GM Confirms Chevy Volt to get 230 MPG
Add a Comment
Login
Comments (43)
scratchy996
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
August 11, 2009 3:25 pm
carcrazy1234
LMFAO that made my day hahah (plz WCF... stop deleting my comments :P its really annoying) lol
August 11, 2009 7:02 pm
klitemaster1000
if they bring this vehicle to Canada it'll only run for 2 miles instead of 40, with the weather they have here!
August 11, 2009 2:43 pm
Renegade
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.
August 11, 2009 3:00 pm
potatonet
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
August 11, 2009 3:02 pm
potatonet
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
August 11, 2009 3:10 pm
EDavis
Potatonet:
So um...what kind of mileage are you getting with YOUR Volt?
August 11, 2009 3:47 pm
wbizarre
http://money.cnn.com/2009/08/11/autos/volt_mpg/?postversion=2009081108
August 11, 2009 4:18 pm
dbehmoaras
Clearly they aren't lying or else they would get sued. The way I see it, less money to terrorism.
August 11, 2009 5:29 pm
Bristol411S3
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?
August 11, 2009 6:19 pm
dbehmoaras
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.
August 11, 2009 8:53 pm
car-o-bar
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.
August 11, 2009 6:18 pm
radmeister
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$. Which means that it would cost you the same as 0.7059 gallons of Diesel to get 40miles, which 40miles/0.7059= 56.66mpg. So the REALISTIC cost is the same as a diesel that gets 56.66mpg which there are tons of, and it's much faster to fill a tank with diesel, and u can get that MPG for more than 40 miles...So this car is bullcrap
August 11, 2009 6:52 pm
radmeister
The point? The point is electricity is neither free nor does it just appear. Most of our electricity is still produced by burning petro fuels, difference is that a power plant is more efficient at producing that power than your car is. You still get CO2 and nox gases and all that good stuff. As IQ130 said and if his data is accurate it pollutes as much as a 53mpg petrol car, as cost effective as a 56.66mpg diesel, so really what is so amazing or beneficial about it? It's all smoke, hiding the truth behind lies. I really wonder how many people will get fooled by this 230mpg, and later realize oops i forgot i have to pay for electricity. Then the people that think oh i can just put solar panels up on my house to charge it, or a windmill then everything is A-OK, only problem is 16kwh worth of wind turbines would be in the region of 50,000$ 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
August 11, 2009 8:43 pm
carbonsigma
radmeister, you have indeed missed the point. 230MPG if electricity was free? That doesn't make sense. Since when was any MPG free?
August 11, 2009 11:20 pm
genie
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.
August 12, 2009 2:46 am
super_car_muscle_man
@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?
August 16, 2009 8:06 am
carcrazy1234
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
August 11, 2009 7:09 pm
potatonet
I think everyone who gets excited about this car has missed the point.
GM is providing you with false hopes and dreams
August 11, 2009 8:04 pm
IQ130
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.
August 11, 2009 8:16 pm
EDavis
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.
August 12, 2009 12:37 am
trekkerbin
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?
August 12, 2009 1:12 am
potatonet
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
August 12, 2009 2:10 am
blog.whitesites.com
This is nothing more than a publicity stunt to get the stock price up. Depending on your local Utility company it costs more to charge the Volt than it does to buy gasoline. IF you want proof check out this link http://blog.whitesites.com/Chevy-Volt-Charging-Math-doesn-t-add-up__633585085743050177_blog.htm
August 12, 2009 5:00 am
richard_x
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.
August 12, 2009 5:42 am
