| Author | Message | ||
     Blake |
Please don't insult my personal faith by equating it to fraud and graft. | ||
| Court |
Damn good time to be in the business of building power plants and transmission lines. Go Green!  Court - LEED, AP | ||
| Mr_grumpy |
I'll stick with diesel thanks. | ||
| Mikef5000 |
Per Chevy's website, the car will be powered by the gas engine as far as you want to go. the above listed 344 miles is per tank. Refill the tank and keep driving. There is no limit to the gas engine range. | ||
| Pwnzor |
Blake, The godless among us will likely always be just that. Godless, faithless, empty. They won't realize it wasn't too late until it is in fact too late. | ||
| Ourdee |
I heard it is a 9 gallon tank. I got 44 mpg out of a 70s era Datsun 1200 at 75 mph tailXXXXng er uh DRAFTING big rigs. The car I drove as a 16 year old. Called it the boodin' mobile. When you shifted hard and dumped the clutch, it would go BOODIN BOODIN. Only car I've owned that could out jump any of my Jeeps and not break. Blake, Some types of communication is futile with the uninitiated. Like throwing pearls to the sows. | ||
| Sifo |
I would expect it was clearly understood that the 230 mpg wasn't an apples to apples comparison from the beginning. An asterisk that GM has used from the beginning is that majority of us have a daily drive less than the range of complete battery power. If I owned one (doubt I ever will) I'm pretty sure I'd shoot far beyond the 230 mark. It's clear that a different method of determining transportation efficiency is needed, and I think the one supplied has merit. The author of the "fraud" complains that the efficiencies of power generation aren't considered, but fails to consider the energy needed to get the gasoline to the pump. Do we really need a cradle-to-grave measurement? It may be that a better method could be found, but the article looks more like someone blowing things out of proportion in order to get more blog hits. Here's proof that P.T. Barnum had it right. Roger, the 230 MPG claim is nothing but fantasy. Fraud would be another name for it. It has nothing to do with the energy required to power the vehicle. It would be like figuring how many kW-hrs it takes to power the ignition and headlights on a gas vehicle, then converting that number to an MPG equivalent. It can be done, but it has nothing to do with how much energy is required to move the car down the road. Calling the EPA estimate of 93 MPG equivalent (MPG equivalent is what the window sticker claims) is fraudulent too. It still doesn't reflect the amount of energy used to propel the car down the road. I get the feeling that you didn't read the whole article. He isn't saying you need to account for cradle to grave energy use, simply an fair equivalency. He actually points out that the Department of Energy has a fair means of making this calculation dating back to the Clinton administration. It's the EPA that has chosen to ignore the DOE methods in favor of a bogus equivalence to promote their political agenda. He further points out that the DOE method accounts for the energy that goes into refining and transporting gas so that you get a fair equivalence. Using the fair equivalence method as determined by the DOE will give the Volt about 34 MPG. This really isn't very surprising because anyone familiar with basic physics knows that you incur losses when you convert energy from one form to another, store energy, or take it out of storage. Personally I think it's worth taking note of this example to learn that with the current state of the art gasoline engines are still more efficient than electrics. If your goal is to get the most out of the earths resources electric clearly isn't the way to go, even before you get into the resources required for hi-tech batteries required to make them work. Unfortunately the government meddles in every aspect of energy and they are taking serious measures to make electric vehicles cheaper to operate (at least in appearance, everything must still get paid for in physics). So it's obvious that the government doesn't have the planets best interest at heart, and it's obvious that they don't have the peoples best interests at heart. I can only speculate who's best interests they really have at heart when pushing this BS, so I'll leave that to the individual to do their own speculations. Thermal efficiency is the game! You can't be as efficient as a gas engine with an electric drive train powered by that same gas engine spinning a generator. The thermal losses are huge! The direct, mechanical connection of the drive train to the gas engine is, more or less, the most efficient arrangement. +1 Green is the new Christianity. Green is the new cult religion with zero redemptive value what so ever. It's nothing but the candy coating to help people swallow a communist agenda. Per Chevy's website, the car will be powered by the gas engine as far as you want to go. the above listed 344 miles is per tank. Refill the tank and keep driving. There is no limit to the gas engine range. At this point I tend to think you are correct about this. They should simply call it a plug in hybrid and avoid all the silly confusion, but then there would be little new with the Volt. | ||
| Carbonbigfoot |
OK, I've got a simple question. If you run it dry, till the gas motor dies, roll to a stop, and put one gallon of gas in, how much further down the road can you go before you roll to a stop again? <sigh> Perform once with the battery fully charged, and once with the battery fully discharged. This will give a long and short side range. Best and Worst case. Thats the test I want to see. R | ||
| Sifo |
CBF, that would be an interesting test, but would tell you nothing about the cost of charging the battery (dollar cost or environmental cost). | ||
| Court |
By the way . . . anyone know where you can buy one of those Honda Super Cubs? | ||
| Mr_grumpy |
The question I've always wanted an answer to but never been able to find is this. What's the difference in energy cost as regards manufacture & disposal of a hybrid vehicle compared to a standard i/c powered one? | ||
| Court |
That answer is going to be as elusive as the "total life cycle cost" of a 100 unit wind farm. Dirty secrets. | ||
| Mr_grumpy |
For sure. | ||
| Ourdee |
Dirty dirty dirty non-green secrets is more like it. | ||
| Easy_rider |
Gee, Tom, thanks for reminding me why a rarely post on the quick board. Anyone that disagrees with you is a fool or an idiot? Rather than just read the article, think a little... | ||
| Sifo |
Roger, I referenced P.T. Barnum. He said you can fool some of the people all the time. He never said the people were fools or idiots. If you really think that you are doing good for the environment, energy policy, or what ever by choosing a less efficient way to power your vehicle, on a vehicle that lets you choose, then I'm not really sure what to think about that choice. You did say that a better way to compare may be possible, but seem to ignore the method put forward by the DOE many years ago. What's up with that? You say I need to think a little rather than just read the article. The reality is I've thought about this sort of stuff most of my life. This article simply confirms my thinking on the Volt, and electrics in general. Without a huge breakthrough in efficiency of generating electricity electric power simply doesn't have any real advantages. How about attacking the facts that are presented. Feel free to make the personal attack if you want, but keep the focus on the facts. Or you can choose to ignore six paragraphs of information that is on subject and focus on a single sentence that references a famous quote by PTB. | ||
| Fast1075 |
P.T. Barnum also said "There's a sucker born every minute" and (my personal favorite) "Give 'em what they want". My first car was a '65 Opel Kadette...1100cc of mind bending power...it got open road mileage in the 40's.... | ||
| Aesquire |
Ok, after some research.... The Chevy Volt uses 3 "motors", 3 clutches, and 4 modes of operation. The main electric motor is attached, ( no clutch ) to the trans. ( planetary gear set ) The motor/generator (between the gas engine and the trans) is attached to the gas engine & the trans, by 2 clutches. The Gas engine is attached to the motor generator by a clutch. Starting with a charge... the main motor drives the wheels. More power needed? ( above 70, ( programmed based on optimum torque curves on the main motor ) or high acceleration, the motor/generator clutches to the trans and acts as a motor, using battery power. Battery runs low? Main motor powers wheels, and motor/generator clutches to gas engine, which then runs, charging battery. Low battery AND acceleration or high speed? Main motor powers wheels, motor generator clutches to trans AND gas engine, which then both charges and spins wheels. If the main motor fails, you are parked. If you fill it with gas, it keeps going, even with a "discharged" battery. ( battery only discharges 65% to keep long life on expensive battery ) So you CAN drive x-country. The figures for range are per tank full. ( plus from a full starting charge....but that is broken out ) You can also be running almost completely on gas engine, powering wheels mechanically, with little charging taking place... in steady state highway, high speed driving. Top speed regulated to 100. This is the worst mileage you could get. ( think wfo throttle ) The EPA figures are based on a uber complex calculation that does not really fit the reality, but is promised to be improved as more experience with electrics & plug in hybrids is gained. The EPA figures in NO way deal with life cycle costs, like the shipping costs of raw materials, recycling used cars, etc. etc. OR ownership costs over the life of the car & time kept. That remains to be seen. Calculations on the Prius, show it to be a fairly expensive luxury car. ( lifecycle ) but moderate to own. A Mercedes fast sedan is stupid expensive to own. High life cycle cost too. I think there are way too many variables to trust ANY life cycle cost. A wild guess at carbon footprint can be made, but it's so rough that taxing us for it is Outright fraud. ( never mind that the REASON for Carbon Taxes is fraud.... argue that elsewhere... and lose ) Ownership costs are easier to figure...but premature for the Volt until they sell them to a lot of people. Don't have enough data yet. ( any published # has to be a guess at this point... maintenance costs are complete unknown ) So 230 is as bogus as my Mountain top home with disposable cars. Still, looks like a very, very, neat technical solution, that optimizes efficiency in a decent, ( though expensive ) car. My VW is cleaner. | ||
| Sifo |
Somehow Rube Goldberg comes to mind. | ||
| Aesquire |
How it actually works. http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/alternative-f uel/cells/chevy-volt-hybrid-drive-system?click=img _sr Comment on EPA numbers. http://blog.caranddriver.com/chevrolet-volt-epa-nu mbers-revealed-dissected/ The controversy about the true nature of the drivetrain seems to be that GM didn't want to tell the whole truth until patents and such were finalized. http://www.luxist.com/2010/10/11/41-000-chevy-volt -draws-controversy-for-engineering-claims More nattering... http://www.product-reviews.net/2010/10/29/chevy-vo lt-ulev-not-sulev-prius-and-insight-greener/ A Prius is also complex. So is the emissions system on a '09- VW Diesel. Heck, remember the late 70's-'80's plumbing nightmare under car hoods? Chevy's system looks very well thought out. It is the result, and further development, of a program with Chrysler that developed an electric motor that fits in the transmission cases between the gas engine and the output. ( a big part of the reason for Daimler's takeover of Chrysler ) The technology seems pretty cool. Time will tell if they are junk. | ||
| Delta_one |
50mpg and simple enough to work on yourself? yes please  | ||
| Mr_grumpy |
My favourite engines. http://www.vmmotori.it/en/01/00/index.jsp | ||
| Swordsman |
Sifo, correction on the "electrically driven only" idea: "The Volt's Vehicle Line Executive Doug Parks confirmed that there is, on occasion, a mechanical connection between the internal combustion engine and drive wheels in an interview with Norman Mayersohn of The New York Times. This isn't idle speculation or educated inference; it's an admitted fact." http://www.insideline.com/chevrolet/volt/2011/gm-l ied-chevy-volt-is-not-a-true-ev.html Result: fancy hybrid. The fact that the Govt. has given a $7000 subsidy to encourage people to buy this piece of junk from a company partly owned by said Govt. strikes me as nothing short of criminal. ~SM (Message edited by Swordsman on December 13, 2010) | ||
| Daves |
My Expedition gets 12 mpg on a good day. My Dodge gets about the same. I make up for it when I ride my Buell that pulls 45 or so. They are all paid for. They don't offer the Volt with a lift kit and 4x4 Pretty sure I couldn't pull a trailer with a VOLT? Wonder where I'd put the dead deer in a Volt? Not sure there'd even be enough room for Buck(my dog) in a Volt. I'm thinking a Volt would not go places I need/want to go? Guess I'll just keep what I have  | ||
| Reepicheep |
The $7000 Saab 9-3 will pull a trailer with three bikes and still get in the high 20's mpg wise... FWIW. | ||
| Aesquire |
I bought a Diesel. Why? for torque and economy. Was the price premium worth it? Not in straight money terms. I could have the same car with a gas engine, and got half the mpg. Considering the cost of diesel, ( higher than premium, here ) It'll take 6 years + to make up the cost difference. Worse, I could have spent $10,000 less, bought a Kia, and been within 5 mpg. But the Kia won't climb the local hills in top gear without slowing down or shifting. I don't get to play dodge em with the semi's when tanking up, and my tractor also runs on Diesel, so...... Mostly, I like not being one of the herd. I don't own an Electra Glide. I have a Cyclone. It works, for me. Now the Volt owners that buy one for status? Feel free to mock them. They deserve it. ( and my Diesel is still cleaner ) | ||
| Gregtonn |
Early Volt drive system prototype. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qybUFnY7Y8w&feature =youtube_gdata  G | ||
| Fahren |
Try jacking up the cost of gas to European levels ($7 or more per gallon), and see what kind of awesome, fun-to-drive, super-economical cars you come up with. Ford is just starting to give us some of the good stuff they offer over there. Cooper Minis in Europe are available with a great, high-mileage and zippy diesel engine. It's a ton of fun to drive "on the continent;" we could do better here. | ||
| Sifo |
Try jacking up the cost of gas to European levels ($7 or more per gallon), and see what kind of awesome, fun-to-drive, super-economical cars you come up with. Ford is just starting to give us some of the good stuff they offer over there. Cooper Minis in Europe are available with a great, high-mileage and zippy diesel engine. It's a ton of fun to drive "on the continent;" we could do better here. Personally I would prefer the government stay out of social engineering. The price of gas in Europe is just an example of that. Here the EPA has been the strong arm of the government pushing that aspect of social engineering. They have done this by setting CAFE standards that manufactures have to meet. The irony is that large heavy vehicles were exempt from the standards on the basis of certain people actually need big work vehicles. This created a loophole where manufacturers could produce even bigger SUVs that didn't factor into the CAFE figures. That worked out real well, didn't it. Now the EPA is setting much higher standards that will only be met by three possible ways. 1) You can simply make cars smaller to get more mileage. While that is doable, it's pushing the consumer into much smaller cars than they would ever want. 2) You need a breakthrough in technology that give you much better efficiency. That doesn't seem to be on the horizon. 3) You can set up an unequal playing field. This is exactly what has been done with the new EPA MPG equivalence standard. The fact that the government currently has a major stake in a car company the directly benefits from this false equivalency standard. GE who gives huge amounts of cash to political campaigns also stands to benefit greatly from this sort of BS. No doubt there are many players who will benefit from this BS. This should not be the purpose of our government however. As with the case of the ginormous SUVs there's bound to be unintended consequences of this current round of social engineering, not to mention the fact that it's just plain wrong. The bottom line is that the people are being told that electric vehicles are that new technology that is a leap forward in efficiency. That is a flat out lie. In fact in the case of the Volt we get to do and apples to apples comparison of electric vs. hybrid technology and the hybrid wins. The government has stacked the deck to show that electric wins by a huge amount though. This is an arm of the government that is supposed to be looking out for our environmental interests to boot. Personally I don't see the environmental benefit in lying about the efficiency of various technologies that use a great deal of energy. The EPA has strayed far from it's stated purpose at this point. It only seems wise to be just a little bit cynical and ask a few questions about why. | ||
| Crackhead |
2) You need a breakthrough in technology that give you much better efficiency. Look at Fords EcoBoost motors. The 3.5 can get the fuel economy of a medium v6 but can tow just as much as the 6.2. Ford will be coming out with a I4 soon so you can have I4 MPG with v6 power. |
