suburb and highway, GM is in big trouble.

Secondly, the mileage when in range extender mode. If it is only getting 38 mpg, Houston we have a problem. After all this engine in the Cruze is to provide up to 40 mpg on the highway. If the range extender is getting close to 50 mpg, then GM may be ok. If not, game set and match.

I am starting to worry. GM has made such a big deal about the 40 mile range, now we see how it is defined. Give me a break, that average is not normal driving.

I can understand the simple cost aspect. I guess the buyer that pays the extra dollars for a hybrid wants the extra mpg over the econobox. The same type of argument could be made for the Volt but if you don't gain significant mpg (or other measurement of energy usage) over a hybrid...whats the advantage?

I'll get an econobox.

inlinesix: "The same type of argument could be made for the Volt but if you don't gain significant mpg (or other measurement of energy usage) over a hybrid...whats the advantage?"

That seems to be what's open for argument. If 90% of the usage comes from the power grid, many would argue that the Volt gets MUCH higher effective mpg than the Prius. If you run 90% of the time on the generator, the Prius will win, but not by a high margin. The "experts" would have us believe that most people spend 90% (or whatever) of their time on short trips. As such, the Volt should win. YMMV.

"I'll get an econobox. "

Fair enough.

... completely ignoring all of the previous comments (not denying that some good arguments were made), I personally believe that Hybrid technology, while good now, will (or, at least in my opinion) die off within the next decade or two.

Let's face it. These gasoline-electric hybrids still use gasoline. No matter the mpg they get, they still use fossil fuels, therefore they still have a carbon footprint.

If you have any sort of background with spirited driving, you know that there's a connection with the engine. The sounds, the vibrations, all of that associated with being behind the wheel of your favorite vehicle. Correct me if I'm wrong, but, I just cannot see an electric car (which essentially is the Volt, just that it has a generator and a battery), having the same effect. I've read the reviews of the volt, stating that when the generator kicks in, it sounds as if you've done something wrong (like shifting to 3rd from 4th, when you meant to shift to 5th). Sure you can get used to this, but, it's just wrong, and it's a lot to get used to. Just imagine, you're sitting in a "sports" car that uses speakers instead of a performance exhaust, to simulate the internal combustion engine sounds. If this technology comes forth, any kid can take his civic, and make it sound like a ferarri. It's just wrong, right?

So, what am I getting at here?

(Again, correct me if I'm wrong...)
WHY ARE WE WAISTING OUR TIME WITH FOSSIL FUEL-POWERED VEHICLES? We all know that fossil fuels are dirty, and will run out, their future is limited.

So, what I'm getting at is that the government NEEDS to invest in creating the infrastructure for Hydrogen vehicles. It just makes sense. As far as I know (hence the correct-me-if-I'm-wrongs) hydrogen powered vehicles are essentially a converted internal combustion engine, that burns hydrogen instead of gasoline. Obviously it's not just that, there are many different components to deal with the fact that Hydrogen is an explosive gas.

We know that car companies have developed completely safe hydrogen-powered cars, that not only look good, but they have the internal combustion soul that I mentioned earlier, so they're assumingly able to have an exhaust system that makes engine noises, naturally, not synthetically.
We also know that the only "pollutant" of hydrogen powered vehicles is H20 in the form of vapor. This translates into a vehicle that has a carbon footprint of say... a solar-powered calculator? (not taking into account the plastics used to create vehicle components, of course).

So... tell me WHY we're still waisting our time with Gasoline-Electric cars?

The most common answer to this question, granted I left this comment open ended to that question, would be "there isn't enough hydrogen refueling infrastructure available", or something along those lines.
My response: When the world's first automakers started out, did they let the fact that there were no gas stations around stop them from creating mass amounts of hydrogen fueled vehicles? OBVIOUSLY NOT.

So, seriously, what's holding us back?

Are our obligations to the Corporations who extract fossil fuels so great that we'll face another economic downturn? Is there too much "red tape" to stop our dependency of fossil fuels? Did George Bush make too many commitments to the Middle East that we'll see another horrible act of terrorism if we cut out the use of fossil fuels? Who knows.

I know, that our dependency of this dirty stuff HAS to stop, for the sake of our planet's future.

That's my two-cents.

[Just for a shock-factor, I'm 19, and a Canadian.]

edit:
"My response: When the world's first automakers started out, did they let the fact that there were no gas stations around stop them from creating mass amounts of hydrogen fueled vehicles? OBVIOUSLY NOT."

should be:

"My response: When the world's first automakers started out, did they let the fact that there were no gas stations around stop them from creating mass amounts of gasoline fueled vehicles? OBVIOUSLY NOT."

also:

"So... tell me WHY we're still waisting our time with Gasoline-Electric cars?"

should be:

"So... tell me WHY we're still wasting our time with Gasoline-Electric cars?"