Motortrend article: 100 MPG+ Chevy Volt, GM's "Moon Shot"

Did you calculate how long you could have driven a Carolla, with the $5,000
premium you paid to buy your Pruis, before you would have spend any
additional funds on gasoline? I seems to me you could have driven the
Corolla for at least four years on that $5,000 before you spent ANY money
for gas


"Ike" > wrote in message
...
> There are several ways to figure the economy of the Volt, but perhaps the
> most realistic is to forget about published MPG (really intended as a
> comparative datum) and consider $ per 10k miles. Such a calculation will
> include your local rate for electricity, and will consider your driving
> habits over a period of time.
>
> I did that for my Prius, and discovered that it costs about 5c a mile for
> fuel. Remember, 100% of the Prius propulsion energy comes from gasoline.
> There is no other source whatsoever, but the hybrid system permits the use
> of a highly efficient ICE that has poor acceleration characteristics,
> supported by an electric motor which has maximum torque at zero rpm. The
> Volt, on the other hand, can be 100% plug-in for average days (for me),
> with the ICE entering the equation only when I drive further than, say, 40
> miles between charges.
>
> If GM's Volt project delivers its promoted configuration, it will cost ME
> less than 3c per mile.
>
> Neither figure includes maintenance, depreciation, (in)convenience, etc.,
> but an ICE that is designed to run at constant rpm can be amazingly
> durable, and electric motors are usually good for hundreds of thousands of
> hours. I won't talk about the battery...
>
> Does it make sense to pay $40k to save $0.02 per mile? At 20k miles per
> year that's $400, or 1% of the car's purchase price. So, the answer is NO.
> But it's an engineering wonder that fascinates this early adopter - which
> is why I bought my '04 Prius in Oct '03 when it first hit the market. $$
> benefits over time were secondary but gratifying.
>
> I'd order a Volt today if my local Chevy dealer would accept the deposit.
>
> Ike

----- Original Message -----
From: >
Newsgroups:
alt.autos.gm,rec.autos.tech,alt.autos.toyota,alt.a utos.toyota.prius,rec.autos.makers.honda
Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2009 3:15 PM
Subject: Motortrend article: 100 MPG+ Chevy Volt, GM's "Moon Shot"


> On Thu, 5 Feb 2009 07:22:30 -0800, "Justbob30"
> >
> wrote:
>
>>Yeah, right, only problem is, it can't run on batteries only, it
>>will run
>>for a few miles and then become a regular hybrid, it is expected to
>>cost
>>about $40,00-$48,000 and apparently, really only get about 40 mpg.
>>OOPS
>>sorry folks, did we waste your bailout money.
>
> 40 mpg? Not really. In the worst case scenario the Volt could only
> get 40 mpg if the battery was discharged and you were forced to run
> the gas engine continuously to charge the battery while driving.

I thought the Volt didn't use the gasoline engine to charge the
battery. I thought the Volt was really a plug-in electric car with a
gasoline engine that kickes in when the battery dies to provide
electricity to run the car nd that the battery was not recharged until
the car ws plugged in again...

See http://media.gm.com/volt/eflex/works.html - seems to confirm
what I thought.

Ed

"Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@lycos/com> wrote in message
...
> Did you calculate how long you could have driven a Carolla, with the
> $5,000 premium you paid to buy your Pruis, before you would have spend any
> additional funds on gasoline? I seems to me you could have driven the
> Corolla for at least four years on that $5,000 before you spent ANY money
> for gas
>

Or buy 2 Corollas for the price of Volt.
--

Ray O
(correct punctuation to reply)

> wrote:
>On Thu, 5 Feb 2009 07:40:20 -0600, "HLS" > wrote:
>>"Michael Pardee" > wrote in message
...
>>> My hat's off to GM if they can make it a success.
>>
>>Promise them anything, but sell them a SUV?
>
>Just what do you want? Nobody forces anyone to buy
>a SUV. GM attempts to sell what the consumer wants.

This is true. The thing is... nobody really can predict what the consumer
will want in the future. Times change, tastes change.

That's why a lot of car companies have a wide range of different vehicles in
their product line, from small sporty cars and small economy cars up to SUVs
and full-sized trucks.

>Do you want to be forced to buy a puddle jumper?
>Or would you like to make your own decision?

No, but I'd _like_ to buy a small car. It's important for car companies to
have a full range of products, even if this quarter a particular model isn't
very popular. Much of what hurt GM is that they abandoned a sector of the
market and then suddenly found it had become very important.

For a small niche vendor, they can get away with that. GM can't.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

> wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 5 Feb 2009 07:40:20 -0600, "HLS" > wrote:

>>Promise them anything, but sell them a SUV?
>
> Just what do you want? Nobody forces anyone to buy
> a SUV. GM attempts to sell what the consumer wants.
>
> Do you want to be forced to buy a puddle jumper?
> Or would you like to make your own decision?

I make my own decisions, as much as possible, from the options left open
to me. One of the options is not to buy from any company which cannot
supply a product that fits my needs and my wallet.

There is no reason that GM, or any other company, cannot supply a
dependable car that will get 35 mpg on the highway, for example.. I
accessed part of that way back in 1989 with a Buick Regal that
very regularly got 35 mpg (2.8 litre).. The car was a disaster as far
as durability, so GM met part of my requirements.

I have owned a lot of GMs shoddier ideas.

"Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@lycos/com> wrote in message
...
> You mean like Toyota, Honda and every other manufacture has been doing for
> the past ten years, selling the vehicles buyers wanted to buy? Honda
> even tried to make a "truck" out of a car, because THAT is what buyer
> wanted to buy LOL
>
Mike, selling is making someone want to buy. If they already want to buy,
no selling is required. Historically, in the automotive industry, selling
involves appealing to a prospect's self esteem. That's why they put names
like Tundra and Yukon on large (mostly hollow) vehicles with large diameter
exhaust pipes (think penis) and big tires (think tall). Americans have
been played for suckers for years.

> wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 5 Feb 2009 07:22:30 -0800, "Justbob30" >
> wrote:
>
>>Yeah, right, only problem is, it can't run on batteries only, it will run
>>for a few miles and then become a regular hybrid, it is expected to cost
>>about $40,00-$48,000 and apparently, really only get about 40 mpg. OOPS
>>sorry folks, did we waste your bailout money.
>
> 40 mpg? Not really. In the worst case scenario the Volt could only
> get 40 mpg if the battery was discharged and you were forced to run
> the gas engine continuously to charge the battery while driving.
>
> I am surprised with your negativity that you didn't say that the Volt
> got less than 1 mpg. That would be possible if you parked the Volt and
> used the gas engine to re-charge the battery.
>
> Realistically you could get unlimited gas mileage if you never went
> beyond the 40 mile limit of the battery that 78% of Americans fall
> under.
>
> So when GM says 100 mpg they mean that if you drive 66.7 miles
> the combination of unlimited mileage and the defined 40 mpg mileage
> will equate to 100 mpg. Similarly if you took a trip of 80 miles you
> would get 80 mpg.

At this point, I don't know when it becomes necessary to start charging the
batteries but it is reasonable to expect a vehicle propelled solely by
electric motors to require a substantial minimum charge to deal with long,
steep hills etc. I'll speculate the gas engine begins charging long before
40 miles have been driven. Please remember I wrote "speculate."

On 5 Feb 2009 15:56:54 -0500, Scott Dorsey cast forth these pearls of
wisdom...:


>
> This is true. The thing is... nobody really can predict what the consumer
> will want in the future. Times change, tastes change.
>
> That's why a lot of car companies have a wide range of different vehicles in
> their product line, from small sporty cars and small economy cars up to SUVs
> and full-sized trucks.

And you believe GM does not have that kind of lineup? Maybe a trip to some
GM dealerships would be in order.

>
>>Do you want to be forced to buy a puddle jumper?
>>Or would you like to make your own decision?
>
> No, but I'd _like_ to buy a small car. It's important for car companies to
> have a full range of products, even if this quarter a particular model isn't
> very popular. Much of what hurt GM is that they abandoned a sector of the
> market and then suddenly found it had become very important.
>

GM has long built more 30mpg+ cars than any other manufacturer, so I do not
agree that they did not embrace this segment of the market. In my opinion,
what hurt them was the years of crapping on their customers with issues
like the intake gaskets on the 60 degree engines, and a small handful of
other persistent design issues they foisted on the consumer.


--

-Mike-

Mike Marlow > wrote:
>On 5 Feb 2009 15:56:54 -0500, Scott Dorsey cast forth these pearls of
>wisdom...:
>
>> This is true. The thing is... nobody really can predict what the consumer
>> will want in the future. Times change, tastes change.
>>
>> That's why a lot of car companies have a wide range of different vehicles in
>> their product line, from small sporty cars and small economy cars up to SUVs
>> and full-sized trucks.
>
>And you believe GM does not have that kind of lineup? Maybe a trip to some
>GM dealerships would be in order.

They don't. They're starting to get it... but GM currently does not have
any economy cars worth a damn in their product line. Compare the Aveo with
similarly-priced offerings from Toyota and even Hyundai. They look similar
on paper, but they sure don't drive similarly.

They're getting a LOT better, mind you. It's clear that they are trying to
do something on the economy side, and they have done nothing short of amazing
with the Cadillac CTS which actually is the first GM car to actually be fun
to drive in many years.

I think getting into the hybrid business is a good idea, and I think GM is
going about it the right way. But what they are doing now is stuff that
they _should_ have been doing twenty years ago.

>> No, but I'd _like_ to buy a small car. It's important for car companies to
>> have a full range of products, even if this quarter a particular model isn't
>> very popular. Much of what hurt GM is that they abandoned a sector of the
>> market and then suddenly found it had become very important.
>
>GM has long built more 30mpg+ cars than any other manufacturer, so I do not
>agree that they did not embrace this segment of the market.

I want a small car because I like the way it feels more than because I want
good mileage. I want a car with a tight turning radius and good handling,
that is light and nimble. GM isn't doing that. Even GM's sports cars
don't have great handling.

>In my opinion,
>what hurt them was the years of crapping on their customers with issues
>like the intake gaskets on the 60 degree engines, and a small handful of
>other persistent design issues they foisted on the consumer.

That sure didn't help. But I think they let themselves get too far behind
the technology curve, they spent too much time concentrating on one or two
market sectors rather than trying to keep a diverse product line, and they
did so much to use the same platforms for different models that they wound
up blurring the differences between makes. When you can buy the same car
from Chevy or Buick, you lose whatever cachet the Buick name has.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

In article >,
) says...
> On Thu, 5 Feb 2009 07:40:20 -0600, "HLS" > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Michael Pardee" > wrote in message
> >
> >Promise them anything, but sell them a SUV?
>
> Just what do you want? Nobody forces anyone to buy
> a SUV. GM attempts to sell what the consumer wants.

Do you really think all the people driving pickups and SUVs bought them
because they spontaneously got the urge to purchase an oversized,
overpriced gas-guzzling behemoth? I think it's more likely that they
were finally convinced by the advertising assault the car companies run
day after day, year after year, umpteen times an hour showing their
vehicles charging up mountains, braving the snow (over freshly plowed
roads) and getting that last parking space because they can drive over
medians (and terrorize the smaller cars.)

The car companies make a big profit on the big metal, because they can
charge much more $$$ for them, even though they're really mostly
passenger cars with oversized sheetmetal and big engines to haul around
all that extra weight.

So no, it's not that the car companies want to sell us small, fuel-
efficient cars, but people demand otherwise. It's their advertising
that convinces people that's what they need to drive, and the idiot
consumer is happy to oblige.