GM's Volt - 230 MPG!
 

Not sure if anyone heard the news on this today. But the new Volt is supposed to get 230 MPG in the city.

GM delivers a jolt with Volt: 230 mpg in city driving -- chicagotribune.com

It's supposed to retail for $40,000. Seems high, but you won't really have to spend much on gas at all. I'd be curious to see the cost savings on this over the course of driving 12,000 miles a year.

I have a feeling if GM pumped a car like this out a few years ago, they wouldn't have been in such a huge mess.

If you drive 12,000 mils a year and get about 20 MPG city you use up 600 gallons of gas in the year. At $2.50 per gallon that is $1500 per year.

At 230 mpg you use 52.2 gallons which comes to $130.50 per year.

Dont rain on subbys parade. It bunches the panties.

http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/...ad.php?t=73986

For overall savings you would have to own it for about 15 years to get your money back for a similar but lower mileage car. The problem is the unknown of maintenance and how much that may cost.

It is a great idea for the environment and fuel savings but not exactly a fiscally sound option.

You wouldn't get 230 mpg anyways. If you take trips it's more like 50mpg(I think it has a 6 gallon tank IIRC)

Why doesn't anyone ever figure in the added cost of electricity to these things?

You'd have to factor in electricity costs though too. Not even sure where to start on that one. In the same vain, I doubt we'll average $2.50 a gallon for gas over the next 8 years.

Crap. Not my night.

I never realized that bullshit gets amazing MPG.

Amazing that the government takes over the company and they miraculously come out with a car that gets 230 mpg.
Coincidence or conspiracy?

I always wonder about that. Around here, we burn coal for electricity. I'm not so sure that this really is better. Plus, these kind of batteries aren't exactly biodegradeable. Food for thought, I guess. Anyway, back to your regularly scheduled programming...

As I stated in the other thread, no matter what- even if it's oil used and then transmitted 50 miles to your house, it's going to burn much more efficiently than in the crappy internal combustion engines. People just don't get how much energy is wasted there because of how small the engines are.

That said, I'd love to find (and have been looking for) how far you can get on, say, a barrel of oil or tank of gas for electric car vs internal combustion car engine. I don't care as much about the cost, which is what everyone is focusing on- there are lots of reports about how much you save for cost, but how much oil is saved.

SI

They have been working on it for years, I saw one at a golf course, where they were shooting a commercial.

Back in the mid-80s on a trip to the Midwest my family stopped in and visited a friend my Dad knew from college who lived outside of Detroit and worked for GM. In between all the sightseeing stuff I gleaned from the conversation of the adults that this guy was an engineer and was working on an "electric car" project at GM.

Twenty years later, when the first "regular commuter" hybrids came out (Prius & Civic, I don't count the first generation Insight as one) I remembered this trip and wondered where the project at GM had gotten to, why it took them so long to work on this kind of project, and how they were unable to respond to Honda and Toyota.

So seeing the Volt enter production is, perhaps, the conclusion of an interesting personal story for me. I wonder how well it'll sell....

You need to watch "Who killed the electric Car" for a good laugh then.

My question is how much will it cost for all the caffeine and sugar needed to run the thing.

Caffeine and sugar? No, it runs on hamster wheel power ;)

SI

Bah, the DeLorean gets better mileage with the Mr. Fusion conversion.

It's Volt, not Jolt.

I don't think so. There's another thread about the Volt, so this one must be about the Jolt.

This is something I've tried to find (admittedly not too hard) as well a few times...and I always end up finding some websites with an obvious agenda. Overall net oil used, over say 100 miles(or any distance FTM), in an all gas engine vs. an electric/gas hybrid vs. all electric. But you'd have to use the same vehicle with all of these options (and preferably include the associated upfront price tags to these vehicles). I'm sure this exists somewhere...just havent seen this concisely (and reasonably unbiased-ly) presented.

Even though I'm sure it is more efficient to use the electric in an oil-based grid than a gas-powered motor...this is still why I am an advocate for a true national electric grid fueled by nukes. Would put plenty of people to work on something that truly needs to be done (at least the national electric grid part, IMHO).

Getting a little off on a tangent here but I'm wondering if we're just waiting around as a nation for the next big power leap forward as nuclear would ideally be temporary as it has a lot of drawbacks. Then again, we wasted that chance in the 90s with the SSC and instead we watched a bunch of great reserchers and possibly ground breaking research go over to the EU.

SI

I think it's probably the reason which is why I tried to highlight the grid as opposed to how we feed the grid.

Because regardless of how we feed the grid...solar from the sunbelt, hydro from the coasts/snowbelts, wind from the midwest, etc...I think it's fair to say we need to start down the road of a grid in order to make it agnostic as to where the source of power comes from. It might make sense to start with nuclear in oil-heavy local/regional grids and migrate away when better/cleaner/more sustainable are ready for primetime...but the grid building aspect will take years (maybe decades?) to fully implement...so why aren't we starting?

The only (non- government nonsense) answer I can think of is that there is a belief that energy sources will be easily abundant on local levels thus making a regional/national grid unnecessary. Though...that sounds like a risky gamble on innovation given the potential for oil cutoffs and the like in the next 10 years.

Well take into account the lithium Ion battery systems will need to be replaced approximately every 5 years regardless of usage at a cost of around $4,000. And Li-Ion batts are damn near bio undegradeable and Id say both your points are mute.


1)Lets not forget that these batteries are moved around in oil consuming trucks.
2) Is that really a concern? If we burn every last drop of oil inside the earth what is the effect?

Off the top of my head, these three come to mind:

1) Burning all the gas in the ground would give us a nice brown cloud around the entire earth to say nothing for the carbon, etc
2) It's not a huge one, but still, there would be no other oil based products such as plastics.
3) Well, there's the huge political ramifications of basing your energy on a source of energy you don't control

SI

:mad:

Well, we are on a messageboard. Technically everything's mute unless you post video clips, I suppose.

The point's moot, though - we knew what he meant.

:D

my uncle worked on electric car projects in detroit for a long time. i thought he was with chevy, but he's bounced around of course (apparently he's somewhat good at his job?). Wonder if he touched the Volt project...

I thought it was moo point.

"Yeah, it's like a cow's opinion. It just doesn't matter. It's moo."

Don't let lungs hear you talking like that....

D'oh!
yeah moot....whatever
the damn thing is still a waste