2011 Chevrolet Volt gets an EPA certified rating of 93 MPGe and 37 mpg in gasoline mode

That's why we should talk about the average. Cherry picking is not constructive.

 

Maybe it would be helpful for this thread to have a side by side comparison of the published specifications:

EPA rating (gasoline mode): Prius - 50 mpg ; Volt - 37 mpg

Power: Prius - 134 hp ; Volt - 149 hp

0-60 mph: Prius - 9.8 s ; Volt - 8.5 s

Weight: Prius - 1,381 kg; Volt - 1,720 kg

EV range: Prius - 0-1 mile ; Volt - 25-50 miles

Gasoline engine: Prius - 1.8L Atkinson cycle ; Volt - 1.4L Otto cycle

Aerodynamic Cd: Prius - 0.25 ; Volt - 0.29

Battery: Prius - 40% of 1.3 kWh ; Volt - 65% of 16 kWh

My own view is that it's remarkable that a car that's 340 kg (750 lbs) heavier than the Prius but faster can manage 37 mpg with an Otto cycle engine. Also, I just read that the Gen2 Volt is coming in 2015 and it will have a smaller battery but longer EV range, and a 50% reduction in battery / drivetrain costs.

 

This is a poor way to look at this. Most people won't be driving the Volt by plugging it in as often as possible. They will plug it in and then forget about it like every other car. Like all new devices, it takes a while to catch on, and assuming everyone will drive it as green as possible IMMEDIATELY is naive.

(My comment has nothing to do with the oil bullet.)

 

That's not helpful at all. Prius does not need to plug in. How far do you expect it to go on battery power? I would also include this crucial information.

Electricity Consumption: Prius - 0 kWh / 100 mi ; Volt - 36 kWh / 100 mi

It is remarkable how a 35 EV miles battery robbed one rear seat, added 750 lbs, reduced at least 50->37 MPG.

 

Does anybody but me have trouble with the fact that they have to give $7,500 of our tax dollars to everyone who buys a Volt or Leaf?

Would be like giving people $7,500 who purchased HD televisions when they first came out.

Does not make sense to me and I think it is a big waste of taxpayer's dollars.

TED

 

Ok with the gathering of facts.

But let me just make my opinion of the last sentence.
"It's unbelievable that a hybrid manages 37mpg of its engine, more like a non-sense! Also, I just heard that Gen 1 is not yet available for all markets (and did not get 100mpg+ as rmarketed), how can Gen 2 make people wonder about? And they didn't say anything about FE at all, that's bad news, and makes us think of the Gen 3"

 

I am not troubled by the incentive. I am troubled by the amount and the unfairness of the incentive. It was clearly aimed for the Volt. The tax credit was capped at Volt's battery size (16kWh). Nissan Leaf has bigger battery but it qualifies for the same amount. Why even have the incentive based on the battery size? How about base it on the "greenness" of the car -- emission and MPG compared to a similar non-hybrid?

Prius' tailpipe emission is cleaner than the Volt (AT-PZEV vs. ULEV). Now we have 50 MPG Prius with $0 incentive while the 60 MPGe Volt has the $7,500 incentive.

 

Volt with 150 hp electric motor and 16 kWh battery pack manages to get less MPG than 2010 Insight with 15 hp electric motor and 1 kWh battery pack.

If Honda IMA is a mild hybrid, what should Voltec be called?

Sure, Volt is faster but Insight's tailpipe emission is cleaner. Volt can go 35 miles on the grid electricity but Insight consumes zero electricity.

 

Don't you really mean: "Would be like giving people up to $3,400 who purchased hybrids such as Prius when they first came out."?

This giveaway is still available on BMW, Cadillac, Chevrolet, GMC, Mercedes and Nissan hybrids.

 

I would take the incentive if given to me but I sure do not think it is a good use of taxpayer's dollars. But I was more than happy to pay 22k plus tax to buy a quality car like the Pruis.

In Washington state the Leaf/Volt is also sales tax free and we have a big hole in the budget. Also the charging stations are tax free.

Why does the Government fell it is necessary to promote this somewhat questionable technology?

This was from one of the papers and I think it is pretty well written;


Washington View: We’re not ready to absorb electric cars’ shock to the grid
Don Brunell, The Columbian
December 7, 2010

Electric cars are the new wave in automobile technology. Many see them as the way to cut greenhouse gas emissions because they plug in rather than fuel up. Nissan’s Leaf and Chevrolet’s Volt are coming to car showrooms, the first in what is expected to be a wide variety of electric vehicles.

To promote the use of electric cars, Congress authorized a $7,500 federal tax credit for the purchase of an electric car, and the state of Washington exempts electric cars and most hybrids from the state’s sales tax.

Our state also received $1.32 million in federal stimulus money to install electric vehicle charging stations along Interstate 5, part of a $100 million program from the Department of Energy. Gov. Chris Gregoire envisions a network of plug-in electric outlets along I-5 from Vancouver, B.C. to Eugene, Ore., where drivers will pull off the interstate, swipe their credit cards for a shot of electricity, and be on their way to the next outlet.

Other states are picking up the electric car initiative as well. In fact, California wants to put a million electric cars on the road by 2020.

But there’s a problem.

Electric cars use electricity — lots of it. In fact, the Edison Electric Institute estimates that driving 10,000 miles in an electric car will use about 2,500 kilowatt-hours, 20 percent more than the average home uses in a year. So, while electric cars reduce greenhouse gas emissions, they increase the need for electricity.

That electricity must come from power plants. As electric cars begin to replace conventional gas- and diesel-powered engines, electric utilities are scrambling to build new power lines, substations and generating facilities, whether they are wind turbines, biomass boilers, solar panels, dams, natural gas, nuclear or coal-fired power plants.

However, in the Northwest, some of the same activists who promote electric cars are working to constrict the generation of electricity.

For example, they want to shut down the TransAlta coal-fired plant in Centralia that supplies 10 percent of the state’s electricity and provides 600 jobs in Lewis County that pay an average of $88,520 annually. It incidentally supplies enough electricity to heat and light more than 1.1 million homes.

Instead, the activists want electricity produced only by renewable energy. But there’s another problem.

Wind farms are meeting resistance because more and more people don’t want them blocking their panoramic views.

Biomass plants could add to our power production, yet under I-937, our state’s renewable energy requirement, biomass plants that use pulping liquors as part of their biofuels mix do not qualify as renewable energy. Consequently, that energy is being sold outside the state. In addition, restrictive new emissions rules being implemented by EPA will kill many biomass plants in rural Northwest communities.

Tax revenues will take hit

Some of those same activists also shunned hydropower, which supplies 70 percent of our state’s electricity. When they wrote I-937, they excluded hydropower as a renewable energy.

Ironically, the electric car industry is directly benefiting from that very same hydropower.

SGL Group (The Carbon Company) and the German automaker BMW are spending hundreds of millions to build plants in Moses Lake to spin fine carbon fibers to be used in BMW’s new electric Megacity commuter car. BMW came to Moses Lake because of its abundant supply of reliable and affordable hydropower.

There is one other serious glitch. Currently, taxes on gasoline and diesel pay to build and maintain roads and streets. Electric car owners pay nothing. As cars have become more fuel efficient, gas tax revenues have fallen; electric cars will worsen that revenue shortfall.

There is little doubt that electric cars are the wave of the future, particularly in urban areas and in temperate climates. But they are not a panacea and we must carefully evaluate the pros and cons. There are trade-offs that many today either overlook or dismiss.

Failing to deal with those trade-offs will only compound our growing problem of supplying adequate electricity to our factories, hospitals, businesses and homes — and cars.

Don Brunell is president of the Association of Washington Business, Washington state’s chamber of commerce.

 

Everybody gets a share at the public money feed trough:

DOE Secretary Chu Throws $1.4B Loan To Nissan Leaf | Autopia | Wired.com

 

No, it would not. The extra demand would be supplied by NG/coal.

 

Please add following numbers...

Seating capacity: Prius - 5 ; Volt - 4
Passenger volume: Prius - 94 cu ft ; Volt - ??? (anyone has number?)
Cargo volume: Prius - 22 cu ft ; Volt - 10.6 cu ft

Ken@Japan

 

Electric demand will go up, but gasoline demand will go down. Refining gasoline is not an electric free process. Getting the supply to the new demand is a concern, but our infrastructure needs to repaired and upgraded regardless of what happens. Besides, the bulk of car charging will take place at night, at low demand. Car charging won't be completing with AC use.

Road use tax will just shift to registration fees. Possibly annual mileage based.

Boohoo, I don't have a fifth seat. I'm not going to downplay the usefulness of a rear bench seat, sometimes it's nice to have, but if a person as a regular need to carry 4 passengers comfortably, they are looking at the wrong vehicle size class. Having once rode the rear hump of a'79 Camaro, I think the fifth seat of many cars are just CYA for the auto makers.

Batteries do take up space that has to come from somewhere. Ford, Honda, and Toyota decided to sacrifice trunk space in some of their hybrids. GM decided to remove part of a bench seat. It might make the car less capable for some, but it's a battery arrangement that better distributes its weight through out the car. It's the arrangement used by the EV1. If it had 4 doors, the EV1 would only sit four people also.

The first gen of the Volt may have fell short of the projections, but I still maintain it will do more getting the American public from gasoline to electricity than the Leaf or even the PHEV Prius.

 

Fixed and source linked.

 

That shows how little you know about power generation unless you think sneaking the NG in there is an out.

We are talking about dirty coal.

Extra demand would most likely be supplied by NG, oil or hydro but almost certainly NOT by coal.

Coal and nuclear are left on at full tilt as much as possible filling the baseload because they are the lowest cost sources and have only slight ability to throttle up and down.

 

You think that is well written? Its a pile of BS FUD and is just as much crap as the 'Hummer is better then the Prius' BS.

 

It was written a lot better than your useless reply. The article pointed out a lot of valid concerns about going to a large amount of electric only cars. Who will pay for the roads? Will there be enough electrical power to run both millions of cars and light our homes? Especially if we tear down the dams to save the Salmon. And shut down the coal plants to save the air. Both of these are happening right now in Northwest.

TED

 

Thank you!

Then...
Passenger + Cargo volume: Prius - 116 cu ft ; Volt - 101 cu ft
Vehicle class: Prius - middle of Midsize (110 to 119) ; Volt - almost low end of Compact (100 to 109)

Ken@Japan

 

The best and most recent publications from the US national labs disagree with you.