Chevy Volt Gets 230 mpg City?

TechieSooner said:
Yep... There was one group of independant people that got something ridiculous (I want to say like 500 mpg or something) by just not braking and not accelerating. To stop? They drove around the block a hundred times until it eventually came to a stop.
Click to expand...

LOL, well, I can believe that. I've rented cars in the past that have a little trip computer that tells you (in somewhat real time) what mileage you're getting. When coasting, it would peak at 99. :cool: Under decent acceleration, it would drop into the single digits. :eek:
 
Righty said:
Not stock but a factory civic with warranty and very little tweaking. The base car is excellent and is borderline race car, try to find some cutaways of the chassis in these new civics, very impressive if you know what your looking at.
Click to expand...
I honestly don't get this. I've owned a Civic before (2006 or 2007 model, whenever the redesign was...) and honestly, it's ridiculously puny.


beowulf7 said:
LOL, well, I can believe that. I've rented cars in the past that have a little trip computer that tells you (in somewhat real time) what mileage you're getting. When coasting, it would peak at 99. :cool: Under decent acceleration, it would drop into the single digits. :eek:
Click to expand...
Mine has that... Honestly I don't look at it that much, but your fuel mileage is killed accelerating mainly. Not so much braking, the problem with braking is it exerts so much energy to brake which could IMO be harnessed somehow and put back into the engine (at least on a hybrid of some sort).
 
TechieSooner said:
Mine has that... Honestly I don't look at it that much, but your fuel mileage is killed accelerating mainly. Not so much braking, the problem with braking is it exerts so much energy to brake which could IMO be harnessed somehow and put back into the engine (at least on a hybrid of some sort).
Click to expand...
They've done this for years. It only helps in city driving because you don't break if you're on the highway. Even with that, it rarely is enough help to turn your city driving MPGs better than your highway MPG.
 
vengence said:
They've done this for years. It only helps in city driving because you don't break if you're on the highway. Even with that, it rarely is enough help to turn your city driving MPGs better than your highway MPG.
Click to expand...

Yeah, and as Techie said, that's where city driving really benefits from hybrids. Most hybrids have city mpg that's very close to the highway mpg, if not better.
 
beowulf7 said:
Yeah, and as Techie said, that's where city driving really benefits from hybrids. Most hybrids have city mpg that's very close to the highway mpg, if not better.
Click to expand...

He is also claiming magical numbers of 60mpg+ for hummers. The best gas based hyrbids aren't getting 60mpg city. The 2010 Prius is only 51mpg city and it is uses a huge combination of aero, low rolling resistance tires, cvt, and more.
 
vengence said:
He is also claiming magical numbers of 60mpg+ for hummers. The best gas based hyrbids aren't getting 60mpg city. The 2010 Prius is only 51mpg city and it is uses a huge combination of aero, low rolling resistance tires, cvt, and more.
Click to expand...

But *some guy* said he did it, so it must be true!
 
vengence said:
I think the bigger part of that article is where it says it's priced to compete in the 25-33K market. 7500$ will buy a LOT of gas (90,000miles worth at 30mpg)
Click to expand...

TechieSooner said:
That's what I'm talking about. Just another classic example of a foreign company doing better than GM, and selling it cheaper, at that.
Click to expand...

The Leaf doesn't use gas and has a 100 mile range. What? You want to drive more than 80 miles in a day (it's not like you're going to push it to its maximum and risk needing a tow)... no can do. Just an example of a foreign car company failing to understand that America is a big ass spread out place and most of us will need the ability to drive more than 100 miles in a day relatively often. Plug-in hybrids FTW! Best of both worlds... it can be electric only or be a fuel efficient hybrid when you run out of charge. GM wins in my book.
 
The problem with the Volt is that it will never beat the Prius once the plugin charge has worn off, that is the problem if Toyota were to release a plugin Prius you can bet your ass it would dominate the Volt in sales and in price. Personally I think that the Volt is priced way too high and I guarantee within 2 years Toyota and Honda will both have plugin hybrids that will beat the Volt in both price and performance. GM is just way too far behind in technology to beat both Toyota and Honda in the hybrid game.

And on the subject of the Leaf, that really is if you drive in the city if you use it for just around town driving it would definitely be a great car. But even then if you worked 60 miles away (one way) like my dad does you could drive to work, plug it in, and then have a full battery for the drive home. He has a 2nd gen Prius as of now and averages 55 mpg. Most of that is highway mileage too. That is yet another reason why I cannot see the Volt beating the Prius anytime soon.
 
vengence said:
That car doesn't have a gas tank. Apples and oranges.
Click to expand...

Wait a minute... So it's OK when GM throws up a MPG that falsely leads you to believe it can get all this great MPG, yet when Nissan does it, it's Apples and Oranges???

Bullshit.
 
gtg465x said:
The Leaf doesn't use gas and has a 100 mile range. What? You want to drive more than 80 miles in a day (it's not like you're going to push it to its maximum and risk needing a tow)... no can do. Just an example of a foreign car company failing to understand that America is a big ass spread out place and most of us will need the ability to drive more than 100 miles in a day relatively often. Plug-in hybrids FTW! Best of both worlds... it can be electric only or be a fuel efficient hybrid when you run out of charge. GM wins in my book.
Click to expand...

No, GM fails. The volt makes no economic sense. I've posted it time and time again in this thread that the volt can never pay for it's self. Assuming 40 miles a day of electric running only (otherwise it's getting the same or worse mpg as any other hybrid) the 40K car will take 17 years to pay off the 15K difference between it and other hybrids.

The leaf makes perfect since if you have a 2 car family. The leaf is for trips in the 40 miles one way or less range(work, store, etc), and you own a normal car for road trips. I don't think it's a perfect solution, but it's at least economically viable.
 
TechieSooner said:
Wait a minute... So it's OK when GM throws up a MPG that falsely leads you to believe it can get all this great MPG, yet when Nissan does it, it's Apples and Oranges???

Bullshit.
Click to expand...

Umm... no, I'm saying when you said this....

That's what I'm talking about. Just another classic example of a foreign company doing better than GM, and selling it cheaper, at that.
Click to expand...

That they are two different types of cars. The leaf is doing exactly the same thing the GM car is doing in electric mode and they aren't doing it any better. The only difference is they put in more batteries and didn't include a gas motor. This has nothign to do with MPG. Furthermore I don't recall ever defending a mpg of the leaf.
 
very nice... I'm interested to see how this car does for them. Anhyone care to guess how the government is going to make up for lost fuel tax revenue? Anyway, I refuse to buy anything GM until the government gets their slippery hands out of private industry.

I was interested in a new camaro or G8 to replace my gto, but it looks like I may go to the blue oval instead (the new SHO's look pretty nice)
 
vengence said:
Umm... no, I'm saying when you said this....



That they are two different types of cars. The leaf is doing exactly the same thing the GM car is doing in electric mode and they aren't doing it any better. The only difference is they put in more batteries and didn't include a gas motor. This has nothign to do with MPG. Furthermore I don't recall ever defending a mpg of the leaf.
Click to expand...
Ok great Nissan put more cells in the Leaf wonderful... But at least they don't have fucking bullshit claims that their car out performs all other hybrids by giving 230 mpg is bullshit. What should be said is that it gets 40 miles on battery and then however many mpg with the engine combined with battery performance (ie what the Prius or Insight has as their MPG postings). What GM has done is complete bullshit. It is still going to have the same shitty GM hybrid engines just like all their other "hybrids" and it is going to cost a shitload more than any other hybrid on the market in the same class.
 
prodigee said:
Ok great Nissan put more cells in the Leaf wonderful... But at least they don't have fucking bullshit claims that their car out performs all other hybrids by giving 230 mpg is bullshit. What should be said is that it gets 40 miles on battery and then however many mpg with the engine combined with battery performance (ie what the Prius or Insight has as their MPG postings). What GM has done is complete bullshit. It is still going to have the same shitty GM hybrid engines just like all their other "hybrids" and it is going to cost a shitload more than any other hybrid on the market in the same class.
Click to expand...

well, we'll see once the car is out. GM's claims will have to be verified by the same agency (EPA) that verifies Nissan, Toyota, Ford and every other car manufacturer

If you want to talk about bullshit claims, remember the nissan GTR "record breaking lap" at nurburgring? :D lol
 
dr.stevil said:
well, we'll see once the car is out. GM's claims will have to be verified by the same agency (EPA) that verifies Nissan, Toyota, Ford and every other car manufacturer

If you want to talk about bullshit claims, remember the nissan GTR "record breaking lap" at nurburgring? :D lol
Click to expand...
Well that was bullshit too. :D

But all I am saying is that there is no way that GM has matched the tech in the engine that companies like Toyota and Honda have, they just haven't been doing it long enough. And alot has changed since the EV1 so don't bring that one up.
 
holy crap man who in their right mind would spend $40,000 on a fucking economy car?

just get yourself a used New Beetle for like $5,000.....with the extra $35,000 you could pay for like 300,000 miles or some crazy ass-like figure.

Who are these people that spend $25,000 on an economy car??
 
Hulk said:
holy crap man who in their right mind would spend $40,000 on a fucking economy car?

just get yourself a used New Beetle for like $5,000.....with the extra $35,000 you could pay for like 300,000 miles or some crazy ass-like figure.

Who are these people that spend $25,000 on an economy car??
Click to expand...

well, I wouldn't exactly call it an economy car as much as a car that will be the next stepping stone for independence from foreign oil.

If you want a cheap car, going with any somewhat modern 4 cylinder is a waaaaay better move. The people that can afford it probably wont be buying it to save money so much as they're buying it to spite the oil industry.

with that said, if GM wants it to be a success, they had better make it nicely equipped for the price their asking.
 
vengence said:
That they are two different types of cars. The leaf is doing exactly the same thing the GM car
Click to expand...
So is it different or the same?
You're obviously a fanboy of GM. Face the facts: GM sucks at what they do. There's a reason they went bankrupt, and the government behind the wheel isn't going to make their products any better. All it'll do is allow them to play the system more to get false MPG claims.

vengence said:
exactly the same thing the GM car is doing in electric mode and they aren't doing it any better. The only difference is they put in more batteries and didn't include a gas motor. This has nothign to do with MPG.
Click to expand...
So, you acknoledge it's exactly the same thing in each electric motor.
Great. So now you say the MPG claims are bullshit for an electric motor. So why are they bullshit on Nissan's side of things and perfectly valid on GM's?

Hulk said:
holy crap man who in their right mind would spend $40,000 on a fucking economy car?

just get yourself a used New Beetle for like $5,000.....with the extra $35,000 you could pay for like 300,000 miles or some crazy ass-like figure.

Who are these people that spend $25,000 on an economy car??
Click to expand...
I was seeing an ad, with the Cash for Clunkers deal going on right now, and additional incentives from Nissan, you can get like one of those Nissan Versa's for something like $5,000.

FREAKING $5,000 FOR A BRAND NEW VEHICLE. A good quality vehicle, freaking cheap price.
 
^^^ My point is you could buy a SHIT TON of gas with $35,000... Again, perfect reason why the Volt will never make it. Too much money for too little. I can see some tree huggers buying the thing, but this isn't what it needs to be.
 
TechieSooner said:
So is it different or the same?
You're obviously a fanboy of GM. Face the facts: GM sucks at what they do. There's a reason they went bankrupt, and the government behind the wheel isn't going to make their products any better. All it'll do is allow them to play the system more to get false MPG claims.


So, you acknoledge it's exactly the same thing in each electric motor.
Great. So now you say the MPG claims are bullshit for an electric motor. So why are they bullshit on Nissan's side of things and perfectly valid on GM's?
Click to expand...

Perhaps if you spent more time reading and less time in an internet road rage mode we would be able to have a conversation. Until that time, have a nice day.
 
gtg465x said:
The Leaf doesn't use gas and has a 100 mile range. What? You want to drive more than 80 miles in a day (it's not like you're going to push it to its maximum and risk needing a tow)... no can do. Just an example of a foreign car company failing to understand that America is a big ass spread out place and most of us will need the ability to drive more than 100 miles in a day relatively often. Plug-in hybrids FTW! Best of both worlds... it can be electric only or be a fuel efficient hybrid when you run out of charge. GM wins in my book.
Click to expand...

Perhaps GM may have a winner in the Volt, esp. if gas prices skyrocket like they did last year. But GM's fuzzy math sucks. OK, so the EPA is an accomplice in that crappy math, but both GM and EPA are owned by the gov.'t, whose math is the worst. The gov.'t doesn't even know how to spend less than it makes.

Hey Chevy, 230 mpg my friggin ass! :rolleyes:
 
vengence said:
No, GM fails. The volt makes no economic sense. I've posted it time and time again in this thread that the volt can never pay for it's self. Assuming 40 miles a day of electric running only (otherwise it's getting the same or worse mpg as any other hybrid) the 40K car will take 17 years to pay off the 15K difference between it and other hybrids.

The leaf makes perfect since if you have a 2 car family. The leaf is for trips in the 40 miles one way or less range(work, store, etc), and you own a normal car for road trips. I don't think it's a perfect solution, but it's at least economically viable.
Click to expand...

All new technology starts out expensive... this will be the first mass produced plug-in hybrid. I agree that right now it's not a car for people who want to save money, but in time, it will become affordable.

Do SSD makers fail because SSDs have an absurd price/GB? No, and neither does GM. In both cases, the companies gain valuable knowledge and advance the technology in order to bring prices down in the future.
 
prodigee said:
The problem with the Volt is that it will never beat the Prius once the plugin charge has worn off, that is the problem if Toyota were to release a plugin Prius you can bet your ass it would dominate the Volt in sales and in price. Personally I think that the Volt is priced way too high and I guarantee within 2 years Toyota and Honda will both have plugin hybrids that will beat the Volt in both price and performance. GM is just way too far behind in technology to beat both Toyota and Honda in the hybrid game.
Click to expand...

First of all, you're making claims about the Volt's gas mileage when we don't even know what it truly is.

Second, what makes you think a plug-in hybrid Prius would be so much cheaper and better. You do realize the batteries alone cost around $10,000 right? Then include the extra parts needed to support these new batteries and watch the Prius jump to $35,000+. Also, the added weight from the batteries would force Toyota to increase power, thus reducing gas mileage. Now take into account that the Volt handles better than the Prius, has better acceleration than the Prius, and arguably looks better than the Prius, and it starts to become unclear whether or not Toyota could make a better plug-in hybrid for the money.
 
beowulf7 said:
Perhaps GM may have a winner in the Volt, esp. if gas prices skyrocket like they did last year. But GM's fuzzy math sucks. OK, so the EPA is an accomplice in that crappy math, but both GM and EPA are owned by the gov.'t, whose math is the worst. The gov.'t doesn't even know how to spend less than it makes.

Hey Chevy, 230 mpg my friggin ass! :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Agreed, the math is certainly fuzzy, but I'm sure we'll get some better numbers by the time it's released to the public.
 
TechieSooner said:
Wait a minute... So it's OK when GM throws up a MPG that falsely leads you to believe it can get all this great MPG, yet when Nissan does it, it's Apples and Oranges???

Bullshit.
Click to expand...

It's wrong for BOTH of them to do it, but you still can't compare the two cars. Big difference between a plug-in hybrid, and a full blown electric.
 
Some tech to get things cookin....

Your typical SUV/Minivan/midsized car... 3500-4000Lbs getting 20 MPG with a range of 400 miles requires.... 732 KWH's of power (the energy stored in 20 gal of gasoline) to travel the 400 miles.

Assuming an efficiency of 30% for the ICE, airdrag, friction, etc. it requires ~220KWH of power at the road surface to accomplish the job.

Any idea how much battery capacity, even with fictional superyduperyfakeGMbatteries, would be required to hold that much power.

Add to that the fact that even the best electrical drive setup foreseeable is going to be 60-70% efficienct, so make it 285KWH.

Think about what kind of connection and supply you need to fill 285KWH of battery capacity in any reasonble amount of time for recharge. That is the equivalent of 1000W hair dryer, running for 285 hours straight.... cough. Or, 285 1000W hairdryers running for one hour. Either way its alot. Though at $.12/KWH it is a mere $34 per tankfull-equivalent.

Also, a little more light on the subject. If we took all the gasoline transportation in the US and converted to 100% electric, it would require approximately...

2,000,000,000,000 KWH's of electricity generation to provide the juice to replace gasoline.

Two Trillion more KWH's of production is alot. :cool:
 
The problem here isn't the car.

The problem is how GM chose to present it. They have some mysterious mix of EV and Gas operation (probably in 4 or 5 times as much EV as gas) and then pretend that the EV didn't even happen when calculating the "MPG". From the news so far, GM also pressured the EPA to use this kind of misleading measurement. This slimy behavior from a company that is doing a reboot and should be showing they will be playing on the up and up with consumers. This makes the new GM look like real shady operators.

Back to the car? NO REAL information was really given. We can assume the range extender operation gives somewhere between 30-50mpg, but we don't know. A company with honorable would have told us this critical number instead of all the smoke and mirrors.
 
gtg465x said:
All new technology starts out expensive... this will be the first mass produced plug-in hybrid. I agree that right now it's not a car for people who want to save money, but in time, it will become affordable.

Do SSD makers fail because SSDs have an absurd price/GB? No, and neither does GM. In both cases, the companies gain valuable knowledge and advance the technology in order to bring prices down in the future.
Click to expand...

SSDs have a major preformance benefit. The volt has no preformance benefits. The life cycle cost is not less, the cargo capacity is not better, the preformance ("racing preformance"). The only "advantage" to this is you get to be "that eco prick".
 
Nobody noticed the Nissan Leaf? Initial test sales of it will begin with 5000 units end of 2010. Retail Price $25,000-$33,000. EPA MPG 367!!!! Looks like the Volt's days are already numbered, if Nissan's numbers are to be believed. 60% more efficient and 38% cheaper.
 
JUSTJOEL73 said:
Nobody noticed the Nissan Leaf? Initial test sales of it will begin with 5000 units end of 2010. Retail Price $25,000-$33,000. EPA MPG 367!!!! Looks like the Volt's days are already numbered, if Nissan's numbers are to be believed. 60% more efficient and 38% cheaper.
Click to expand...

Actually Nissan tested a different way than the Volt. If the Nissan used the same measurement it's MPG rating would be: Infinite.
 
How many times do I have to post in this thread the Volt WON'T flipping cost 40k to the consumer. No way, no how. At most it'll be 32.5K, and that's only if GM( or the gov't[which is already is]/who the F cares) doesn't subsidize it further.

I'm not pulling that number out of my arse, it comes from the very real tax credit you get from buying an electric car (of $7.5K). The leaf will probably qualify too, although I don't know. Factor in there is no way the Volt is going to really cost 32.5, maybe more like 27.5K after GM factors in a subsidy, and it seems more realistic.

GM will sell the volt at a loss. Period. Stop arguing over the price because it's painfully obvious since all of you guys are complaining about it that GM also knows and the car won't sell for such a high price.

Absolutely rediculous guys, think for two seconds.
 
Benjus said:
How many times do I have to post in this thread the Volt WON'T flipping cost 40k to the consumer. No way, no how. At most it'll be 32.5K, and that's only if GM( or the gov't[which is already is]/who the F cares) doesn't subsidize it further.

I'm not pulling that number out of my arse, it comes from the very real tax credit you get from buying an electric car (of $7.5K). The leaf will probably qualify too, although I don't know. Factor in there is no way the Volt is going to really cost 32.5, maybe more like 27.5K after GM factors in a subsidy, and it seems more realistic.

GM will sell the volt at a loss. Period. Stop arguing over the price because it's painfully obvious since all of you guys are complaining about it that GM also knows and the car won't sell for such a high price.

Absolutely rediculous guys, think for two seconds.
Click to expand...

Even at 32.5 years using the math I've been using for the whole thread, you are still at a 8.5 year break even verse a civic hybrid with leather. That assumes the civic hybrid doesn't get ANY tax break. The fact that you think 32.5K is a reasonable price is rediculous.
 
Also you don't get tax credits off the price. You pay full price and then get back what you are eligible for on your income taxes.

The Volt is essentially a $40K chevy colbalt replacment with a big battery that will save you around 300 gallons of gas per year.

You don't buy it to save money. You buy it if you have a lot of money to spare and want to be an early adopter.
 
vengence said:
Even at 32.5 years using the math I've been using for the whole thread, you are still at a 8.5 year break even verse a civic hybrid with leather. That assumes the civic hybrid doesn't get ANY tax break. The fact that you think 32.5K is a reasonable price is rediculous.
Click to expand...

Snowdog said:
Also you don't get tax credits off the price. You pay full price and then get back what you are eligible for on your income taxes.

The Volt is essentially a $40K chevy colbalt replacment with a big battery that will save you around 300 gallons of gas per year.

You don't buy it to save money. You buy it if you have a lot of money to spare and want to be an early adopter.
Click to expand...

Not what I was trying to say at all. I never made the claim $32,500 was a reasonable price for the car, and I certainly didn't insinuate you pay $32,500 up front. I said the cost was not $40,000. I didn't insinuate it was for the "average" consumer. My point was, without any twisting or extrapolating or spinning, the car will not have a total cost of $40,000 to the buyer. That's the truth, and it's annoying that people keep going on about how the car will cost them $40,000 when it won't.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top