G.M. Says Volt Will Get Triple-Digit City Mileage

[Fledermaus]

General Motors said Tuesday that its Chevrolet Volt with its rechargeable battery is expected to get at least 230 miles a gallon in city driving. The car is scheduled to be released in 2011.

G.M. said the number was based on developmental tests using a draft federal fuel economy methodology for plug-in electric vehicles.

The Volt uses a battery pack and is powered by an electric motor with a 40-mile range, and the calculation essentially assumes that most drivers using the car to commute will stay within that range and will not need the car’s gasoline-powered generator to produce electricity. The majority of time, drivers in the city will be in an electric mode, the company said during its presentation.

“Most Volt drivers will operate on a daily basis without having to use a drop of gas,” G.M.’s chief executive, Fritz Henderson, said. He said he was also confident that highway mileage would be “triple-digit.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/12/business/12auto.html

[Indydem]

1. IS that summer or winter or both?

I want heat and A/C in my car too, so how will that affect the mileage?

That was the big drawback to the EV1, it couldn't be driven in cold regions because of battery life / heat pump issues.

More info please. but definately headed in the right direction.

[mbperrin]

2. I'm ready. Sell me one.

Goodbye oil changes, antifreeze, mufflers, catalytic converters and a whole bunch of other stuff!

[OKIsItJustMe]

5. You've mistaken the "Volt" for the "EV-1"

The key difference is that the "Volt" includes an internal combustion engine to recharge the batteries (for "extended range.")

So, it will need oil changes, a muffler and a catalytic converter. It might not need antifreeze (I suppose it might be air cooled.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevrolet_Volt#Regulated_emissions_impact

[mbperrin]

7. Yes, but minute amounts. I'm ready for any step at all. It doesn't have

to be perfection.

Good lord, the early autos still had wooden wheels. Once they got on the road, they succeeded. We have got to get alternatives on the road.

[OKIsItJustMe]

10. Don't get me wrong

I think a "series"/"serial" hybrid, like the "Volt" is more practical than a pure EV (like the "EV-1.") I wish GM the best of luck with it.

I just don't want to oversell it. It does have an internal combustion engine, and, therefore, the associated maintenance. (I wonder what the recommended oil change interval will be… it wouldn't be based on driving miles… but then, based on driving patterns, a strict time interval would be difficult…)

[wundermaus]

3. Isn't that the same company that killed the electric car?

Trailer -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsJAlrYjGz8
Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3rw9MsHB8Y
Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CpCystkUUqU

[OKIsItJustMe]

6. Or, did they save it?

http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/article/0,28804,1669723_1669725_1670578,00.html

Green Motors

By BRYAN WALSH

No one would mistake Chris Paine for a General Motors shill. In his 2006 documentary Who Killed the Electric Car?, the filmmaker laid out a damning case against GM for unplugging the EV1, the electric vehicle it manufactured in the 1990s and then discontinued in 2003, preferring instead to produce high-margin but gas-guzzling trucks and SUVs. "They were a technological leader, and they fumbled that leadership away," Paine says. Ask him about the U.S. carmaker now, though, and Paine sounds almost admiring. "Their new hybrids are making a difference, and their plug-in technology is a real advance," he says. "GM is making some really good moves now."

…

[wundermaus]

39. I did not know that...

Still, it's a shame it took GM 20 years to get around to deploying some of that technology... and you may note something familiar... it hasn't happened yet.

[tinrobot]

13. Stop living in the past.

Yes, they did kill an electric car. They could kill it because they leased it.

This one they're selling. They can't kill it. Get over it.

[wundermaus]

38. oooh, testy aren't we?

chill out, there tinrobot... put a little heart in that can of yours.
If the American auto industry had advanced as fast as the computer industry, we'd all be flying around at 10,000 miles an hour and getting a million miles to the gallon... just saying...

[wundermaus]

41. Nissan's Leaf claims 367 mpg

Yesterday, General Motors claimed that the much-anticipated Chevy Volt would get a whopping 230 miles per gallon. As some critics have pointed out, the calculation is a bit misleading -- for one, the Volt's gas engine only kicks in after 40 miles of battery driving. But GM is certainly counting on the Volt to serve as evidence that it has reconnected with consumer tastes, and the vehicle is believed to be a direct attack against the popular Toyota Prius.

As the Christian Science Monitor points out, Nissan is laughing at GM's entry into the space. Using the same formula as GM, Nissan claims 367 miles per gallon for its all-electric Leaf. In fact, yesterday Nissan took at shot at the Volt on its Twitter feed:

"Nissan Leaf = 367 mpg, no tailpipe, and no gas required. Oh yeah, and it'll be affordable too"

more at link - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/12/nissans-leaf-claims-367-m_n_257448.html

[Fledermaus]

50. Can the leaf drive 367 miles without recharging?

How long does it take to recharge and where are people going to recharge it on long trips?

[Nederland]

45. Yes we would

And, as the reply goes, if the auto industry was like the computer industry all our cars would crash once a week.

[wundermaus]

54. Oviously you are a windblows eggbert...

those of us that use linux based OS systems go years without a crash (if ever!)



have a nice day!

[wordpix]

4. here's the problem, GM: still stuck in traffic, even at 230 mpg

Most cities (those run by people with brains, that is) are trying to get people off the roads, not keep them on. Buses, metrorail, bike trails and bike lanes for short distance travel are getting more popular.

Encouraging people to stay in their cars, even at 230 mpg, is stupid because they're still clogging the roads and still stuck in traffic. My suggestion is to get the Volt to go farther between charges before trying to sell it.

[OKIsItJustMe]

8. About half the US population lives in what the census bureau calls urban areas, about half do not

Even among the half that live in what the census calls "urban areas," many need cars.

According to the census:
http://www.census.gov/geo/www/ua/ua_2k.html

…

Urban and Rural Classification

For Census 2000, the Census Bureau classifies as "urban" all territory, population, and housing units located within an urbanized area (UA) or an urban cluster (UC). It delineates UA and UC boundaries to encompass densely settled territory, which consists of:

• core census block groups or blocks that have a population density of at least 1,000 people per square mile and


• surrounding census blocks that have an overall density of at least 500 people per square mile

In addition, under certain conditions, less densely settled territory may be part of each UA or UC.

…

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

9. Yeah, because everyone walking and taking public transportation is feasible, right?

Not to mention, it's not GM's fault, nor is that GM's problem.

Get a fucking grip.

[hatrack]

11. Blah blah BLAH blah blah blah BLAH BLAH blah blah blah . . .

Hmm. GM's working on yet another Vehicle Of Tomorrow.

How nice.

Maybe they could just let us know when it's ready for purchase, instead of winding the Hype Handle for a car that's scheduled to roll out 14 years after the first Japanese production hybrid shipped.

[amandabeech]

37. This post is not up to your usual exceptionally high standards, Hatrack.

The technology that GM is putting in this thing is ahead of the Japanese for once.

Why not wait until they fail to roll the thing before you give them a big raspberry?

[hatrack]

40. Because my confidence that they'll ever actually mass-produce the thing is already low . . .

I will freely admit that the quality gap between Japan and Detroit has all but vanished. For that matter, automotive quality in general, by all manufacturers, is so much better than it was 20 years ago, let along 40 or 50 that it's difficult to compare the cars I grew up driving with those I drive today.

Setting that aside, here's where I'm coming from on this point:

I'm tired of vaporware, tired of prototypes, tired of shiny machines on pedestals at car shows.

I'm tired of press conference, press releases and public relations pushes.

I'm tired of executives with gleaming teeth telling us with excitement about The Next Big Thing on CNBC, MSNBC and all the other digital midways of Bubble-vision.

I'm tired of big promises that never arrive, and happy pastel-shaded pictures of a "new" GM that's serious about efficiency and the environment. No, really - really, we are serious this time - really!

The company is already in bankruptcy, and whether they're even going to be around to release the thing in 2011 - or 2012 or 2013 - is anyone's guess.

They're projecting costs of $40,000/unit, and would anybody be willing to believe that maybe the price will go up between now and then?

They're going to be releasing a $40,000 sedan into a squashed auto market to consumers who tend to be notoriously conservative when it comes to things like drive trains. Yes, hybrids are selling well, but it's taken ten years for the hybrid market to reach the level of penetration it has, and this is something well beyond hybrids in terms of how it will be perceived as "different".

Oh, and did you notice? They're already backing away from their MPG claims less than 24 hours after making them. I wonder what else they'll be backing away from in the next few years.

[kristopher]

42. I didn't notice anyone backing away from the results of their tests.

Do you have a reference handy?

[hatrack]

43. My apologies - the header is "EPA Backs Away From GM Claim Of 230 MPG"

Apparently, we're not the only ones trying to figure out the exact methodology that was used to determine the supposed 230 mile per gallon city rating claimed by General Motors for the upcoming Chevy Volt. In response to a query from the boys at Green Car Advisor, the EPA issued the following statement:

"EPA has not tested a Chevy Volt and therefore cannot confirm the fuel economy values claimed by GM. EPA does applaud GM's commitment to designing and building the car of the future - an American-made car that will save families money, significantly reduce our dependence on foreign oil and create good-paying American jobs. We're proud to see American companies and American workers leading the world in the clean energy innovations that will shape the 21st century economy."

Although it deserves noting that GM CEO Fritz Henderson didn't exactly say the 230 mpg rating was an official figure from the EPA, it sure is being bandied about as if it were gospel in the huge marketing campaign launched ahead of today's announcement.

When contacted for comment, GM told AutoblogGreen that the EPA is not backing away from the 230 numbers and that it's unlikely that the EPA will come out with a much lower number when they actually get to run a Volt through the official cycle. Further, GM believes that coming out with the 230 rating at this point in time is one way to change people's perception of what kind of car the Volt is.

http://www.autobloggreen.com/2009/08/11/epa-backs-away-from-gm-claim-of-230-mpg-for-volt

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=204868&mesg_id=204868

So, GM says that EPA "is not backing away from the 230 numbers", even though EPA officially states that it hasn't tested one yet.

Nice spin by GM there, powerfully and directly contradictory.

[kristopher]

44. You're fucking kidding, right?

that piece of trash article was debunked by OK simply by posting the actual GM press release. The Autobloggreen article is the only thing that is full of spin and "powerfully and directly contradictory" of the actual facts. I can't believe you had the balls to post this tripe as if it were legitimate.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=204868&mesg_id=204884

FOR RELEASE: 2009-08-11
Chevrolet Volt Expects 230 mpg in City Driving

* First mass-produced vehicle to claim more than 100 mpg composite fuel economy
* Tentative EPA methodology results show 25 kilowatt hours/100 miles electrical efficiency in city cycle
* Plugging in daily is key to high-mileage performance

WARREN, Mich. - The Chevrolet Volt extended-range electric vehicle is expected to achieve city fuel economy of at least 230 miles per gallon, based on development testing using a draft EPA federal fuel economy methodology for labeling for plug-in electric vehicles.

The Volt, which is scheduled to start production in late 2010 as a 2011 model, is expected to travel up to 40 miles on electricity from a single battery charge and be able to extend its overall range to more than 300 miles with its flex fuel-powered engine-generator.

"From the data we've seen, many Chevy Volt drivers may be able to be in pure electric mode on a daily basis without having to use any gas," said GM Chief Executive Officer Fritz Henderson. "EPA labels are a yardstick for customers to compare the fuel efficiency of vehicles. So, a vehicle like the Volt that achieves a composite triple-digit fuel economy is a game-changer."

According to U.S. Department of Transportation data, nearly eight of 10 Americans commute fewer than 40 miles a day http://tinyurl.com/U-S-DOTStudy .

"The key to high-mileage performance is for a Volt driver to plug into the electric grid at least once each day," Henderson said.

Volt drivers' actual gas-free mileage will vary depending on how far they travel and other factors, such as how much cargo or how many passengers they carry and how much the air conditioner or other accessories are used. Based on the results of unofficial development testing of pre-production prototypes, the Volt has achieved 40 miles of electric-only, petroleum-free driving in both EPA city and highway test cycles.

Under the new methodology being developed, EPA weights plug-in electric vehicles as traveling more city miles than highway miles on only electricity. The EPA methodology uses kilowatt hours per 100 miles traveled to define the electrical efficiency of plug-ins. Applying EPA's methodology, GM expects the Volt to consume as little as 25 kilowatt hours per 100 miles in city driving. 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.

The Chevrolet Volt uses grid electricity as its primary source of energy to propel the car. There are two modes of operation: Electric and Extended-Range. In electric mode, the Volt will not use gasoline or produce tailpipe emissions when driving. During this primary mode of operation, the Volt is powered by electrical energy stored in its 16 kWh lithium-ion battery pack.

When the battery reaches a minimum state of charge, the Volt automatically switches to Extended-Range mode. In this secondary mode of operation, an engine-generator produces electricity to power the vehicle. The energy stored in the battery supplements the engine-generator when additional power is needed during heavy accelerations or on steep inclines.

"The 230 city mpg number is a great indication of the capabilities of the Volt's electric propulsion system and its ability to displace gasoline," said Frank Weber, global vehicle line executive for the Volt. "Actual testing with production vehicles will occur next year closer to vehicle launch. However, we are very encouraged by this development, and we also think that it is important to continue to share our findings in real time, as we have with other aspects of the Volt's development."

About Chevrolet
Chevrolet is one of America 's best-known and best-selling automotive brands, and one of the fastest growing brands in the world. With fuel solutions that go from "gas-friendly to gas-free," Chevy has nine models that get 30 miles per gallon or more on the highway, and offers three hybrid models. More than 2.5 million Chevrolets that run on E85 biofuel have been sold. Chevy delivers expressive design, spirited performance and provides the best value in every segment in which it competes. More information on Chevrolet can be found at www.chevrolet.com . For more information on the Volt, visit http://media.gm.com/volt /.

General Motors Company, one of the world's largest automakers, traces its roots back to 1908. With its global headquarters in Detroit, GM employs 235,000 people in every major region of the world and does business in some 140 countries. GM and its strategic partners produce cars and trucks in 34 countries, and sell and service these vehicles through the following brands: Buick, Cadillac, Chevrolet, GMC, GM Daewoo, Holden, Opel, Vauxhall and Wuling. More information on the new General Motors Company can be found at www.gm.com .

[hatrack]

46. "The US Environmental Protection Agency Has Not Verified GM's 230 MPG Claim . . .

. . . which was devised using the draft of a new methodology specifically for plug-in electric vehicles."

Etc., etc.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/pender/detail?entry_id=45351&type=tech

So, they used a draft methodology, and maybe they got close. Maybe they didn't.

But the point is that this vehicle has not been tested by the EPA, so it might be a bit, well, premature to tout an "official" number before official testing even takes place.

Also, if you really think a $40,000 (and counting) car is going to pull GM's chestnuts out of the fire, well, you have my sympathy.

And finally, who the fuck pissed in your cornflakes?

[kristopher]

47. You did.

Show me where in the press release the number is referred to as an official EPA number. Is the Volt going to save GM, no, of course not, that is nothing but a straw man on your part to say so.

You said GM is backpedaling, then you point to an article that is a total piece of garbage (and even then it doesn't support your initial claim) and now you are making another false assertion regarding the claims made by GM and to top it off, you try to divert the topic onto another strawman related to GM's general viability.

No one ever said the Volt is a magic bullet for GM.

However the series hybrid technology being DEPLOYED in the Volt is a game changing technology and represents a large step in the shift to an all renewable energy infrastructure. As such, an early move to that technology in their entire line-up could very well be the key to GM's long term viability.

Every renewable plan out there is looking to PHEVs as an essential storage component for the renewable grid, and yet we have this vitriolic criticism Volt which is based on pure bullshit. It would be one thing if there was something of substance behind the criticism, but so far all I've seen is a baseless claim that GM said something they they didn't say (the old "do you still beat your wife" fallacy) and the strawman about the role of the Volt as savior of the company.

[hatrack]

48. Then you'll enjoy my latest post - up top, on GM's newest regulatory filing

There's extra piss in it just for YOU!

[kristopher]

49. Typical...

Typical lowbrow response...

[Fledermaus]

51. You taunt it. Now it will hate you for months.

And it will poo on anything you post.

[kristopher]

52. No, just the false information or uninformed thinking

It isn't personal. When they post information that is well reasoned and is in line with known facts, I'll instead give them a big K&R. On the other hand, if someone posts crap I don't mind identifying it as such.

For example, when an idiot claims that ethanol has an extremely high EROEI I'll explain why such a position if absolutely false. As in that case, after a while they stop making such absurd claims even as they persist in ad hominem, backstabbing type attacks out of resentment about being shown to be wrong.

[Fledermaus]

53. You really learn that way? Or is it a form of validation for extremely bad ideas and sloppy thinking

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x143939

[wtmusic]

12. Ecch. Complete BS.

I really can't wait to see this abomination of physics and engineering fall flat on its face.

[OKIsItJustMe]

14. "… abomination of physics and engineering …" (!?)

Why do you say that?

The "serial"/"series" hybrid is tried and tested.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lohner-Porsche_Mixte_Hybrid


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_locomotive#Diesel-electric

[wtmusic]

15. Hmm, black and white photos. Should tell you something.

There is a reason why Porsche's "monster" (Wikipedia's word) never succeeded, and it comes down to one word: efficiency.

Which is more efficient, a gasoline engine turning the wheels of a car, or a gasoline engine turning a generator creating electricity to charge a battery to power an electric motor to turn the wheels of a car?

Which is more efficient, an electric motor turning the wheels of a car, or an electric motor turning the wheels of a car with 500 lbs of ICE equipment mounted to it?

[tinrobot]

16. The engine turning a generator can actually be more efficient.

This is why diesel locomotives use this method. All engines have a peak power band, a speed where they are most efficient. When turning a generator, the engine can always run at this most efficient speed.

When turning the wheels directly, an internal combustion engine has to change speed constantly to keep up with the demands of driving. This reduces efficiency by quite a bit. You also lose power by running the engine through a transmission, which you don't have to do with electric motors.

[wtmusic]

17. Unlike in cars, weight is of negligible importance for locomotives

as is acceleration. The ratio of electrical resistance to total power output is also far less, so the combination is ideal for large-scale applications.

Re: your second point, I agree. Electric cars are most efficient. Then come parallel hybrids, which don't suffer from load inefficiencies like their serial brothers. Then come ICEs. Then, way down at the bottom of the list, somewhere around vehicles powered by propellers pushing sails, are concepts like the Volt.

[Fledermaus]

18. As tinrobot explained, a series hybrid will get better mileage in stop and go traffic than a paralle...

[wtmusic]

21. Remains to be seen

it depends completely on the engineering. There's nothing inherent in the design to suggest that, as parallel also uses an efficient battery-to-motor configuration for stop and go.

[Fledermaus]

25. You're no engineer. That's obvious.

[wtmusic]

30. I'm not, but you must be

to be so self-assured in this arena.

Please, give us a rundown of the relative merits of the two systems. I'd love to get your take.

[Fledermaus]

32. Apparently you would rather use a dowsing rod to dertermin the best merits.

and yet you are so self-assured.

Ma & Pa Kettle Math
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bfq5kju627c

[OKIsItJustMe]

27. A helpful 3rd party analysis

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2008/03/calcars-weighs.html

CalCars Weighs In on GM Series/Toyota Parallel PHEV Debate

7 March 2008

Guest piece by Ron Gremban, http://www.calcars.org/">CalCars

GM and Toyota have been taking public shots at each other, each claiming that their plug-in hybrid (PHEV) technology—not yet brought to market—is the best, and implying that the other's plans are poorly thought out, to say the least.

We at CalCars, if anything, are thrilled to see the two biggest automakers in the world touting their upcoming PHEV wares and paying significant attention to each other's. But what is the science behind the dispute? What follows is a discussion that is aimed at engineers, but we think will be quite informative also to non-technical audiences. Thanks to Dr. Andy Frank of UC Davis and Efficient Drivetrains Inc. for his helpful review and comments.

A preview of my conclusion: It turns out that different battery sizes have different optimum PHEV architectures, and each company’s claims are basically accurate, but only for its vehicle’s battery size. Since each type of PHEV has its own advantages, disadvantages, costs, and optimum driving regimes, our expectation is that during the first few years—maybe a decade—of PHEV production, all types of PHEVs will compete well in the marketplace.

Then, eventually—as batteries become a cheaper, longer-life, commodity item, liquid fuels become more dear, renewable electricity generation proliferates, and CO2 emissions are increasingly targeted—the PHEVs with the most EV power and range will come to dominate.

…

[kristopher]

19. Could you point me to a reference for that assertion? Thanks.

[wtmusic]

20. Yeah. It's called "common sense".

Can you point me to the latest 0-60 stats for train locomotives? Thanks.

[kristopher]

24. You haven't demonstrated that your "common sense" ...

...is something worth paying attention to. You are given to preposterous and baseless claims, and this is one of them. While an EV is going to be at the top of the list the rest of your "common sense" evaluation has little logical support. A typical ICE driven auto is only about 12-15% efficient while a small engine to drive a generator is probably going to be closer to 25-30% efficient. Factor in the advantages gained by electric drive and you have, at the minimum, an unclear ordering of the different drive systems.

I'm glad you were willing to admit it was just your opinion, however. I have trouble faulting honesty.

[wtmusic]

29. No, GM is given to preposterous and baseless claims

and it turns out the EPA agrees with me.

http://www.autobloggreen.com/2009/08/11/epa-backs-away-from-gm-claim-of-230-mpg-for-volt/

What was that you were saying again?

[kristopher]

31. Why do you lie?

Really, WTF is so important about this to you that you would abandon personal integrity by knowingly and falsely misrepresenting the statement of both GM and the EPA? Do you think people are unable to read or that they are complete fools? The Autobloggreen posting has been completely discredited by OK and yet here you are still pointing to it as if the inaccuracy of the their premise stating that GM claimed EPA certification had never been demonstrated to you.

The GM press release is extremely clear and concise. They used a draft copy of EPA's proposed methodology for determining the "mileage" of their car and they achieved X results. If you have evidence that they "cheated" when they performed the test, I'd love to see it and will instantly admit everything I've said is incorrect.

That isn't complicated, it isn't false, it isn't duplicitous.

Too bad the same can't be said for about 50% of your posts.

[wtmusic]

33. You see nothing false or duplicitous in announcing a mileage rating

for a car that doesn't exist? Do you really think the public realizes "they used a draft copy of EPA's proposed methodology for determining the "mileage" of their car and they achieved X results"?

:rofl:

Here is what the public sees: "Chevy Volt snags 230 mpg city EPA rating!"

http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-13746_7-10307349-48.html

Which is total bullshit and you know it. This is PR kristopher. Don't act stoopid.

[kristopher]

34. Of course it's PR; so what?

They are a company, by definition information released to the public is "PR". That doesn't make it false. You are taking the headline written by yet ANOTHER idiot - in this case Antuan Goodwin - laying the blame at the feet of GM.

Some things are written to create a false conclusion and it is easy to spot them if you look; the press release from GM simply doesn't have the characteristics that mark such an effort. Their sentences are clear, and their claims are well labeled and limited with no ambiguity.

Your position on this issue simply has no merit. Is it some sort of grudge against GM? I mean, you have mis-stated the facts yet again when you say the mileage rating is bogus because the car doesn't exist, right? However, it is easy to confirm that GM has had 40 mile prototypes out there for more than a year.

http://gm-volt.com/2008/04/04/fully-operation-40-mile-range-chevy-volt-prototype-to-hit-road-this-month/

What is your real issue?

[wtmusic]

35. A link to GM's website? Maybe I should be asking what your real issue is.

"Some things are written to create a false conclusion." There's another word for that - it's called "deception".

You insist the public must parse, know the backstory, and accept some gentle rib-nudging with public pronouncements of this sort. Maybe that's true for advertising claims - but this is the freaking EPA. This is the standard. If the public can't count on these numbers for GM, they can't count on them for anybody. It was reassuring to see the EPA's release today but disconcerting to see the backpatting that followed it, almost as if a bureaucrat was standing over the EPA engineers' shoulders insisting they put a happy face on it. Who was it? Why? These are things the public should know.

Yes I have a bias against GM, but it's at least somewhat warranted. They have a long long history of antitrust and backroom deals which have cost the consumer and the environment, and that pisses me off. But you saying that my position has "simply no merit" or implying their extrapolation is valid because they've had a prototype running around that no one else can touch just gets tiresome.

I had you on ignore for six months, then I let you out because you occasionally come up with great insights...now this. Pfeh.

[kristopher]

36. Now you're attributing things to me I never wrote.

"You insist the public must parse, know the backstory, and accept some gentle rib-nudging with public pronouncements of this sort."

I wrote nothing of the sort. I said that GM's press release was clear and unambiguous; that is about as far from your characterization as it is possible to get. The bottom line is you have no respect for the truth. If you want to put me on ignore, that isn't a problem to me. I'd rather have a dialog, but that is only if it is predicated on a certain ethical standard of adhering to facts. I'll still be here to give my opinion no matter what and if you don't want to stand up for yourself, that is your choice.

[OKIsItJustMe]

23. I thought you were a fan of the "Prius?"

The "series"/"serial" hybrid automobile was not displaced by the "parallel" hybrid, or by the "pure EV." It was displaced by the pure gasoline engine. Diesel/Electric locomotives are still the standard design in the US.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel-electric_transmission

Comparing the "Volt's" efficiency to a "pure EV" is disingenuous. Instead, let's compare it to a "Prius" (you know, a car where you carry around an engine, and use it for propulsion most of the time?)
http://www.toyota.com/prius-hybrid/specs.html

2010 EPA 51/48/50 city/highway/combined mpg estimates. Actual mileage will vary.

I've never been impressed by the Prius' gas mileage. For more than 30 years now, I've been reading about better than 100MPG being possible with a "series"/"serial" hybrid design.

In a "series"/"serial" hybrid design, the gasoline engine can be run at constant RPM, for maximum efficiency. In the case of a plug-in (like the "Volt") you can drive several miles without even starting the gasoline engine. Now, personally, I wish it was a Stirling engine, but, hey, this is version 1.0.

In the "Prius" the gasoline engine is running almost all the time and at varying RPM. The 2010 Prius actually became more of a gasoline car, and less of an EV.
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/FullTests/articleId=144886

…

Engine noise is also way down in our 2010 Toyota Prius, as last year's 76-horsepower, 1.5-liter engine gives way to a comparatively torque-rich, 1.8-liter inline-4 with variable intake valve timing. Power output is rated at 98 hp at 5,200 rpm and 105 pound-feet of torque at 4,000 rpm.

…

The batteries provide juice for the hybrid car's two electric motors (one a drive motor, the other a generator), which are smaller and lighter this year. Although a smaller electric drive motor can't produce as much torque, this one is part of a new front transaxle that reduces power losses by as much as 20 percent, improving efficiency in compensation.

…

I think you just resent that GM may have a winner on their hands.

[JohnWxy]

22. this caught my eye: "8 in 10 Americans commute fewer than 40 miles a day"

"Nearly 8 of 10 Americans commute fewer than 40 miles a day, the company said in a statement, citing Department of Transportation data. The mileage calculation for the Volt assumes that most drivers would stay within that range and not need the gasoline engine."

recommended.

[Fledermaus]

26. Yes, I drive less than 40 a day. I drive seven miles to work and back.

[OKIsItJustMe]

28. Yes. It's true.

"EV-1" fans are always quick to point this out. That's why the EV-1's range was long enough for anyone.

Of course, the same people are quick to point out that "Volt's" pure-EV range is too short…