Idaho National Lab: Volt vs EVs

I get it: Volt is averaging more miles a year over Leaf (12k+ vs. 9k+) but Volt is averaging nearly as many electric miles as Leaf per year.
The eVMT is only going to go up with the gen 2 Volt.

 

what's the point, and why does it matter?

 

In the comments, my favorite line was the Volt is the Hamburger Helper of gas.

 

One implication is the Volt2 should qualify for CA HOV white stickers, which would really help sales. Also should qualify for NJ and GA etc BEV incentives. Why not?

Do we have any info to suggest Volt2 would qualify for CA BEV HOV stickers? I think I heard it said the Volt2 was being designed for CA market in mind, but how so? Unless it gets CA HOV stickers it's a lame duck.

Here is a recent wild estimate by me of CA PHEV green HOV stickers population. It's a big chunk of PHEV market, so I don't know what happens if we lose green stickers (July or so they are gone). The data is up to 1Q2015.

 

or the right job for the right tool.

 

Looking at the report, it appears that the bottom line is that on average the distance between charges for Leafs is about the electric range of a Volt.

 

which just shows to go you that we need a 150-200 mile ev. or one with adjustable capacity.

 

in order for BMW's "non-EV" i3 to even get green stickers, it's software had to be limited. It wasn't allowed to use Prius-like efficiency - where it can regularly use both ICE & ev motor simultaneously, thereby increasing owners' efficiency. Instead, it's forced to drain the battery, and only use the ICE as last resort. AND, in the case of the BMW, the gas tank has to be limited to just a couple gallons. With those kind of limiting requirements, the Volt won't stand a chance at white stickers.

 

^^^Thank you Hill for the nice handicapping of CARB rationale

 

The up side? GM's influence on CARB is WAY more huge than BMW ... as is GM strong arm lobby team. Money & threat of loosing a cushy job go a long way with CARB.
.

 

Interesting that Volts % of stickers is 75%. Might that be because when it 1st came out, its emission system didn't qualify?
.

 

Likely. The Volt build page even still has the CARB certified emissions as a no cost option; though I don't see why a non-sticker qualifying one would get sent to California at this point.

 

That's because by the time Volt was finally rolled out, it didn't actually fit the very definition which had been coined for the technology it was to deliver. That's also why the top reason sighted by supporters for low sales is marketing. Since then, the BMW i3 has been rolled out and series mode in Volt has been eliminated. So, there's nothing left to contend anymore.

Take a look at the battery-capacity to identify what the 94% actually represents. Without changing any engine, motor/generator, clutch, or software, simply reducing the amount of electricity available completely changes results. Next, take a look at the way Ford approached plugging in along with an engine.

In other words, there's no point in labeling. Unfortunately, It's not as straight-forward as focusing on KWH or MPG. Results from initial consumers don't tell the complete story either. Fortunately, the same purchase priorities consumers had in the past still hold true. Ordinary buyers of vehicles look for a well-balanced choice. Making sacrifices for the sake of maximum EV has proven to be unappealing.

 

Caution...that is just a wild guess by me, yes I was unclear how many non-compliant CA Volts we had. As far as I know we have no public info on it.

 

I assume you are referring to "EREV" and the silly claim that the production Volt released in 2010 does not fit GM's written EREV definition from the year of the concept's introduction in 2007 because the Volt can have a series/parallel transmission mode when the gas engine is running?

As you are well aware from past discussions, GM's EREV definition is based on the rules that keep a car operating in EV mode and it places no requirements on how the car operates after the gas engine starts up. Sure, journalists make up all kinds of nonsense due to their personal ignorance, ideology, or to create controversy. You rightfully decry this when it happens to the Prius.

For example, the fact that GreenCarReports.com continues to spin this to create controversy to increase their page hits and advertising dollars is just sad.

I don't like adding to their page hits on this, but check out the incoherence on the place of the Volt in this article from last week. Watch as they contort themselves to explain why the 1st gen Volt should maybe be considered an EREV but not the 2nd gen Volt even though the only powertrain change that typical drivers will notice is an increase in EV-only range, acceleration performance improvement, quieter hybrid operation, and better hybrid mpg.

Everything in their EREV vs plugin hybrid description would squarely place the 2016 Volt as an EREV but it somehow isn't because "series/parallel" even though that's not part of GM's EREV definition which GM popularized starting in 2007 and even though Volt drivers have empirically been shown to not be aware of when the 1st gen Volt is actually in series/parallel mode.

Many Volt drivers continue to believe the confused and incorrect reports by journalists that series/parallel mode only happens under certain specific and rare conditions or when driving over 70 mph. Actually, the Volt is much more likely to be in series/parallel mode than series mode when the gas engine is running and the car is going over 40 mph (3.6x as likely when running the US06 EPA highway test cycle).

Electric Cars: Defining Battery-Electrics, Plug-In Hybrids, Range-Extended & More

 

+1

Thinking 10 years out, assuming $200/kwh batteries or less, we have 2 group of hybrid/plug-in drivers. Those with easy access to a plug at home or work, and those without.

Those without easy plug access that are road warriors are great candidates for a hybrid or diesel. I expect battery advances, cafe standards, and pollution requirements to make hybrid the majority choice. They are poor candidates for a fuel cell unless there are hydrogen stations everywhere they want to go.

Those with access to a plug, most would be better off with a 6 kwh+ phev or bev, than a non plug-in hybrid. Think of it this way. A hybrid is going to need 1 kwh of battery motors, transmission, etc. All you are adding is 5kwh of batteries and charging hardware. This should cost less than $2000 more than a hybrid, but cafe bonuses mean that a car manufacturer should be illing to do it at cost and not require profit. Now these plug-ins or hybrids need to be designed from the ground up to carry the battery, not a after thought like the fusion energi, but we are talking 2025 with pressure from fuel standards, so this is no problem. For the extra $2000 you probably can eliminate most start up and low speed inefficiencies, substitute at least 2500 miles a year from gas to electricity, and get to pre aircondition the car (electric pre-heat may not work on lower priced models as that would take extra parts).

Longer range phevs and bevs also make sense, but given battery prices the 80 mile bev may disappear in favor of phev.

 

The point was that it was wasted marketing effort, focusing on the wrong audience. Since there is nothing to gain, why bother?

Remember the pointless labeling efforts of the past?

 

IMHO and this was borne out by statements by GM, is customers and dealers they were confused. the EVER label especially in advertising made people think that you didn't have a hybrid mode that you could drive and fill up like a conventional car.

EVER was a marketing fail, and really a PR blunder. First they said serial, then extended range but the engine under circumstances could directly connect to the wheels. It was a way to complicated explanation. It also stopped them from initially putting in a hold button, to let the driver decide to turn on the engine.

Its a PHEV, that will travel in EV mode with full power for initially 35 epa miles, now 38 miles, and in gen II a predicted 50 miles. You can drive it as a normal car, or in a full powered ev mode (and gen II is higher powered and lighter than gen I).

The advertising of the volt was mostly handled by the same guy that did the awful chevy runs deep. That guy got fired for internall fraudulent accounting, and now runs the company building most of the hydrogen stations in california. I expect a worse fail at that job, but of course he gets paid.

bmw crippled the gas tank and software in the i3 to conform to california's bevx definition. I'm sure the ever try was part of this same CARB politics. Bmw gets 3 zev credits for each i3 it sells in California. If it sells half in california and the credits are worth $6,000, bmw can sell each i3 for $3000 less. These numbers seem to say the i3 and gen II volt should get some zev credits with or without crippling, but that is up to CARB not science. That ex-gm ever guy is getting millions of dollars of state money because supposedly FCEV are so much cleaner than phevs according the the CARB politicians.


OK off soap box back to John.

You have two different points in this statement.
1) EVER labeling was a fail.
I agree completely.

2) GM ev range or battery size was too big.
Marketing and polls say the opposite. Until they announced the much better and longer range gen II, the volt was the best selling plug-in in America. Over the time it not only outsold every other phev, but the other bevs also. Others were ahead on certain months, mainly the leaf, but also tesla model S and even the prius phv. The volt was leading for the whole period though. Users didn't think the battery was too big, they wanted more, which is why the gen II has a even bigger battery. Low sales after the announcement probably means people are waiting for the next gen with the bigger battery

Telsa model S is the best selling plug-in in america this year. I think we can get rid of the idea that people that buy plug-ins aren't willing to pay for range. Some do want low cost, but there is definitely room for a 50 mile phev.