Chevy Volt and 230 mpg: Negative reactions abound, but not from Bob Lutz
GM CEO Fritz Henderson was all smiles when he announced the Chevy Volt's 230 mpg city rating yesterday. But the Internet digested the news in its own way, and there was some understandable confusion and criticism of the very big, very bold claim. The EPA was the most official source to put a damper on GM's numbers, but that was mostly a way to say that it's too early to tell. GM representatives were very clear to us that they don't see the 230 number as unrealistic or setting Volt fans up for disappointment when the agency finally gets to test actual vehicles sometime next year. Others were less diplomatic.
Our friend Darryl Siry was quick to call the 230 number "unrealistic," adding that "the problem is that anytime you try to get to "miles per gallon" using vehicles that don't necessary use "gallons" you end up in a very strange debate with very strange outcomes." Indeed. Siry made sure to say that it's the EPA method (still in development, and one we don't know much about yet) and not only GM that is to blame here. GM has looked at what the EPA will use to determine the mpg ratings of plug-in hybrids and says that it'll result in 230 mpg. How could they not hype that up?
Over on What is 230?, someone who claims to be a "GM employee who works directly with people who work on the Volt" wrote in to say that the number is a "mis-leading gimmick of a marketing tactic." So, that's not good for GM. Treehugger also suggested we find some grains of salt.
In the least surprising response, Bob Lutz has nothing but good stuff to say about the 230 campaign and the rating. He says the hype was made "For one simple reason: We're proud of it." Is it just me, or are the stakes getting awfully high around here?
[Source: Darryl Siry, What is 230?]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Matt 12:09PM (8/12/2009)
Can they not just tell us what the mpg of the generator operation will be? Seriously, we can add, subtract, multiply, and divide just like everybody else; we can figure out what we'll get with our own driving habits.
Reply
ronEbear 12:48PM (8/12/2009)
I second that motion! The only data I WANT from the Volt is he mileage of the car running on the gas generator alone. If the number is about 100mph what`s the point of the large battery?
ronEbear 12:50PM (8/12/2009)
100 mpg, not mph.
nrb 1:24PM (8/12/2009)
I'm hearing 50mpg, but don't quote me on that.
Snowdog 1:32PM (8/12/2009)
50 mpg is the guess number that has been out there for months, the only thing a GM spokesdroid has responded with is "more than 30mpg".
My guess. High 40's in city, low 40's on highway.
Matt 1:38PM (8/12/2009)
Has anybody figured out how this will factor into CAFE? (I totally robbed augustus' comment below, but if someone responds I want the email reminder :)
polo 1:54PM (8/12/2009)
"I second that motion! The only data I WANT from the Volt is he mileage of the car running on the gas generator alone. If the number is about 100mph what`s the point of the large battery?"
Because the gas generator runs through the electric battery. If you didn't have the large battery you wouldn't get that 230city/100highway mileage..likewise if you don't start off with a fully charged battery you won't achieve the maximum mileage of 230 (and Lutz said they undercut that number). Just like if you don't start off with fully inflated tires, and proper oil/transmission fluid levels you won't get the mileage your gas car is estimated to get. Should every car come with an "idiot gestimation mileage" for all the people who don't run their cars like they're designed to??
NOBODY is going to buy this car just to run it off gas alone so its idiotic to suggest that should be their primary interest, and even a child could figure out the battery is what gives the car its super-high mileage, not a small weak gas generator. You idiots have no idea what you're talking about.
Matt 4:08PM (8/12/2009)
I guess polo just drives circles around his house all the time, getting more and more angry at the other readers on ABG. That being the case, I guess he'll always have access to his special charging station. The rest of us like to go on trips, drive irregular distances, and generally do not like having one size fits all guesstimates on fuel economy (for something that can vary so wildly). We'll use our brains to determine the appropriate percentage of our miles driven on battery, thanks. Aw, crap, we're "children," so i guess we cant use logic and reason. WTF?
polo, if you insist on insulting me, please have a good argument.
Ernie 3:21PM (8/13/2009)
You've never actually worked with the public in any capacity, have you?
Sure, *some* people can add, subtract, and divide. Sure, *some* people won't be confused by how the Volt works. But the 25% stupidest people out of 10,000 Volt owners expected after the first year of production is a frickin' huge number. Especially when they go bawling to their lawyers and the press.
Thus, you have to speak to them in terms they understand. You have to shoot for the lowest common denominator. Because that lowest common denominator is going to be your biggest headache.
Matt 3:35PM (8/13/2009)
Ernie,
While I do agree that there are stupid people out there, I also believe that more people than not will take that 230 mpg number at face value. Meaning, that the dumbest 25% will simply fill up their tank and assume that the 9 gallons they put in will take them 2,070 miles. 9 gallons alone ≠ 2,070 miles.
jpm100 12:09PM (8/12/2009)
Its not a misleading marketing tactic if you drive 50 miles in a day.
The problem is trying to assign a single number. Any single number system will likely be meaningful one one condition, like say a 50 mile trip but be meaningless if you travel a 250 mile trip.
So do you quote for the 250 mile trip? That would grossly underplay the benefit of the electric range has on the 50 mile or even 100 mile scenario.
The problem isn't the number. The problem is that there aren't two numbers.
Reply
polo 1:58PM (8/12/2009)
Whats misleading. You start off with a full charge + one gallon and you can go up to 230miles in the city, or up to 40 miles with no gas used at all. On the highway range will probably be half that.
Snowdog 2:17PM (8/12/2009)
Clearly you have been mislead already. You would need about 5 full charge cycles + 1gallon of gas to go 230 miles.
1 charge cycle and 1 gallon of gas will likely yield around 80 miles.
I guess GMs appeal to the easily mislead is working.
polo 4:05PM (8/12/2009)
Clearly you have been mislead already. You would need about 5 full charge cycles + 1gallon of gas to go 230 miles.
5 full charges = 200 miles...so the gas generator has a range of 30 miles? then why'd you say full charge + gas will give you 80? you can't get your own figures to match up.
"1 charge cycle and 1 gallon of gas will likely yield around 80 miles."
And this is based off what? The dingleberries you pick from your finger nails. You're a troll, you'll attack anything EV related, and you don't really care what you type. WE GET IT.
Matt 4:23PM (8/12/2009)
Can we vote polo off the site? I'm starting a "vote polo down" campaign if anyone else wants to join me.
@polo, state your point and move on. Besides, you botched your comment too:
"o the gas generator has a range of 30 miles?"
I think what you meant to say was something about the generator getting only 30 mpg, which would have been a low estimate. Regardless, your tone is unnecessary and you could easily have the same debate without making rude personal attacks. Give it a rest.
Snowdog 4:27PM (8/12/2009)
Polo:
You are perfectly making the point how GM is misleading the plebes, you actually believed you could have one charge and one gallon of gas to go 230 miles. For that you really should just crawl back under your rock until you learn to think.
4 charge cycles will only get you 160 EV miles. So you need 5 charge cycles.
Now since GM has released no actual number we don't know exactly how much of that last cycle you will need to mix with consuming 1 gallon of gas.
I think a safe assumption is between 30 and 50 mpg. So you would need between 50 and 100% of that last charge.
All within the realm of what I previously stated.
Chris M 2:29AM (8/13/2009)
I figured it similarly to what Snowdog did. Running on gasoline, it should get fuel economy similar to other hybrids, 40 to 50 mpg. If it went 50 miles on a gallon of gasoline and the remaining 180 miles on electricity, that's 4.5 full charge cycles. Or you could view it as going 200 miles on 5 charges and 30 miles on gas, though that seems a bit low.
Of course, partial charges are also possible, it could have several partial charges and 1 gallon of gas to go 230 miles. One gallon of gas, but how much electricity was needed? That's the important number that is missing here.
oollyoumn 12:18PM (8/12/2009)
230mpg is very misleading. The idea behind the mileage numbers is to compare the cost of fueling vehicles. Given GM's own numbers of 25 kwh per 100 miles (which may be questionable) it cost $2.75 to travel 100 miles. At $2.50/gal the Volt could cover about 90 miles for the same cost. That is assuming the 25 kwh is measured from the house meter and not the battery output, in which case it would even be less. The cost of energy will very, but 230 mpg is grossly misleading and unfortunately often too typical of GM.
Reply
paulwesterberg 1:41PM (8/12/2009)
The 230mpg doesn't include the energy needed to charge the battery pack. GM is acting as if electricity is free energy, and while it might be cheaper than gas it is not free.
1 gallon of gas is about 35kwh, the volt battery pack holds 16kwh or about half a gallon of gas worth of energy. If you can drive 40 miles on that half gallon then the car gets about 80mpg when the battery pack is charged. Driving for 40 miles on 16kwh of electricity at $0.12 per kwh will cost about $2. If gas is $4/gallon and $4 can get you 80 miles then I think it should be listed at 80mpg, which is still a great number and way more realistic.
When the charge is depleted I bet the mileage drops to 45-50mpg.
230mpg is like me saying my car gets 230mpg on ethanol*
*using a 10% ethanol blend and totally ignoring the 90% gasoline.
Snowdog 4:31PM (8/12/2009)
It is kind of similar how GM gets CAFE credits for e85 vehicles. The essentially count the MPG only on 15% gasoline content.
GM has a very good lobbying team.