Chevy Volt Gets 230 mpg City?

Its like the Tesla in the way its like a concept car to show what the engineering department could come up with. Just because it has a production run does not mean its anything more than a technological feat rather than an expected marketing success.

Its not made for soccer moms, or middle aged men compensating for erectile disfunction like a typical sports car. Its simply a technological feat to show how far they have come.
 
Snowdog said:
So a Mustang magazine said the Mustang was better. What a shock.

In reality the 4cycl WRX gets much better mpg than a V8.

Gaz guzzler tax is based on combined fuel economy, not just highway mpg based on a Mustang magazine.

I just Checked the WRX vs the normal V8 Mustang (with a smaller V8 and better fuel economy than the cobra) at consumer reports. The WRX got 24mpg combined, the Mustang 20mpg. No funny EPA stuff here, just driving the cars in 3 detailed comparison tests.
Click to expand...

Really i dont remember if it was a mustang mag as i read alot back then. Actually the 32v gets better mpg than the normal v8 in the gt. My car gets well over 20 mpg but hey i guess its still not bad from you saying 20mpg as the Ford is a v8 and made alot more power from the factory.
 
and where did i say it was highway miles in the testing???? I didnt. I said i get an average of 24 mpg. I would say more if i was going only 65. If i can i will find it as i recall it was mostly city lol.
 
Heres a quote and there was no favor if anything it all went to the wrx in that review

Who's The Real Gas Guzzler?
We were surprised to note that despite similar factory EPA fuel economy ratings (16/22 city/highway for the Cobra versus 18/24 for the WRX STi), the Cobra gets slapped with a $1,000 federal gas-guzzler tax because it's right under the EPA's 22.5-mpg factored average cutoff. What makes that even more surprising is that in our real-world mileage testing, we actually got better gas mileage in the Cobra than we did in the Subaru, logging almost exactly 17 mpg in the Cobra over our test flog compared to 16.5 mpg in the Subaru. That includes close to 40 miles of road-course testing and a few dozen dragstrip passes, plus a couple hundred miles of freeway driving, so your results may vary. We suspect a big reason we got better mileage from the Cobra stems from the fact that it's easier to keep a light right foot with the Cobra's relatively low-rpm torque compared with the temptation to wing the wee out of the STi's small cubes.

Anyway Ive took from the original news post. Like i said i hope it works out for the GM Volt
 
1/2 bent said:
We suspect a big reason we got better mileage from the Cobra stems from the fact that it's easier to keep a light right foot with the Cobra's relatively low-rpm torque compared with the temptation to wing the wee out of the STi's small cubes.
Click to expand...

Uh, they admit right there that they ran the STi harder. Driving style makes up the largest influence on MPG, it is a *huge* factor. The fact, of course, is that the STi gets better mileage under identical circumstances. Whether or not you will be tempted to run it hard and therefore not get as good fuel efficiency is ultimately your problem, and not a problem with the EPA testing.

For what its worth, I just got a GTI, and my fuel economy has been dead even (if not slightly exceeding) the EPA estimates. Even held ~36 MPG on the highway with cruise control at 70 MPH (no ac/heat and windows up as it was a bit chilly outside, however).
 
Could be.The whole point was my reply to the EPA testing as i have always even when stock been around 24 mpg. Mine are highway though.
 
1/2 bent said:
Heres a quote and there was no favor if anything it all went to the wrx in that review
That includes close to 40 miles of road-course testing and a few dozen dragstrip
Click to expand...

So EPA is flawed but a few dozen dragstrip passes is better.

A 4cyl turbo will deliver better MGP when driven normally than a big V8, flogged hard thing may equalize.

I wont claim the EPA is perfect, but it works fairly well for comparing normal cars.
 
xX_Jack_Carver_Xx said:
You go right ahead and keep apologizing for the Bushies actions if it makes you feel good. But if you aren't in the upper 1/2 of 1% of the income strata.... you got ripped off just like the rest of us.

In the meantime, I'll just keep pointing out the FACTS.
Click to expand...

Speaking of facts, in no way shape or form did I apologize for anything Bush did.

Facts are pesky things eh?
 
Yeah, pesky....

I "ON TOPIC" point out that some statements made regarding the economics of the Volt concept and having to borrow from China to pay for the costs were flawed. that China is no where near the US's principle creditor, regardless of the urban legend or what the fools in the media want you to believe.

In doing so I pointed out the national debt generated by the Bush taxcuts... a fact George W Bush is actually proud of.

In response you immediately chime in calling me a "Bush Basher".

Excuse me if I and most any casual observer would conclude that you are a Bush "apologist" whether on not you ever use the actual word apology for anything.

They say "actions" speak louder than words.... a pesky fact. :cool:

Meantime, for the record, the Bush taxcuts generated $5 TRILLION in national debt, 99.999% borrowed from Americans, the very same Americans who would have paid that money to the Treasury had they not been given a taxcut.... driving a deficit, requiring the borrowing of the very same dollars fromt he very same people, who then also got to collect interest payments on the borrowed money that they should have paid to the Treasury in the first place as taxes.

China did not do any of that to us. So if GM or the Government needs to borrow money to fund the economics behind hybrid/electric vehicles, it won't be from China that the majority of the funds are obtained, it'll be good ole 'Mericans. :p
 
The "rich" actually paid more in taxes during the Bush tax cuts compared to the previous presidencies. But besides that minor point, we have a president now who has already spent more than every previous president combined, the largest spender in the history of the world, so the point of lost revenue is null. The US needs to stop spending tens of trillions of dollars.. period.

Oh yeah, I forgot this was a Chevy Volt thread. :rolleyes:
 
About the EPA, as flawed as their mpg testing was and might still be (at least for traditional gas-only cars), I have a 2002 RSX-S that was quoted 24/31 mpg (cty/hwy). While I don't flog it, I don't drive like grandma and I average upper 20 mpg, even lower 30 mpg if I did more hwy driving. When I lived in NJ, in the dead of winter, it got as low as mid-20s. So I'm pretty satisfied w/ EPA's estimate for my car.

For non-gas-only cars, like Volts and Priuses, I can imagine their testing being a bit more flawed. Definitely the 230 mpg for the Volt, which as I've said several times is extremely bogus.
 
Or another way they could rate combined miles (granted, this 230 refers to city), is to simply take the range of the vehicle and divide it by the size of the gas tank.

So if the Volt can do 50 mpg in gas mode (which I find hard to believe, but let's pretend it's true) and has a 10-gal. tank, then w/ the battery, it would have a range of 540 miles. 540/10 = 54 mpg. Simple.

For city miles, drive the gas mode on a full tank (or however EPA simulates it). Maybe it'll be 40 mpg in the city in gas mode, so the effective mpg would be (400+40)/10 = 44.
 
Kinda weird that the fuel efficiency of a vehicle can increase by simply increasing the size of the fuel tank.....
 
They need to lighten these cars, not make them heavier!! Every Lb in weight is a reduction in MPG.
 
gwarren007 said:
They need to lighten these cars, not make them heavier!! Every Lb in weight is a reduction in MPG.
Click to expand...

Yes, which is why hybrids often perform worse than their non-hybrid brethren (if all else equal) on the highway, where the batteries don't help gas mileage when using gas, but the extra weight hurts it.

Battery technology obviously doesn't improve as quickly as computer tech., but maybe in another decade, hybrid and electric cars will be more viable in that battery life will be much improved, cost decreased, and be significantly lighter than they are today. At least we can hope that.
 
I love what Ford and GM are doing here lately.. Bringing American Automotive back.
My next new car purchase will be American ::Thinks about the Camaro SS:: :D
 
Steve said:
Yes, you read that right…General Motors is claiming the upcoming Chevy Volt will get 230 miles per gallon in the city. Sure it is based on a “new methodology” from the EPA that probably includes fairy dust, unicorn sweat and rainbow power but that 230 mpg is an attention getter.
Click to expand...

Why are companies building electric cars?

IMO they should be building electric planes. Planes use like 100000x more fuel than cars. :confused::confused::confused:
 
Hulk said:
Why are companies building electric cars?

IMO they should be building electric planes. Planes use like 100000x more fuel than cars. :confused::confused::confused:
Click to expand...

I read something on CNN a few weeks ago about a company in Asia making an e-plane. Seriously. I can't imagine the batteries on that thing.
 
beowulf7 said:
I read something on CNN a few weeks ago about a company in Asia making an e-plane. Seriously. I can't imagine the batteries on that thing.
Click to expand...

It just seems like it would make a lot more sense to build 1,000 electric planes than to build 10,000,000 electric cars. Solar panels could be put on top of the plane to recharge the batteries while in flight.
 
Hulk said:
It just seems like it would make a lot more sense to build 1,000 electric planes than to build 10,000,000 electric cars. Solar panels could be put on top of the plane to recharge the batteries while in flight.
Click to expand...

Here's that article.
 
Hulk said:
It just seems like it would make a lot more sense to build 1,000 electric planes than to build 10,000,000 electric cars. Solar panels could be put on top of the plane to recharge the batteries while in flight.
Click to expand...

No night flights? :D;)
 
Hulk said:
Why are companies building electric cars?

IMO they should be building electric planes. Planes use like 100000x more fuel than cars. :confused::confused::confused:
Click to expand...
Nuclear planes via a uranium hydride batteries is where it's at. Very little material, crash proof containers.
 
A car with this type of mileage would be great for me. My fiancee and I work close to home and we don't take the car for the vacation we take once a year. We almost never travel more than 30 miles at one time, mostly we only travel a few miles a day, so I'd be getting that advertised 230mpg pretty much all the time.
 
But when you factor in how many more planes carry than people the MPG of a place goes up to like 100 mpg so you might want to look into that before you make that comment. That and an e-plane would be damn near impossible with the current tech, the plane would have to massive to accommodate the space that the batteries would take up.

But back to the subject at hand the Volt does poop rainbows and bunnies that hop around trying to sing the new prius commericial song but cant do it because once the battery power runs off the volt the planet still dies because it can only do 40 mpg versuses the prius's 50...
 
The Oct. 2009 issue of "Motor Trend" mag., which went to press before Volt's claim of 230 mpg, has an article that asked the very question of how to measure mpg of pluggable hybrid cars. The author couldn't give a good answer but said the industry will figure it out within 3 years.
 
beowulf7 said:
The Oct. 2009 issue of "Motor Trend" mag., which went to press before Volt's claim of 230 mpg, has an article that asked the very question of how to measure mpg of pluggable hybrid cars. The author couldn't give a good answer but said the industry will figure it out within 3 years.
Click to expand...

Battery range + MPG on gasoline as separate measures. Anything else is a bold-faced lie.
 
w1retap said:
The "rich" actually paid more in taxes during the Bush tax cuts compared to the previous presidencies. But besides that minor point, we have a president now who has already spent more than every previous president combined, the largest spender in the history of the world, so the point of lost revenue is null. The US needs to stop spending tens of trillions of dollars.. period.

Oh yeah, I forgot this was a Chevy Volt thread. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Let us forget Bush's unnecessary and uncounted war spending and his bailouts, Amen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top