Filed under: Hybrids/Alternative, Green, Chevrolet, GM
Volt's EPA rating could be cut by new standards
EPA mileage estimates can be such fuzzy things when you're dealing with hybrid powertrains. We've seen plenty of contention already about real-world results versus EPA numbers for current hybrids, and Chevrolet's upcoming Volt has GM butting heads with the Feds over how the series hybrid eFlex powertrain should be rated. Because the Volt can cover about 40 miles before it needs to fire its range-extending internal combustion engine, it can breeze through the EPA's test cycle with the engine off for 85 percent of the time. With the engine running so little, the Volt could earn an EPA rating above 100 mpg, but the agency is not comfortable with that and wants to change the test for the Volt.
GM argues that altering the test in the way the EPA proposes -- requiring the Volt finish the test with batteries near full charge -- is unfair and won't reflect reality. Moreover, in everyday commuting, the Volt will be an electric car for its first 40 miles, not ever even firing its engine for drivers with commutes short enough or recharging ability at work. The EPA's motivation is to come up with a meaningful mileage rating for the Volt, which will ace the current test. If the Volt gets a rating that is artificially low because the EPA can't figure out a test that correlates to reality, it could also hurt the Volt's case with consumers looking at the $40,000 price tag next to numbers barely better than what a diesel or parallel hybrid can earn.
[Source: Motor Trend]
_opt_thumbnail.jpg)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
mike 9:08AM (9/08/2008)
Why not have 2 major ratings and two smaller ratings.
Rating one MPG City/Hway on gas engine
Rating two MPB (miles per full battery) City/Hway
GM always wants preferential treatment. GM reminds me of Obama, they feel they are entitled to everything.
Reply
Injected 9:20AM (9/08/2008)
No, you are terribly wrong. GM wants no preferential treatment just because the EPA has cold feet about putting a triple digit number on a window sticker even if that is the real world fuel economy people will most likely achieve.
This is why a treadmill test is the answer. The question then becomes what the treadmill course should be. A ten second acceleration to highway speed? What about cars that can't do that without flooring it? Essentially, there should be an agreed upon (as much as feasible) 'track' for city and another 'track' for highway cruising. Those numbers should be given and will reflect what a user will get with realistic acceleration and cruising. If the Volt can get 100+ mpg, give it that. If it gets unlimited (which is totally feasible in a short test), and the EPA has their panties in a wad, just put 'Not Applicable'. Really, you could buy a Volt and tear out the engine, giving it better range and infinite MPG of gas so long as you don't drive beyond it's new range.
Infinihertz 9:26AM (9/08/2008)
You had me up until you decided that spewing your political opinions was a good way to finish your post.
We're here to talk about cars (and trucks, crossovers, etc).
mike 9:26AM (9/08/2008)
@Injected
Look The EPA belongs to the PEOPLE, it's actions are meant to benefit society, not GM. They have to reason to screw GM, they just want to put a realistic number. Look one can argue that Volt has unlimited MPG if you constantly recharge it.
One thing we learned from this MPG fiasco is that people kept buying big SUVs and Hybrids on the assumption that they get much better MPGs. Which EPA KNEW were wrong. They made adjustments but people still not getting the same numbers they see on the window sticker. Plus it will benefit GM, people will buy Volt and if they will get the same MPGs in real life as it says on the sticker they will be satisfied. Unlike Prius owners who feel screwed.
PJ 9:35AM (9/08/2008)
Agreed on your methodology, mike. City/Hwy with a full charge, City/Hwy with no charge, then an average of the two.
Butting heads with bureaucracy is inevitable when you're introducing a new drive system. Anyway, I'm just glad GM is finding out what it's like to be an innovator.
AngeloD 11:38AM (9/08/2008)
""Look The EPA belongs to the PEOPLE, it's actions are meant to benefit society, not GM""
Absolute B.S.
The EPA is there to benefit itself and the environmental wackos who determine it's rule making via court suits.
If the EPA was concerned about the American people they would have stopped mandating MTBE additive in gasoline long before they finally did. As a result of theur focus only on their own narrow air quality goals to the exclusion of any and all common sense or decency our ground water is now widely contaminated with this potent carcinogen.
Graham 12:20PM (9/08/2008)
This is a stupid proposal. That wouldn't make sense to the consumer.
They should just calculate how much energy the Volt uses while conducting the test. That would be the sum of gas energy and battery energy. Then convert that back to a number of gallons since the energy per gallon of gasoline is relatively fixed (don't assume using ethanol).
Even this is slightly unfair since the cost of electric energy might be a bit lower or higher than the cost of gas energy depending on what your local utility company charges per kilowatt hour. At least it would be a step in the right direction.
As for Obama feeling "entitled" ... that just shows your ignorance of facts. I read somewhere that when Obama applied to Harvard law school, he didn't even check the box that said "African-American" because he didn't want preferential treatment.
mike 1:41PM (9/08/2008)
@ Angelo D
EPA wanted to kill MTBE LONG ago, i hate to bring politics into this again but Bush and Republicans from oil states (all allow using MTBE) made sure EPA does not touch the issue.
Non oil states have long banned MTBE, it is poisonus, without a doubt.
zamafir 9:10AM (9/08/2008)
what what what? New EPA standards moderate BS? Maybe that explains why I'm seeing high forties and low 50s in the new jetta diesel on all freeway trips.
Reply
Neil Schelly 9:13AM (9/08/2008)
GM's really just got to market this right. They shouldn't be depending on EPA ratings here, because there are going to be people who get nearly infinite gas mileage with a Volt and there will be people who spend a lot of time running the engine for one reason or another. Ultimately, there will be different mileage ratings for different people and they've just got to sell it that way. It's unique (for now), which makes it a marketing opportunity, not a drawback.
-N
Reply
mike 9:14AM (9/08/2008)
You honestly don't think GM will screw this up?
Red 9:31AM (9/08/2008)
I agree with Neil Schelly,
GM shouldn't rely on the EPA's test methods. The point is, the cost of charging the Volt is only cents per mile. That's a HUGE difference from Prius drivers still paying dollars per gallon per mile. If the EPA wants to screw with their testing, I'd fire back and hammer home the fact that if you drive less than 40 miles everyday or can charge your car, you're going to pay hundreds, if not thousands of dollars less per year than a comparable gasoline or hybrid vehicle (i.e. Prius). The car will appeal to people that live in the city and suburban areas of the country. These are the same people that fly to their long-distance destinations (for vacations, family reunions, etc) rather than drive. These are the same people who more than likely own another vehicle for longer commutes and to them, the EPA rating on the Volt won't even matter versus the amount of money they'd be keeping in their wallets over driving the other vehicle(s) in their garage/driveway.
The only real problem is, the Volt doesn't make sense at $40,000. It makes sense at $30,000. Maybe. Maybe even $35,000. But anything more than that and it's difficult to justify the initial expense.
Goat Law 10:39AM (9/08/2008)
Uh, Hate to break it to you Red, but there isn't a car I know out there that costs more than cents per mile to fuel. The Prius, if you assume $4 gas and 40mpg, both realistic, only costs 10 cents per mile, and even at 8 mpg, you are looking at 50 cents per mile. It would take an abysmal 4mpg to get to a dollar a mile.
Red 11:41AM (9/08/2008)
@ Goat Law,
Cents per mile: http://blog.pricewheels.com/2008/09/04/the-real-cost-of-driving-a-tesla-roadster/
Andre 2:35PM (9/08/2008)
GM can't use non-EPA fuel economy figures. It's a law, and it's the same problem that Toyota ran into with the Prius.
Alex 9:13AM (9/08/2008)
Regardless of what the EPA rates the vehicle's performance, all Volt commercials will be telling you a million time sover the the Volt will go 40 miles without ever clicking the engine on.
Reply
2004m3driver 12:08PM (9/08/2008)
People keep throwing this 40miles per charge number around, but no one keeps in mind what kind of driving habits you need to achieve that. Lead foots would get a bit less I would imagine. Still better than everything else out there now though.
TBlueMax 9:13AM (9/08/2008)
"GM argues that altering the test in the way the EPA proposes -- requiring the Volt [to] finish the test with batteries near full charge..."
Certainly makes you wonder if the EPA requires gas-powered cars to complete the EPA test with a full tank of gas?
Reply
Dylan 10:02AM (9/08/2008)
It doesn't matter, the volt is a failed idea from the beginning and any other time than now people may not notice it but with the economy as it is, people will.
Although they're marketing it as an environmentally saving car, the reality is, people are looking at it to not spend money on gas by buying it so let’s look at that. Take the most fuel efficient non-hybrid car, the smart fortwo. The car costs $12,000, gets 33mpg city and has an 8.7gal tank meaning you can get 287 miles out of it on a fill up that will cost you about $40.50 currently. Giving the advantage to the Volt, say I only want to drive 40 miles per day so you would never have to buy gas for it. At 40 grand, I would have to own the car for 14 years to see any savings money wise vs. buying the smart fortwo. Granted the fortwo doesn't seat more than two people and is ugly as all hell but the fact remains, the Volt has become simply a marketing campaign for gm to show that they're still on top of what’s deemed important to consumers, even though those that are willing to spend 40 grand on a car could give less of a SH$& about gas prices.
LMBVette 10:32AM (9/08/2008)
@Dylan
The Volt isn't a failed idea, it's mostly likely the first step to a complete makeover of the auto-industry as we know it.
10 years from now all vehicles may be PHEV like the Volt and prices will be quite less than the first generation.
Sort of like when the first VCR or first DVD players came out. They were around a thousand dollars or more. Now you can buy either one for $40.