Chevy Volt and 230 mpg: Negative reactions abound, but not from Bob Lutz
GM CEO Fritz Henderson was all smiles when he announced the Chevy Volt's 230 mpg city rating yesterday. But the Internet digested the news in its own way, and there was some understandable confusion and criticism of the very big, very bold mpg claim. While the EPA put a damper on GM's numbers, that was mostly a way to say that it's too early to tell. GM representatives made it clear that they don't see the 230 number as unrealistic or setting Volt fans up for disappointment when the agency finally gets to test actual vehicles sometime next year. However, others were less diplomatic.
Darryl Siry, EV aficionado and former CMO at Tesla, was quick to call the 230 number "unrealistic," adding that, "the problem is that anytime you try to get to 'miles per gallon' using vehicles that don't necessary use 'gallons' you end up in a very strange debate with very strange outcomes." Indeed. Siry made sure to say that it's the EPA method (still in development, and one we don't know much about yet) and not only GM that's to blame here.
Over on What is 230?, someone who claims to be a "GM employee who works directly with people who work on the Volt" wrote in to say that the number is a "mis-leading gimmick of a marketing tactic."
In the least surprising response, Bob Lutz has nothing but good stuff to say about the 230 campaign and the rating. He says the hype was made "For one simple reason: We're proud of it."
[Source: Darryl Siry, What is 230?]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 4)
Martin 2:38PM (8/12/2009)
All I'm hearing is pissing and moaning from the other makers because they didn't expect this. GM knocked this one out of park, get over it and build something that's better than it. Bunch of titty babies I swear.
Reply
mapoftazifosho 2:45PM (8/12/2009)
Oh, So they're producing this car and I can go buy my Chevy Volt right now?
The Volt could be a great car, but at this time it is nothing but vaporware...
I am not proud to work for GM right now...
DayShifter 2:55PM (8/12/2009)
@mapoftazifosho
You don't think someone at GM said "You know guys, this is going to cause a big stir"
It's marketing..... that was the point. And it worked, for the past couple of days people have been talking about this 230 est. Most knowledgeable people in the business knew this and are just looking for the nicest way to say "boooooo" Because if they produce the same type of vehicle, use the same EPA standard, would come up with a similar number.
Maybe GM isn't the company for you!!
luiscor 3:17PM (8/12/2009)
can you read? when they get to test actual vehicles!!!
many euro and japanese companies claim high mpg but later fall short when they are actually tested. How can they declare mpg without really testing an actual car? its reason like this that makes makes people suspicious.
its not foreign or domestic its about fluffing the truth.
Alex 3:17PM (8/12/2009)
@ mapoftazifosho
We get it, you hate GM and the Volt. But for the love of God can you stop using the term vaporware? Vaporware refers to products that are promoted or marketed while they are still in development and that may never be produced. The Volt *is* coming. It will be released in 2010 as a 2011 model.
Every car manufacturer promotes and markets cars in advance of their release. Remember when Mini came back in 2000? Before you could buy one, there was billboards, internet advertisements, promotions and all the rest trumping up the coming of the new Mini. Its called hype and every company with a product to sell uses it.
mitchw 3:52PM (8/12/2009)
MPG is just not the right measurement anymore. It's like measuring standard cars by the amount of oats one would have had to feed a horse. The electrical energy that gets charged into the VOLT doesn't even have a reliable carbon footprint, since nuclear and solar don't directly make CO2. And the gas you put into your car today might have been derived from bitumen in Canada, where it has to be cooked with Natural Gas first.
But given today's culture, we're suckers for controversy. Hopefully GM will be able to finesse the mileage question before it messes up the VOLT brand.
Alex 3:52PM (8/12/2009)
"Bunch of titty babies I swear."
for a second I thought I read "BRUNCH of titty babies.."
none the less I agree.
Anti-believer 3:56PM (8/12/2009)
@martin
bullsh!t
GM is lying. 230 per gallon? Yeah right! We're talkiing about bunch a-hole who went bankrupt with gas guzzlers, all of sudden have a 230 per gallon engine.
GM is full of sh!t.
Martin, you're nothing but gulliable big breasted cheerleader!
Judy Zik 4:01PM (8/12/2009)
The number is silly. I can't hop into a Volt and drive 460miles on just 2 gallons of gas. Therefore it is totally misleading. It also completely leaves out the cost of electricity. Leaving customers lost in more FUD on a product most of them already don't understand. Another great "Reinvention" except this time it is the truth they are reinventing. For a company desperate to earn back some credibility this is one of the dumbest moves every. Just wait till they hit the roads and the internet fills with people reporting on just how much gas a Volt actually uses on a 230 mile road trip. Then there will be the just how far a Volt actually goes on one gallon of gas. That picture of Fritz standing infront of the 230 sign is going to end up in the hall of blunders right beside the George W "Mission Accomplished" banner pic.
TranceMaster 5:27PM (8/12/2009)
look its unrealistic because your millage will vary considerably. the best way to report this number is to list it as 2 numbers. one for total gas motor in mpg, the other for the electric motor using kWh. then its easier to tell what you are going to achieve.
Paul 11:14PM (8/12/2009)
Two things:
First, GM has "plants" who are posting here. Guess who they are.
Second, this is another example of why their ad agency, Campbell Ewald, is the worst in the US. Creating an entire campaign around a number that is virtually impossible to replicate and guaranteed to spark debate about GM's record of over-promising (again, C-E) is sheer marketing stupidity.
I was excited about this car but now I'm just feeling like it's all bull***t.
glasses 4:16PM (9/22/2009)
You sir, are a neanderthal. Surely, you cannot believe this claim? Then again, since you have the brain of a neanderthal, I shouldn't be surprised if you DID believe it.
woootles 2:46PM (8/12/2009)
Anyone who works or worked at Tesla sure are whiners.
That said, I'm cautious on believing that 230mpg claim myself, but I'll be rooting for them anyways.
Reply
Big Mola 2:45PM (8/12/2009)
Anonymous "insider" and GM's competitors? (roll eyes)
Reply
Taglane 3:05PM (8/12/2009)
SURE the dude works for GM.... sure he does....
MoonRover 3:12PM (8/12/2009)
I noticed that, what a crock of sh*t.
sunz 2:48PM (8/12/2009)
I bet the method to get here goes something like this.
EPA decied that they would calculate based on average trip distance and came to some number like 50mp"trip". The volt gets what 40 or 45 miles before needing gas so it used a fraction of a gallon for the remaining 5 or 10 miles. Based on that the gallon would last x amount of full trips. lets say the gallon lasted 5 trips. well 5 trips is 250miles and it used only 1 gallon of gas to achieve that...
What do you guys think?
-sun
Reply
Chris 3:01PM (8/12/2009)
Agreed.
Real world Fuel Economy could be all over the place. Short enough trips between charges and you could get infinite MPG. Long road trips and your fuel economy would probably be much much lower.
With a vehicle as such, MPG really doesnt apply.
Lemon 3:17PM (8/12/2009)
That may be a simple explanation of the test, but basically I think that you're exactly right. I think that the EPA found a distance that is most typical for a city driving situation in America and will be testing cars at that distance in common city situations.
So, while each individual's driving distance and therefore fuel economy will vary, the EPA is trying to get the mean value for city fuel economy. It's as simple as that.
When the highway mileage is released, there will be a good representation of what the Volt will get for extended trips. This number will likely be much lower than 230.
EXP Jawa 3:28PM (8/12/2009)
What he said - with this sort of car, MPG doesn't apply. The EPA is trying to fit a square peg into a round hole so that average buyers have a handy comparison metric. But that metric doesn't work with this application nicely. It seems to me that they need to devise an alternate comparison tool to compliment MPG ratings. Something that reflects the energy required to operate a vehicle, from both converting fossil fuel and from tapping into the power grid.