Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Ridiculous Gas Milage Claims by GM for Chevy Volt

This is topic Ridiculous Gas Milage Claims by GM for Chevy Volt in forum Film-Yak at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=005884

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 08-11-2009, 08:26 AM:

So GM has announced that the Volt will get rated at 230 MPG city based on early testing. Both them (and the EPA) need to come up with a new way to specify "Extended Range Electric" vehicles so they can be compared to regular vehicles.

You can't just count the 40 miles it can go with no gas in the calculation because that 40 miles ran on electric that came from somewhere. They need to somehow calculate the electricity used from the grid in the equation.

If you buy a Volt and only drive 30 miles a day you're not getting infinite fuel efficiency, you're just using "fuel" from the power plant instead of the gas pump.

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 08-11-2009, 09:11 AM:

Except that would be an arbitrary number because the amount of traditional fuel used to create electricity is in no way the same across the board. If you use a company that only provides taken from renewable resources, then you are in fact getting "infinite mileage."

And using the amount of gas used in the power plant will only confuse people. People expect the same metric to be used comparing different cars. If the car was given a 50 MPG rating, someone would say "What's the big deal?! I'll use just as much gas anyway as a new Prius." and not realize that they will absolutely not.

And part of the reason for mentioning gas mileage is to point out how much pollution you'll create. Now before you say "But you'll still be using some fuel created at a power plant and that'll have pollution" you're forgetting that it's TONS easier to reduce pollution from a handful of individual plants than it is to do so in tons of individual cars, so if you are implying that this won't reduce pollution because we'll still use fuel, it's simply not true.

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 08-11-2009, 09:58 AM:

What I'm saying is that it isn't a valid comparison to calculate MPG starting with a fully charged battery in a plug-in hybrid.

A Chevy Volt will not create 1/5 the emissions and use 1/5 the energy of a Prius for example.

If you're looking at the cost analysis, you can't say "I'm going to get 230 MPG therefore I'll save $5,000 a year in gas" because you have to spend money on the electric.

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 08-11-2009, 10:36 AM:

quote: Lyle Romer
What I'm saying is that it isn't a valid comparison to calculate MPG starting with a fully charged battery in a plug-in hybrid.

I don't see why. Most people who buy the car will use it and charge it at night, so the most common usage scenario will be someone having a charged car. Ignoring that in the calculation doesn't make a bit of sense. That's like saying that we should only measure the MPG of a Prius when the part that doesn't run the engine is automatically cut off... which ignores that people don't run Prius's with the battery removed.

quote: Lyle Romer
A Chevy Volt will not create 1/5 the emissions and use 1/5 the energy of a Prius for example.

The most common usage scenario will be you driving to and from work, school, etc. And since all of those things are within a relatively short distance to me, I would not only have more than 1/5 less emissions I would have no emissions at all. Now perhaps others out there live further away from their work/school than I do, but I'm pretty sure that most people drive less than 40 miles in a day.

quote: Lyle Romer
If you're looking at the cost analysis, you can't say "I'm going to get 230 MPG therefore I'll save $5,000 a year in gas" because you have to spend money on the electric.

Who said you could? And you're ignoring that people aren't just looking at this as a cost analysis. A lot of people out there simply want to use less gas for that whole pollution thing. And even if you consider that gas might still be used to make that electricity, we're ignoring that converting gas into electricity is actually a more streamlined process than using it to combust and convert that into piston motion. And once we have electricity stored, we have much more efficient electric motors than combustion ones. So you could still end up both saving money (by using less overall energy) and having less emissions.

Posted by Joe Tommassello (Member # 4632) on 08-11-2009, 11:18 AM:

Government Motors needs all the good press it can get and 230 MPG is pretty impressive sounding. The real question is what does it get in MPG if there is no charge on the battery and you are driving it start to finish using gas. I rented a Prius once and was getting - assuming the on-board computer was calculating correctly - 50 MPG on my typical drive to work (60-65 miles EACH way). If the Volt does that and has the added benefit of getting the first 40 miles without using gas that would be a good combination.

On the other hand Chris...as far as being a "cleaner" product we would need to consider the fuel burned to create the electricity that charges the battery. Didn't Penn and Teller do a show on that? Not saying it would be worse...just mentioning it has to be considered.

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 08-11-2009, 11:39 AM:

quote: Joe Tommassello
On the other hand Chris...as far as being a "cleaner" product we would need to consider the fuel burned to create the electricity that charges the battery. Didn't Penn and Teller do a show on that? Not saying it would be worse...just mentioning it has to be considered.

And I explained that already.

Lets assume both gasoline cars and using them on the grid produce equal amounts of pollution. Even in this case, it is better to put them on the grid. Why? Because it is easier to fix the problems in one power plant that provides the electricity for an area than it is to fix the cars of all drivers in an area.

And again, in reality, gasoline combustion power plants are designed quite a bit differently from regular car engines and are significantly more efficient and with lower emissions for the amount of energy created.

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 08-11-2009, 11:54 AM:

The one issue with the argument about electric cars being cleaner/more efficient by default because of the central generation is that there are losses in the proccess.

A modern gasoline ICE turns around 22% of the available energy in the gasoline into useable energy. Power plants are somewhere in the 35%-55% range depending on design and fuel. Obviously newer plants are more efficient. But....there are transmission line losses, losses in the battery charging process and losses in the electric motors.

I don't have time to dig up values for all those losses right now but when you take everything into account you will end up a lot closer to gasoline ICE efficiency than you'd think.

Granted, it will be better but then you have to start looking at the energy to produce and recycle the batteries and whatever hazardous wasted is involved in those processes.

Posted by Sam Graham (Member # 2889) on 08-11-2009, 12:25 PM:

For those of us who are more interested in real word cost per mile, I will quote Auto Week's article:

Full article

quote: Auto Week, which isn't really weekly anymore
At the U.S. average cost of electricity (approximately 11 cents per kWh), a typical Volt driver would pay about $2.75 for electricity to travel 100 miles, or less than 3 cents per mile.

Compare that to, say, 40mpg at $2.50 per gallon, you're looking at $.08 per mile. Under that scenario, it would take 80mpg on pure gas to equal the electric number, or for gas to be in the $1.20-$1.30 range, to equal the cost savings of pure electric.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 08-11-2009, 01:25 PM:

Has anyone ever considered all the emissions and etc. necessary to produce the batteries for electric cars? How does that figure in to the "carbon footprint" reduction from not burning as much gas?

Posted by Joshua Waaland (Member # 287) on 08-11-2009, 01:48 PM:

I have an F250 crew cab pick-up which gets about 11mpg and I don't plan to switch to a fuel efficient car anytime soon. I love my big truck and they will have to pry it from my cold dead hands to get me to drive one of those miniature, death trap, tree hugger cars. [Big Grin]

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 08-11-2009, 01:56 PM:

quote: Sam Graham
Compare that to, say, 40mpg at $2.50 per gallon, you're looking at $.08 per mile. Under that scenario, it would take 80mpg on pure gas to equal the electric number, or for gas to be in the $1.20-$1.30 range, to equal the cost savings of pure electric.

Part of that savings is because you're not paying gas taxes. I've heard a lot of chatter about going to a mileage tax instead of gas tax due to more efficient cars. Since gas tax money is used (supposedly) for road construction and maintenance they will need a way for Volt drivers to pay their fair share. Taking that into account doesn't make the cost equal but it gets closer.

I'm not anti-electric car I just think fair comparisons should be made. My wife drives a Ford Escape Hybrid and she averages 34 MPG combined. I can't compare that to a Volt in efficiency because of the Volt's plug-in ability.

Posted by Charles Greenlee (Member # 3856) on 08-11-2009, 05:00 PM:

quote: Lyle Romer
A modern gasoline ICE turns around 22% of the available energy in the gasoline into useable energy. Power plants are somewhere in the 35%-55% range depending on design and fuel.

I think that's measured right out of the plant. If I remember corretly, around 70% of that power is lost over the transmission lines and equipment. So in the end, less than 30% of power generated at the plant actually makes it to your home. So, to determine overall efficeincy, take an optimistic 30% from the starting, we'll be generous, 55%. So at the outlet, you only really see a useful 16.5% of energy compared to fuel used to create it at point of origin. And finally, you'd have to additionally count in the efficiency of the car to get a grasp on total efficiency. But even before that, the 22% of the ICE is greater than the resulting 16.5% grid power.

I've had some decently long conversations with one of my buddies that works as an engineer for the electric company. He said that it's a shame, in a way, working for a company who loses 70% of it's product before it even gets to the consumer.

Plug in cars are just passing the carbon footprint buck, and to a less effecient source at that. Of course, if there were more renewable resource plants, then even that 16.5% is preferred to burning long chain hydrocarbons.

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 08-11-2009, 06:43 PM:

Nissan Leaf: 367 MPG

quote:
“Nissan Leaf = 367 mpg, no tailpipe, and no gas required. Oh yeah, and it’ll be affordable too,” the folks over at Nissan’s electric vehicle Twitter feed wrote today. About an hour later, they added this statement: “To clarify our previous tweet, the DOE formula estimates 367 mpg for Nissan Leaf.”

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 08-11-2009, 07:01 PM:

If it has no gas, then it does not need an MPG rating since there are no gallons of gas to measure.

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 08-11-2009, 07:26 PM:

quote: Joshua Waaland
those miniature, death trap, tree hugger cars.

(..lol..I've been driving them since I got out of high school over 40 yrs agao... and I ain't dead yet. Cars and motorcycles can't kill people..people kill people..)

And the thing is - the price for a VOLT: close to $40k .. NOW, who's gonna shell out that kind of dough to save mileage (unless Gov't Motors can give us a $25K "cash for clunkers" rebate to get us in one of them things...)..This really doesn't make any sense to spend mega bucks to save pennies.

It's a "thanks, but no thanks" sort of deal. I'll keep driving my 35mpg, "tree hugger" vehicle.

-Monte

Posted by Charles Greenlee (Member # 3856) on 08-11-2009, 07:49 PM:

Maybe with that kind of price tag, it'll attract those that can afford the gas guzzling hummers? Ah, what am I saying? It's not the price tag issue, they buy the hummers for flash and a johnson showing contest. Sure there are other equally pricey cars out there, but they not as flashy and big and power pushing like the hummers. What good is having money if you can't show it, while you run smaller vehicles off the road.

If I hit the lotto, I'd still drive a car like mine, just with new paint, a better radio, and the minor bugs ironed out. Maybe I'd buy another and convert it to all electric, and strap a few solar panels to my roof. I don't need big and flashy, I need effective. If I ever have need for a heavy vehicle, I'd use it for what I needed it for (i.e. a truck for towing or hauling stuff), and keep it garaged for other times. But that's if I won the lotto. For those that need the trucks and such for working, and don't have the free scratch for a separate commuter car, I'm not criticize you. Just the people that can afford more but choose to drive guzzlers.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 08-11-2009, 07:51 PM:

Even worse than the milage claim is the rediclous 45K price tag. I can buy loads and loads and loads of gas for 45K! I wonder how long it'll take for the electronics to go obsolete...?

quote: Charles Greenlee
it'll attract those that can afford the gas guzzling hummers?

Gas guzzling? You don't know what you're talking about. Mine gets 21mpg if I keep it at or under 75mph. I got 22.5 on one leg of my last service trip!!! That makes for a 450 mile range on one tank full of 85. Mine only cost half the price of the Volt. has gone 50K zero problem miles and counting about half that is off road miles. I'm with Josh... they'll have to pry it from my cold dead hands... and then my wife's! We are going to buy a second one later this year!

Mark

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 08-11-2009, 07:55 PM:

And it is hilarious that the price tag went up from original because they realized they hadn't designed it to be able to run off the battery... and have stuff like a radio or AC. They'd forgotten about the fucking alternator that usually ran those things and that an engine lacking those movie parts wouldn't have one. So they had to add more battery at the last minute and up the price. Noobs.

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 08-11-2009, 09:46 PM:

quote: Charles Greenlee
gas guzzling hummers

He prob meant the "H" and the "H2" units which are horrible gas pigs, not the "H3" with that straight '5' to be fuel efficient.

That H2 PU looks like a Wells Fargo Stagecoach if painted just right with low profiles on it...

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 08-11-2009, 10:12 PM:

Donno Monte... the H-1 Deisel units do pretty good actually. These are close to 8,000 lb vehicles too. Generally the folks that buy em have em for the protection they afford or if they do drive em as "around town vehicles" they can afford it.

Mark

Posted by Geoff Jones (Member # 3668) on 08-12-2009, 09:15 AM:

quote: Mike Blakesley
Has anyone ever considered all the emissions and etc. necessary to produce the batteries for electric cars? How does that figure in to the "carbon footprint" reduction from not burning as much gas?

If you do find numbers for those, be sure to also to get numbers for all the emissions necessary to get petroleum out of the ground, refined, and out to the pumps. And don't forget the political cost (middle east) and the ecological risk (spills, etc).

[Smile]

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 08-12-2009, 12:09 PM:

GEoff,
Haven't you read the Prius vs. The Hummer article? It goes into exactly that. The Nickel for the batteries comes from Canada and a mine in one of the most poluted areas of the world! That raw nickle goes to Ireland or Scotland(can't remember which) to be refined and then the refined nickle goes to China to be made into plates for batteries and then to Japan to be made into actual batteries. The batteries if not properly disposed of will pollute a given landfill for in excess of 500 years.

The emissions from just one boat load of Nickle goes way beyond what an entire production fleet of Hummers expels in their useful life span. Oh yea, and the useful lifespan of a Hummer is about twice of what they predict it is for the Prius because of electronic obsolescence. Because of this study the later Prius's went to Lithum batteries. They say the lifespan for a Hummer is 317,000 miles or 29 years and for the Prius about 103,000 miles or 12 years.

One thing is for sure... I wouldn't want to get in any kind of an accident whilst strapped inside of a Prius!

Mark

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 08-12-2009, 12:38 PM:

quote:
I wouldn't want to get in any kind of an accident whilst strapped inside of a Prius!

....and would you believe that a SMART CAR is more safer ...?

Thing is actually a roll cage on wheels.

It's like if a "Beamer" hits a SMART CAR head on, the "Beamer" will lose.

It's not like the olden days of a VW "Bug" and a German Shepard where the dog wins in a head on collison.

It's prob gonna take a good generation for this hybrid/electric form of transportation to be the norm to finally bring the prices of them down to be affordable.

Yet, with the VOLT,I can see lease sales going out the roof.

-Monte

Posted by Dan Lyons (Member # 1454) on 08-12-2009, 01:42 PM:

Go ahead and keep pumping the petrol into your cars guys, keep sending your $$$ to the terrorist nations who kill our soldiers and bomb supermarkets. [Cool]

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 08-12-2009, 01:43 PM:

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
I wouldn't want to get in any kind of an accident whilst strapped inside of a Prius

Hummer H3 and Prius have very similar crash test ratings for driver and passenger safety. Not a huge difference at all. The Hummer handily loses to the Prius in rollover resistance though. [Razz]

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 08-12-2009, 02:35 PM:

After just a casual reading of this thread, I think we'll be driving gas vehicles for a long time to come.

Posted by Charles Greenlee (Member # 3856) on 08-12-2009, 07:17 PM:

Well, currently, I like my car. It's a '94 Honda Civic Del-Sol. It gets 37 Mpg (with ac running), burning standard octane, nothing special, nor ethanol. It's not a hybrid, just a straight up gasser. But oddly, it still gets better milage than many hybrids. It's no dragster but it can scoot pretty well, and nimble. My biggest complaints are, no power steering, and people like to merge in with me. I guess they don't see me? I'm not that small, not like a beetle or smart car. Plus, I'm bright "pull me over" red.

Evedently, the gov't is supposed to up the percentage of ethanol added to fues soon, which is claimed will make some current, non-flex fuel, cars run crappy. The non-flex ones that can tolerate the higher amounts will quickly degrade as they aren't designed to burn ethanol. It almost sounds like we are being forced to convert. "Convert or die!" My car is quite efficient, comparitivley, and runs fine. It serves me well, and I can't afford to replace or upgrade it. If the rumor is true, I kinda resent being forced to spend money I don't have to replace a vehicle which has no problem.

Posted by Geoff Jones (Member # 3668) on 08-12-2009, 09:29 PM:

Yes MArk, I've read the study. I've also read a bunch of studies that point out its ridiculous inaccuracies. Do a quick google search for Prius vs Hummer and see what comes up.

My Prius has more than 103k miles. I guess it's due to fall apart any day.

[Roll Eyes]

Next you'll be claiming 2k digital projection looks as good as properly presented film!

[Smile]

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 08-12-2009, 10:35 PM:

quote: Geoff Jones
I guess it's due to fall apart any day.

"NOT!" .. Hey, it's a Toyota and they run forever .... Our friends from the "Land of the Rising Sun" knows how to build cars...

Even Detroit had to send their bigwigs over there to get some pointers of success a few years back ...

How many remember GM's Electric Car, the EV1 in the mid 90's? It looked that had serious promise, but just leasing them was an absolute disaster..

And if one was to purchase an EV1, that price tag was well over $30k to begin with.

-Monte