Holy shit, another GM website? I swear I’ve lost track of GM’s online PR blitz—and I do this for a living. Let’s see . . . GM, GMfactsandfiction, GMeuropefactsandfiction, The Lab, GMreinvention, GM-volt, tellfritz, Fastlane, GMblogs (both YouTube and Twitter), four new eBay California partner sites, and I’m sure there’s more. Well, there’s at least one more: Chevroletvoltage.com. And on this august (August?) website, GM Marketing Maven Maximum Bob Lutz is busy defending GM’s decision to announce that the Volt will get 230 mpg in city driving—deploying his usual combination of condescension, cheerleading, willful ignorance and prevarication.
If you haven’t heard, 230 is the estimated city fuel economy number for the Chevrolet Volt, as in 230 miles per gallon, according to new federal fuel economy procedures under development [italics added] by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for plug-in electric vehicles. And we anticipate a composite fuel economy rating of more than 100 mpg. The Volt’s estimated electricity usage is about 25 kilowatts per 100 miles, about half of what a typical household uses daily.
You’re going to hear a lot more from others about the new EPA procedures and how we arrived at these figures.
Oh no! Not “others!” Those damn, nay-saying, fun-spoiling, non-GM “others.” The “others” created the perception gap, you know. I HATE others. If you want proof that GM’s insularity makes the Great Wall of China look like a backyard fence, here it is.
Anyway, we have heard a lot about GM’s 230 mpg calculations, haven’t we? Not much of it along the lines of yes, that’s right, 230 mpg for the Chevrolet Volt in the EPA urban cycle. Absolutely. And we expect to hear a lot more about that number when the EPA devises an actual “fuel efficiency” standard for EVs and PHEVs AND when the Volt fails to achieve 230 mpg in any way meaningful to its [still theoretical] buyers.
Of this future irony Mr. Lutz is not unaware. (Surprisingly enough.) Hence Bob’s use of the word “but” in the next sentence.
But I will point out that, in the big picture, what this means is that Chevrolet is committed to seeing through the promise of Volt, and to building the cars that customers want and need. Volt is a bold step, a risk for both Chevy and GM. Our new corporate culture dictates that not only do we make bold moves, but also that we move quickly. And on Volt, we are absolutely moving as quickly as possible.
Bold moves, eh? Now where have I heard THAT before? And moving as quickly as possible means . . . moving as quickly as possible. Nothing more. Nothing less. Once again, on yet another website, Bob Lutz’s e-lips are moving, but he’s not saying anything. Well nothing particularly coherent, anyway.
And this is further proof. I’ve said before that Volt is like our moon shot, and I stand by that statement. It’s exactly like a moon shot, if the lunar landing module were getting 230 miles per gallon!
I could, of course, make some witty rejoinder. But I kinda like a comment underneath Mr. Lutz’s post, by Prophet1957:
The Saturn 5 rocket which sent the Astronauts to the moon [burned] approx 960,000 gallons of fuel. [It’s] 238,855 miles to the moon. Approx. 4 gallons per mile.
Anyone know how much fuel the actual lunar lander used and how many miles it traveled? Meanwhile, oy vey.
Note to GM. Shut up and build cars.
After the announcement, several of my not-car-savvy friends have asked me to explain this one. I said, “It’s a political fiction, and a dubious effort to explain the Volt’s odd energy-consumption patterns.” I ended up having to describe a couple of possible scenarios and what kind of gas mileage they would likely produce. This produced a lot of head-scratching and blank-eyed looks.
I’m not certain why they feel like they have to come up with a MPG number. Actually, I do. If they actually posted the EV range, how many KWHrs it took to charge from empty to full, and the generator mode mpg, people would realize that this is one expensive economy car.
If you want to save gas, move close to work and buy a bicycle. If you want to save money, buy a cheap car that gets 30mpg.
150-mile CR mixed driving loop. That’s the only mpg I’m gonna believe.
Cicero wrote:
Note to GM. Shut up and build cars.
Amen. Otherwise if the Volt doesn’t cure cancer by intro day, you’ll be screwed.
On second thought, never mind … you’re already screwed.
I don’t think that askfritz.org is actually a GM website.
“Tell Fritz” (http://www.gmreinvention.com/index.php/site/tell-fritz/), however, is one of the greatest SFW website on the internet today.
Tell Fritz. Of course. We’re in charge.
Text amended.
Some rough numbers on the Lunar Module (being a bit of a space fan):
The descent stage carried 18000 lbs of fuel. The ascent stage carried 5187 lbs of fuel. If this fuel was gasoline, it would be about 3818 gallons based upon weight alone (not energy).
The entire Lunar Module descended from an altitude of about 60 miles, and the ascent module had to climb back up to the same altitude. The flight path was actually a long arc, but for now we’ll just assume it was a straight shot.
120 miles round trip / 3818 gallons = 0.03 miles per gallon.
Of course, this omits the many miles accumulated during orbits of Earth and the Moon.
A similar calculation for the Space Shuttle would reveal about 13 mpg due to all the orbital distance it travels. Just getting into orbit and back (straight-line distance again, no orbiting) would work out to about 0.001 mpg.
MB’s illustration is designed to warm our hearts with fond memories of the achievements of the space program. I’m cool with that, but in reality ‘moon shots’ only happened a few times at great cost and great risk, and they weren’t designed to be revenue-positive.
Unfortunately, the metaphor will be all too fitting for GM as it applies to the Volt.
in reality ‘moon shots’ only happened a few times at great cost and great risk, and they weren’t designed to be revenue-positive.
The last part isn’t entirely true. They weren’t revenue positive in the short-term or to the people doing them, but the technologies invented led to future profits. The internet is a good example. And didn’t the space program create demand for miniaturization? Which of course led to microchips, and so on.
I don’t know if the Volt will fail or succeed, but we will get some interesting technology from it regardless.
So what’s the steady-state highway MPG? I’m guessing it’s a number other than 230.
@pleiter: the current issue of CR has a report on the new Fusion Hybrid along with its conventional powertrain siblings. The good news: it got the same Excellent rating as the Camry Hybrid, 84/100 points.
The bad news: Ford Fusion Hybrid got just 34mpg overall on CR test loop.
(EPA mpg: 41 city/36 hwy/39 overall)
Toyota Camry Hybrid also got 34mpg overall on CR’s loop.
(EPA mpg: 33 city/34 hwy/34 overall)
So much for EPA’s new testing routine, meant to be harsher on hybrids. I’m guessing that the Ford’s ability to travel up to 47mph in electric-only mode, combined with other software optimizations, allowed the Fusion to be rated so impressively. CR’s real-world test loop, on the other hand, deflates the “most fuel efficient sedan in America” hype.
Yeah, thanks Richard. I find my actual mpg matches the CR mixed loop mpg quite well for a variety of different vehicles. So it’s representative, for me. I’m one of those folks who insists that the hybrid-whatever actually be cost effective in terms of a payoff say, within the life-cycle of the car. I don’t care beans about the hype. Looks like my hybrid will in fact be a smart or the Versa 1.6 perhaps.
Does this story really have to have that Lutz-Porn as an illustrative pic?
So what’s the steady-state highway MPG? I’m guessing it’s a number other than 230.
Oh steady-state will be in the mid 300’s, for sure…
“Chevrolet is committed to seeing through the promise of Volt,” translation: we have a government gun to our heads to produce this POS whether it can be legitmiately used as transportation or for target practice at Aberdeen proving grounds.”
“… and to building the cars that customers want and need.” The word ‘and’ implies that the Volt is neither a car customers want or need.
“Volt is a bold step, a risk for both Chevy and GM.” Really? What kind of risk? A risk that nobody wants it? A risk that this car doesn’t and cannot deliver on your promises? A risk that is is a collosal flop that will make the Edsel seem sensible? A risk, in that you should have stopped throwing money at this dead horse of a project two years ago, but like some engineering version of dawn of the living dead, you just can’t kill it?
“Our new corporate culture dictates that not only do we make bold moves, but also that we move quickly.” Oh, that’s really what we need, ‘corporate culture’ dictating what to do. How about customer satisfaction dictating what you do? How about GM being whipped like a rented mule by your competition dicating what you should do?
“And on Volt, we are absolutely moving as quickly as possible.” No you’re not, and anyone vaguely familiar with what General Motors has been doing lately knows it.
Condescension, cheerleading, willful ignorance and prevarication indeed.
I expect another press conference launching yet another website that will tell us the dirty little secret that ‘mileage figures may vary.”
This guy I talked to told me that it will get 8,000 mpg and he’s an engineer and knows what he is talking about. I checked him out and he’s an engineer.
Oh, and I just read somewhere that if you attach pie tins to your body with 6″ pieces of string and spin around there are alien aircraft that will key in on some sort of non metallic force field created by the spinning pie tins and transport you anywhere on the planet for free.
I’m spinning to get to Aruba.
Sure hope Maximum Bob is there, Got few questions for him.
even if it got 100 mpg let alone the 230 mpg how many people are going to pay $43k for it?
this has got to be the biggest blunder in automotive history and everybody but GM can see it.
new technology will no doubt come from it but GM can’t afford this boondoggle
oh wait, I forgot, it’s us taxpayers paying for it
new technology will no doubt come from it but GM can’t afford this boondoggle
Well, I’m way more interested in what technology results from this, it may very well make it worth it even if the Volt falls flat on its face. If that’s the case hopefully another car company will use it better.
It would have been so much better for them to make it the Buick Volt. Then the $43k price would be a little easier to stomach, and it would help revive a dying brand and also get said dying brand out of it’s image of “God’s waiting room on wheels” with some cutting-edge tech.
Listen Bob, regardless of all the hubris and bombast, if you think I’m going to buy a GM car, you can kiss my Astra.
(hehe; sorry, but it really should’ve been the hover-caption for that photo :P )
Toyota should just come out with an all electric Prius or at least a plug in model and be done with it. Everyone knows that if there is one company capable of building such a vehicle and it NOT being a piece of shit it’s Toyota.
Of course, the US government doesn’t own Toyota and never will. Maybe the best answer is to negotiate a deal to use Toyota HSD on GM and Chryfiat platforms built in NUMMI.
I can hear everyone laughing.
Thanks, I’ll be here all week.
The Volt’s estimated electricity usage is about 25 kilowatts per 100 miles, about half of what a typical household uses daily.
So a typical household uses about 50 kW per 100 miles? Can anyone confirm this?
Assuming he meant 25 kW-hr per 100 miles, that’s about $2.50 per 100 miles at our rates. Not bad at all! Even a Prius uses about $8 per 100 miles at Canadian fuel prices. Of course, a third of that is tax. How are Volt users going to pay for the roads?
“The Volt’s estimated electricity usage is about 25 kilowatts per 100 miles, about half of what a typical household uses daily.”
Personally, I’ve never seen a household travel more than a few feet, unless being towed.
In which case, I would expect the Volt to do much better than merely double.
Nobody believes the 230mpg, GM. All this does is destroy your credibility and the credibility of EPA’s mileage numbers.
Doesn’t the all-new Buick have electrical system issues, to the point that dealers are holding cars back (a recent story on TTAC)? Imagine the results of GM’s “close enough” engineering on a more complex hybrid car…
Also, I can nearly buy two Priuses for the cost of one of these Volts.
Assuming he meant 25 kW-hr per 100 miles, that’s about $2.50 per 100 miles at our rates. Not bad at all! Even a Prius uses about $8 per 100 miles at Canadian fuel prices.
And how much gas over those 100 miles? Don’t forget, the batteries will be depleted well before 100 miles is reached,a nd no matter how you are driving, that ICE will be up and running.
At least some portion of the MSM has put out an article bringing attention to the 230 mpg trick.
Not great reporting, but better than the original cheerleader articles I’ve seen, heard and read. It’s not very sciency, but at least it is a counter to the PR craze.
http://autos.yahoo.com/articles/autos_content_landing_pages/1042/questions-surround-chevy-volt-fuel-economy-claim/
I would like to see the gallons of fuel oil necessary to generate the electricity to provide the charge for the 40 miles of all electric operation added to the MPG formula. The idea is to reduce oil/gas consumptiion in the U.S., but for some reason this is not considered by the greenies.
@ Dangerous Dave:
I use this somewhat simple conversion to compare these electric vehicles to typical ice gasoline mpg:
knowns:
1 kwhr = 3413 Btuh
Assumptions:
Volt: 100 miles per 25 kwhr (GM’s stats)
Average Power Plant: 33% efficient conversion from fuel to electricity. (Tesla’s website likes to use the most advanced combined cycle natural gas power plant as their example, 50%+ efficient)
1 gallon gasoline = 115,000 btuh
step 1, conversion of miles/kwhr to miles/btuh: 100 miles/25 kwhr x 1 kwhr/3413 btuh = .001172 miles/btuh
step 2, conversion to miles gallon gas if electricity was produced by theoretical 100% efficient power plant: .001172 x 115,000 btuh/gallon gas = 135 miles/gallon gas if electric power plants were 100% efficient.
step 3, conversion to equivalent mpg:
Typical power plant efficiency (33%)x 135 miles/gallon = 44.5 mpg equivalent.
Now change the power plant assumption to some different number and you get different results. Nuclear, wind, solar, etc… skews the results as well.
In my mind, this is easy to follow and compare.
Lumbergh21 : And how much gas over those 100 miles? Don’t forget, the batteries will be depleted well before 100 miles is reached,a nd no matter how you are driving, that ICE will be up and running.
I assumed he was talking about 100 miles of electric-only operation, over the period of a few days. What I also assumed, possibly incorrectly, is that the 25 kW-hr is what it takes to recharge the batteries. It’s possible he’s only including the power the electric motor would use and not the inefficiencies of the charging process.