GM Confirms Chevy Volt to get 230 MPG

Chevrolet Volt Achieves a 230 MPG EPA City rating

By Thami Masemola
August 11, 2009 6:07 PM
Filed Under: American, Chevrolet, Concept Car, Electric Vehicle, General Motors, Green, Hybrid

General Motors' biggest hope for a revival promises to rewrite motoring history books. Initial figures emanating from the EPA claim that the Chevrolet Volt will achieve city fuel economy of at least 230mpg.

"From the data we've seen, many Chevy Volt drivers may be able to be in pure electric mode on a daily basis without having to use any gas," said GM Chief Executive Officer Fritz Henderson. "EPA labels are a yardstick for customers to compare the fuel efficiency of vehicles. So, a vehicle like the Volt that achieves a composite triple-digit fuel economy is a game-changer."

A range of up to 40 miles (64km) is possible when running on electricity from a single battery charge. The Volt was engineered on the premise that most people commute no more than 40 miles per day as they do trips between work, shopping centres, school and home.

Real-life fuel-economy tests by motoring publications seldom match what the automakers claim because of varying load factors, weather conditions, factors like air conditioning etc. The key to the Volt's numbers though, is that drivers need to plug their cars into the electric grid at least once a day.

Under normal driving conditions the car will be using its 16 kWh lithium-ion battery pack for power. For extended trips and steep inclines it will switch to engine-generator mode.

"The 230 city mpg number is a great indication of the capabilities of the Volt's electric propulsion system and its ability to displace gasoline," said Frank Weber, global vehicle line executive for the Volt. "Actual testing with production vehicles will occur next year closer to vehicle launch."

Production of the Volt begins in late 2010 and the car will be launched around the world in markets such as the US and Europe.

 

Source: GM

Press Release (Click to expand)

  • First mass-produced vehicle to claim more than 100 mpg composite fuel economy
  • Tentative EPA methodology results show 25 kilowatt hours/100 miles electrical efficiency in city cycle
  • Plugging in daily is key to high-mileage performance

WARREN, Mich. - The Chevrolet Volt extended-range electric vehicle is expected to achieve city fuel economy of at least 230 miles per gallon, based on development testing using a draft EPA federal fuel economy methodology for labeling for plug-in electric vehicles.

The Volt, which is scheduled to start production in late 2010 as a 2011 model, is expected to travel up to 40 miles on electricity from a single battery charge and be able to extend its overall range to more than 300 miles with its flex fuel-powered engine-generator.

"From the data we've seen, many Chevy Volt drivers may be able to be in pure electric mode on a daily basis without having to use any gas," said GM Chief Executive Officer Fritz Henderson. "EPA labels are a yardstick for customers to compare the fuel efficiency of vehicles. So, a vehicle like the Volt that achieves a composite triple-digit fuel economy is a game-changer."

According to U.S. Department of Transportation data, nearly eight of 10 Americans commute fewer than 40 miles a day http://tinyurl.com/U-S-DOTStudy .

"The key to high-mileage performance is for a Volt driver to plug into the electric grid at least once each day," Henderson said.

Volt drivers' actual gas-free mileage will vary depending on how far they travel and other factors, such as how much cargo or how many passengers they carry and how much the air conditioner or other accessories are used. Based on the results of unofficial development testing of pre-production prototypes, the Volt has achieved 40 miles of electric-only, petroleum-free driving in both EPA city and highway test cycles.

Under the new methodology being developed, EPA weights plug-in electric vehicles as traveling more city miles than highway miles on only electricity. The EPA methodology uses kilowatt hours per 100 miles traveled to define the electrical efficiency of plug-ins. Applying EPA's methodology, GM expects the Volt to consume as little as 25 kilowatt hours per 100 miles in city driving. At the U.S. average cost of electricity (approximately 11 cents per kWh), a typical Volt driver would pay about $2.75 for electricity to travel 100 miles, or less than 3 cents per mile.

The Chevrolet Volt uses grid electricity as its primary source of energy to propel the car. There are two modes of operation: Electric and Extended-Range. In electric mode, the Volt will not use gasoline or produce tailpipe emissions when driving. During this primary mode of operation, the Volt is powered by electrical energy stored in its 16 kWh lithium-ion battery pack.

When the battery reaches a minimum state of charge, the Volt automatically switches to Extended-Range mode. In this secondary mode of operation, an engine-generator produces electricity to power the vehicle. The energy stored in the battery supplements the engine-generator when additional power is needed during heavy accelerations or on steep inclines.

"The 230 city mpg number is a great indication of the capabilities of the Volt's electric propulsion system and its ability to displace gasoline," said Frank Weber, global vehicle line executive for the Volt. "Actual testing with production vehicles will occur next year closer to vehicle launch. However, we are very encouraged by this development, and we also think that it is important to continue to share our findings in real time, as we have with other aspects of the Volt's development."

Comments

HEMI426
August 11, 2009 6:35 PM
Not so hart if the engine is only on the fill the batteries

scratchy996
August 11, 2009 7:25 PM
like the Fisker Karma , they say you only have to fill the tank twice a year.*

*if you recharge the batteries every night and only drive 50 miles every day. AA batteries not included

carcrazy1234
August 11, 2009 11:02 PM
LMFAO that made my day hahah (plz WCF... stop deleting my comments :P its really annoying) lol

klitemaster1000
August 11, 2009 6:43 PM
if they bring this vehicle to Canada it'll only run for 2 miles instead of 40, with the weather they have here!

Renegade
August 11, 2009 7:00 PM
If this is real then it's amazing, and GM has chances to live. Now make that awesome looking Caddy Converj a production car and we will have a winner.

potatonet
August 11, 2009 7:02 PM
last time I checked using 8kwh of battery to get 40 miles translates into 160 miles when considering that a gallon of gas has about 32kwh of energy.

so lets see here... YOU LIED... AGAIN!!!!!

stupid GM

Joe_Limon
August 11, 2009 7:07 PM
Cough cough, it's the epa lying now...

potatonet
August 11, 2009 7:10 PM
the EPA doesnt set the number on the vehicle, GM reports the number to the EPA based on the EPA's standards for testing.

GM is the one making the false claim

EDavis
August 11, 2009 7:47 PM
Potatonet:

So um...what kind of mileage are you getting with YOUR Volt?

Andres2007
August 11, 2009 8:32 PM
And... is 160 mpg not good enough?

wbizarre
August 11, 2009 8:18 PM
http://money.cnn.com/2009/08/11/autos/volt_mpg/?postversion=2009081108

sweetbaboo
August 11, 2009 9:10 PM
How far will it go on a tank of fuel with no charging?


Edited by user on August 11, 2009 at 9:11 PM
dbehmoaras
August 11, 2009 9:29 PM
Clearly they aren't lying or else they would get sued. The way I see it, less money to terrorism.

howe2002
August 11, 2009 9:40 PM
What?!? The big oil companies are the 'terrorists'!

Bristol411S3
August 11, 2009 10:19 PM
As stated, the figures from the EPA are for comparison purposes, so you can judge one model from another. They are no guarantee of real world driving figures.

And I am not sure I get the terrorist bit. Who are the terrorists in all this?

dbehmoaras
August 12, 2009 12:53 AM
The terrorist bit was a mean joke. I prefer not to elaborate. @Bristol: True, but there has to be some truth to that number, especially a number like 230. They must have checked, and checked, and checked...their calculations before releasing their results. They aren't that stupid.


Edited by user on August 12, 2009 at 12:55 AM
car-o-bar
August 11, 2009 10:18 PM
GM, get it out already. We are tired of hearing and lobbying. Your product development life cycle is so long, by the time your products hit the market, they are relatively obsolete or face tremendous competition from better similar products and your product dies.

radmeister
August 11, 2009 10:52 PM
Yeh 230mpg if electricity is free...What a wonderful world that would be. The average price of electricity in the US is 0.12$/kwh so to charge that battery assuming there is 0 loss in the charging process is 1.92$, 1 gallon of diesel is 2.72$. Which means that it would cost you the same as 0.7059 gallons of Diesel to get 40miles, which 40miles/0.7059= 56.66mpg. So the REALISTIC cost is the same as a diesel that gets 56.66mpg which there are tons of, and it's much faster to fill a tank with diesel, and u can get that MPG for more than 40 miles...So this car is bullcrap

cyclist848
August 11, 2009 11:51 PM
I think you may have missed the point.

radmeister
August 12, 2009 12:43 AM
The point? The point is electricity is neither free nor does it just appear. Most of our electricity is still produced by burning petro fuels, difference is that a power plant is more efficient at producing that power than your car is. You still get CO2 and nox gases and all that good stuff. As IQ130 said and if his data is accurate it pollutes as much as a 53mpg petrol car, as cost effective as a 56.66mpg diesel, so really what is so amazing or beneficial about it? It's all smoke, hiding the truth behind lies. I really wonder how many people will get fooled by this 230mpg, and later realize oops i forgot i have to pay for electricity. Then the people that think oh i can just put solar panels up on my house to charge it, or a windmill then everything is A-OK, only problem is 16kwh worth of wind turbines would be in the region of 50,000$ and 2 turbines the size of a 3 story house. or a big field of solar panels that set you back about 192,000$..Good luck with that

carbonsigma
August 12, 2009 3:20 AM
radmeister, you have indeed missed the point. 230MPG if electricity was free? That doesn't make sense. Since when was any MPG free?

genie
August 12, 2009 6:46 AM
No, radmeister hasn't missed the point. You have. Yes, fuel isn't free, neither is electricity. Saying its 230MPG is misleading because it suggests the energy required to charge the batteries is free, when it isn't. In the US, on average producing 1 kWh of electricity generates 0.6kg of CO2. Thus that 40 miles of electricity is equivalent to the consumption of 34MPG, given that 9.6kWh is its usable storage (and assume 10% loss during charging) and takes it 40mi.

So really, if you want the equivalent fuel consumption, its actually ((40*34)+(22.5*50.5)/62.5) = 40MPG equivalent. A slight difference from 230MPG.

super_car_muscle_man
August 16, 2009 12:06 PM
@radmeister and genie. yes you both have a point in the relative sense. producing energy does produce co2 at some stage. even wind turbines, being "green", would have produced co2 in the process of making them. BUT there are renewable sources of energy such as hydro, wind etc which in the long run will produce energy with waay less co2 produced than equivelent coal/fuel etc. hydro is abundant. there has been a breakthrough in wind trubine technology whiich is said to produce 100 times as much energy through same amount of wind thruogh electro magnetism reducing friction. its still in the production stages. but in the u.k there are literally millions of homes being powered my wind energy from find farms. so based on these new wind turbines producing whats expected, or atleast close, then in teh future if turbines are replaced (which i doubt wont happen for a while since they cost millions) then the u.k (population circa 60 milion) will be sufficient alone on just wind. harnessing power through renewable sources is constantly advancing. and through technology 230+mpg will be easily feasable with wayyyy less than50g of co2/km at some point in the future. maybe 10 years? anyways im rambling on. so the point is, perhaps you guys have missed the greater picture?


Edited by user on August 16, 2009 at 12:09 PM
carcrazy1234
August 11, 2009 11:09 PM
intriguing.... very.... intriguing.... LOL electricity is cheap is canada haha hydro dams everywhere haha we SELL our electricity cuz we have so much :P!! hollaa

potatonet
August 12, 2009 12:04 AM
I think everyone who gets excited about this car has missed the point.

GM is providing you with false hopes and dreams

IQ130
August 12, 2009 12:16 AM
In the Netherlands the CO2 number for the Toyota Prius is 89g/km CO2 and they made a calculation for an average electric car and came to 84g/km CO2. The Prius does 50 mpg according to EPA so an average electric car should do about 53mpg. So 230 mpg does not seem realistic or did they use electricity produced by windmills. I think the EPA needs to make new rules for electric cars.

zeniac
August 12, 2009 1:16 AM
What a joke! Can it time-travel?

EDavis
August 12, 2009 4:37 AM
For years people have begged for somebody, anybody, to build a 100mpg car.

GM [apparently] has finally built it.

And yet, some people actually want to complain about this.

Strange.

dcars62
August 12, 2009 4:54 AM
I think it's amazing, good work GM, best of luck with this car.

trekkerbin
August 12, 2009 5:12 AM
May I ask one question, what would happen if I don't charge it at all. Would it charge its own bettery during breaking or during during high speed cruising? Also, what's the miliage if you don't plug it in at all?


Edited by user on August 12, 2009 at 5:13 AM
potatonet
August 12, 2009 6:10 AM
It's not that we aren't excited, it's the fact that there are other cars that get similar mileage but have more power ( and I mean a lot more power) and cost the same amount. Please don't make silly comments supporting gm on this because this car and it's marketing tactics are not sustainable

richard_x
August 12, 2009 9:42 AM
My opinion is this is the car of the future comming in 2011, be aware with ten years from now everybody will own such a car, the fuel will be to expensive. Not that the fuel will run dry, its just that the oil industry will be making huge profit margins and therefor will be killing thereselfs.

acrane7073
August 12, 2009 10:26 AM
Also they forgot to leave out the fact that when you charge your electric car each night it uses ELECTRICITY, which you pay for. your just switching one fuel for another.

And it doesn't save much on pollution because in order to supply the extra electricity for your cars they power plant needs to burn more COAL, which pollutes more than the cars. RETARDED.

phobos
August 12, 2009 1:43 PM
geezzz... what's up with this negative attitude...cars ( fossil fuel ) are the biggest source of pollution in the planet..of course electric car doesn't solve the problem totally..but at least it will reduce the pollution until we can have hydrogen car or something else...be positive...

IQ130
August 12, 2009 6:23 PM
I think this is a great car but this number is just misleading. Genie said "In the US, on average producing 1 kWh of electricity generates 0.6kg of CO2." this is exactly the same as in the Netherlands, so a number around 50mpg in the current situation is more realistic. GM made a bright step with this car but the next step needs to be more green energy in order to get this fantastic 230mpg.

IQ130
August 12, 2009 10:14 PM
On the chevrolet website I found the following: "How about the petroleum equivalence factor (PEF), is that included? There will be on the label itself an accounting for the gasoline equivalent of KWH used. That’s a separate conversion that will get melded in another way and is not included in the MPG estimate."

This makes everything clear in this number 230MPG the electricity they used is not included. It was not even green energy they used it just came out of the air.

radmeister
August 13, 2009 1:23 PM
LOL Hydrogen fuel cell cars...That's like a battery really, in a way better for the environment than a battery because of no waste. But don't be fooled it's another way of storing potential energy. A power plant somewhere has to produce electricity the old fashioned way so that a "refinery" can produce the hydrogen and oxygen for you to fill your car up. Even with fuel cell cars you run into the same problem as petrol cars, the combustion engine is not that efficient and energy would be lost. I'm confused though about something, i didn't realize we had all that spare electricity for these cars to actually be successful, a nuclear power plant takes like 10-20 years to build, same with any real decent quality plant. I think this car is just a marketing ploy, to put GMs name out there. It's not real, nor does it do what they claim it does. Charging one of these bad boys is like 1.3 houses using 100amps. Most people in the world come home from work around the same time, so u add all that extra load on our grid, and well it's not going to take it. And if it will, well guess what now we screwed ourselves, the price of electricity will go up, so now we GGd ourselves because even at home we will have to pay more. At least with gasoline it's an isolated cost from your living.

View Comment Rules

Add Comment

You are modifying your comment

Exisiting User

Username
Password
remember me

New Users

Username
Email
Password
Comment

Your account

username
password

Other links