ABG: Chevy Volt completes 1776-mile Freedom Drive in just 3 days; EVs can't match that

While I agree that the Volt (if they ever actually do sell it to the public) is likely to be underpowered and uncomfortable in CS mode, I'm not too worried about "uninformed 'moms and pops' " buying it. If GM does succeed in convincing people that it's an electric car, those moms and pops will reject it for that reason alone; and then the $40,000 price tag will keep them away.

Those moms and pops want an SUV because GM's already convinced them it's safer. The tiny Volt will scare them. Remember that GM is building the Volt, not to sell, but to counteract the bad publicity of "Who Killed the Electric Car?" GM does not want this car to sell, which is why they've set the price so high and the production numbers so low.

An overpriced, underpowered car, that's smaller than a Leaf and has at best 2/5 the EV range, but probably closer to 1/4 the range, but can limp home on gasoline if you run out of juice, and the base model costs 1/3 more than a fully-loaded Prius but in CS mode burns more gas than the Prius and has very little storage space for trips. The Volt is not designed to sell. It's designed to fail.

Note that for road trips most people want space for luggage and equipment. The Volt does not have that. So the big "selling point" of being able to make road trips will fall flat on a public that wants power and cargo space for such trips.

The Volt is the marketing equivalent of a Yugo that comes with a discount gas card. The first 25 or 30 miles of each day's driving costs electric rates. But after that it's underpowered, and it's small to boot.

 

Not if it's just a limited effort.

Just a small number over a long period of time won't cut it.

The goal should be to replace traditional production.
.

 

I could not help but see that Edmund's has tested the Leaf in real work situations, and reports:
"Nissan's upcoming Leaf electric car is rated at 100 miles per charge on the EPA's LA4 (urban) test cycle. But it can also get 138 miles on a charge. Or 47. Or just about anything in between."

I presume the Volt should expect somewhat the same results. I realize this thread is about CS mode, but I strongly suspect that in CS mode, the ICE will be significantly impacted by those things I mentioned a few post back ... speed, A/C, hills, radio and other power draining appliances.

 

Come on Daniel ... "moms and pops" is a figure of speech.

I am impressed with the knowledge, and depth of understanding of most PC responders, and most will not be "snookered" by GM's BS. My point was all those that are not so well informed ... and buy this very pricey, very limited vehicle, expecting it to measure up to all the hype, and expectations, only to discovering it is very limited vehicle.... will be dissapointed. Clearly, the Volt will succeed or fail on the basis of it's performance in CS mode, where I predict will be the mode that most drivers will be using.

Referring again to the Edmund's real world test of the Leaf (another thread on PC) ... and assuming the Volt will exhibit some of the same characteristics as the Leaf in EV mode... we can anticipate the Volt's range will vary from well below 40 miles to slightly over 40 miles; EV range will be degraded in slow, stop and go traffic;and when it is hot and humid; and when it is frigid; and when there are 4 adults in the car; and when the terrain is up and down ... isn't that what most of us experience daily?

 

Ignoring the detail that the Volt is made by GM which makes it a POS in my opinion from day #1, the more general question of whether this spec is a smart one can be debated forever, but I think that people, to the extent they care about EV at all, will migrate to a two car solution: much cheaper, EV only short range city commuter car for daily stuff, and a rental or (in the minds of the consumer) ICE or efficient car for long trips.

People who are one car households only may consider the Volt, but if money is a consideration they will choose a good hybrid instead.

 

Yes, I know that "moms and pops" is a figure of speech, and I am using it the same way.

Here's my point: Uninformed people are not interested in electric cars. They think batteries are expensive and don't last long. They think SUVs are safer. They want a car with a lot of power. And if they plan on using CS mode for more than the occasional time when the batteries run down, they want plenty of cargo space. The Volt will not appeal to the uninformed. It's small, expensive, and will probably have inadequate acceleration for most Americans.

On this board, we know about hybrids and plug-ins, and we know that batteries properly controlled can last the life of the car. We think about the environment and are aware of the issues, even though not all of us believe in global warming. We are the people the Volt has the potential to appeal to, except that we are informed enough to understand its fatal shortcomings.

I just do not believe the Volt will appeal to the people you are worried might be taken in. Remember, after all, that GM does not even want to sell this car, and will build so few of them that not a lot of folks CAN be taken in by it.

 

Actually those figures are from Nissan - not Edmunds.

Here are all the scenarios Nissan has talked about (one set for US and the other for EU).

 

Can anybody explain why rows 9 and 10 would differ by 35% ? Row 9 is slower on average, and AC does not eat much more than say 300 watts max. Stop at 0 mph, go at 100 mph perhaps ?

 

AC will eat a couple thousand watts at 95* ambient temps trying to keep the interior in the mid 70s.

 

The diff between 8 & 10 is interesting. Apparently it is some kind of motorway in Europe with roundabouts every so often. So you drive like a maniac accelerating to top speed until you come to a roundabout where you come to a near stop, and start all over again. Some kind of an extreme - just like scenario 1 where they crawled in the cold in the city for 8 hours.

BTW, I won't be surprised if these figures are simulations run by Nissan, rather than actual measured values.

 

That is funny. Toyota did not exactly build 100,000k Prius the first year. Or the second.

 

The Volt can do over 90mph and will have plenty of power in normal driving in CS mode. Only when going up a large mountain (not a hill) for an extended time will the car have any trouble.

Even then with a really large hill and a discharged battery it would still have 71HP, not a great amount but enough.

 

Who knows. Currently this is the only independent report we know of ....

Vauxhall Ampera prototype review - Telegraph

Personally, I don't care. There is absolutely no way we can continue "business as usual" and cut down enough emissions or oil usage. There are going to be life style changes and "sacrifices" needed.

 

Hi All,

The main problem with the Volt is the accounting/buisness practices of GM. This is why a car that would be less than $30K from Toyota the first year out, is going to be sold for $40K+ .

Its a good car for many many people (ignoring price). These would be people that live within 20 miles of work, and see a limited (less than 30?) number of mornings below freezing per year. These people will be able to use the car in electric operation most of the time, yet have care-free, unplanned capability to go far on the weekend.

My only comment about the marketing thing - why that dark color!? That is very similar to what my SL2 was, and I think its the main reason I had two people drive into my SL2 (both were other GM drivers BTW).

 

In the Leaf range chart above, note that EVERY scenario, regardless of speed, in which the A/C and heat are off, the car goes OVER 100 miles. Both are energy hogs. So open the windows in hot weather and dress warm in cold weather instead and don't exceed maybe 65 mph, and you've got your hundred mile real-life range!!!

It's too bad they didn't carry the chart up to 75 mph (the freeway speed limit in some states). I imagine it would drop below 100 miles at 70 or 75, but when you need to go the full 100 miles, 65 in the slow lane is always acceptable. (Maybe there's an exception in states where the drivers are all total maniacs. Where I live, the limit is 70 and I generally drive 65 in the Prius, or 60 during the brief period when I was driving the electric Porsche. People passed me, but I'm not the only one on the road going 60 or 65.)

Anyway, the chart clearly shows that 100 miles is realistic at any speed up to 60 (and, extrapolating, probably 65) if you leave the A/C and heat off. And remember that up until a few decades ago, A/C did not even exist in cars! My Xebra does not have A/C. I just crank open the windows. Sure that's less comfortable than A/C at full blast, but the whole problem with the world is that nobody is willing to give up anything for the common good.

And the only time you need to leave those things off is when you must push your range to the car's limit.

 

Think about it. That was a world before 9/11. It was poorly informed, quite naive. It was a time when few had access to that young internet and speed was so slow even sharing photos was a challenge. Things were quite unlike what they are now. Even the automotive industry itself was very different.

MISCONCEPTIONS were abundant back then. Let's not forget how clueless people were about what a hybrid was and how slow & weak electric vehicles were perceived.

EXPERIENCE was almost non-existent back then. Look at GM with EV1, all the Fuel-Cell concepts, and Two-Mode. The background is quite extensive, very different now.

CLIMATE CHANGE was a treehuggers joke back then. It was far from ever taken seriously. People heard "global warming" and simply dismissed it without a second thought.

OIL DEPENDENCY was far from a concern back then. Remember less than $1 for gas? Remember the invasion of monster-size guzzlers? Remember when that happened?

FEAR was very real back then. You'd be amazed by the level of resistance to change there was. People intensely argued about being forced to give up their guzzler for a hybrid.
.

 

AC power draw varies dramatically. In my low humidity environment it knocks about 3% off my fuel economy to keep the AC at 79F when the ambient is 90F.

 

to fully understand the chart provided we must examine....oh wait!! there is not enough info to examine to really understand it.

BUT, we can infer some info by examining average speeds, time and performance.

comparing 8 and 9. since they have identical climate control situations. 9 has much higher perfomance

9 took longer
has higher average speed.

so that means it either went much farther or (more likely due to the improved performance) was a steady cruise on the freeway in light traffic no delays. remember, the greatest mileage penalty is the brake. touch it once, you lose and you lose BIG TIME. the other thing inferred is the actual speed of 8 was much higher than its average. probably averaged 65-70 most of the time with slowdowns which would account for the shorter driving time.

comparing 9 and 10. the only difference being the climate controls. (why they put in a different average speed is beyond me and smacks of someone trying to hide something. a pretty stupid blunder i think). i find it hard to believe that anyone can dispute the effect of full sun on a wide open highway to the interior of the car. without A/C on, temps would be in the 120's in a matter of minutes. the A/C would be pretty much on all the time.

so if we take scenario 9 105 miles... reputed 24 kwh of pack, means 4.3 miles per kwh or so. 10 using the same 24 kwh, went 70 miles drops it to about 2.9 miles per kwh. if 9 went 70 miles it would have burned about 16 kwh = a very high aftermarket for window tint in Phoenix

as far as speed; i rarely exceed 60 mph in my 105 mph Prius so speed is not an issue. i will gladly drive 60 mph on a 70 mph freeway. since the alternative could easily be walking or burning gas, its simply not a difficult decision to make

daniel; despite the destruction of the Gulf, the world has not experienced nearly enough pain to start sacrificing their own personal comfort. they watch the news, feel bad for the residents there, then turn off the TV and go about their lives. until THEY can feel pain, nothing will change. that is why i strongly avocate and immediate $2 per gallon tax increase to fund green technology today.

 

Our only disagreement here is on the amount of the gas tax. I advocate a $15 per gallon gas tax, and carbon-equivalent taxes on all other fossil fuels.

However, I am aware that putting such a heavy tax on all at once could be a shock to the economy, so I suggest phasing it in gradually over a period of 30 days, adding 50 cents per gallon to the tax each day.

At the same time I'd institute a weight-times-distance tax on all vehicles to fund road repair and maintenance, and put the gas tax money toward installing sustainable energy.

:behindsofa:

 

Unfortunately so many things (like food) depend on oil - that any sudden increase in oil price will result in recession.

A steady 10 cent per month increase in tax for next 5 years with a floor price of $4 a gallon retail price, would be a good idea. What we need is for everyone to understand that oil price will keep going up - that will do it.