• Jul 17, 2012
According to those old Trident commercials, four out of five dentists recommended sugarless gum for patients who chewed gum. Well, here's something a bit greener to chew on, General Motors says this: almost two out of every three miles driven in a Chevrolet Volt are battery-powered.

That's what the official Chevrolet website dedicated to the extended-range plug-in is calculating. The spinning meter (you can kill some valuable time watching it) says Volt drivers have cumulatively tallied just over 100-million miles (the data is constantly updated, live, from the cars out there). Out of those, over 63 million were powered from electricity, as opposed to the gas that's used to power the car's on-board generator once the juice runs out.

The upshot, according to Chevy, is that Volt drivers have saved 3.32 million gallons of fuel compared to all-gas driving. At today's fuel prices, that adds up to about $10 million, according to AAA's latest gas-price survey. GM is looking to further generate sales momentum for the Volt. Model sales through the first half of the year totaled 8,817 units, or about 1,100 more than Chevy sold all of last year.


I'm reporting this comment as:

Reported comments and users are reviewed by Autoblog staff 24 hours a day, seven days a week to determine whether they violate Community Guideline. Accounts are penalized for Community Guidelines violations and serious or repeated violations can lead to account termination.


    • 1 Second Ago
  • 141 Comments
      PeterScott
      • 2 Years Ago
      It is pretty sad that running cars on domestic energy (Electricity comes from domestic Natural gas, coal, Hydro, Nuclear) brings out the moron dittohead attacks. A sure fire way to prove you are incapable of independent thought, regurgitate Rush, or the Nitwits on Fox "news". Back in reality: Even in the worse state in the land, running on electricity is still cleaner than driving a Chev Malibu or Ford Fusion (to say nothing of driving an SUV). For the US aggregate grid, it is more than twice as clean to drive an EV, than than gas powered cars like the above. I am so sick of Fox-tards substituting their politics for science.
        • 2 Years Ago
        @PeterScott
        [blocked]
          dfarleydds
          • 2 Years Ago
          You should wake up and quit acting like a Zombie to the left. Prius did it right, GM did'nt!
          • 2 Years Ago
          [blocked]
          • 2 Years Ago
          [blocked]
        ianw33
        • 2 Years Ago
        @PeterScott
        i am "on the right" politically, but i am eager to see electric vehicles work. With that said though, there isnt much of a "real" market for them. There are tax breaks, etc. to supliment the cost of an electric, which is still pretty expensive for most people. Secondly, the whole range thing is an issue. Not many people want to drive 30-300 miles (leaf range to tesla model s range) then sit over night for a recharge, then continue on the next day. The volt has a leg up on the competition due to the range extending capability, but it also has the $$ issue. What electric/extended range electric cars need to do to be truely successful is: 1. Cost somewhere close to ICE cars, $25k give or take. 2. Fast and easily available recharge options. 30 mins or less for recharge with lots of places to do so. 3. Have sales results that don't rely on tax breaks to stimulate sales. I look forward to tech like to volt expanding and becoming more affordable/usable, but right now these cars do not make sense for the majority of car buyers.
          A P
          • 2 Years Ago
          @ianw33
          Nice post. I love how the lefties stereotype all day long....scratch a lefty and you find a bigot.
      TrueDat
      • 2 Years Ago
      cool.. where did that power come from, again? oh that's right.. fossil fuels.. so it really doesn't mean **** then, is what you're getting at..
        merlot066
        • 2 Years Ago
        @TrueDat
        Coal only accounts for 36% of electricity production in the US. Not to mention the markets where the majority of these cars sold are powered almost entirely by either clean burning natural gas or completely renewable electricity. There are a lot more hydroelectric plants in the US than people realize.
          PeterScott
          • 2 Years Ago
          @merlot066
          Coal dropped to only 32% this year. It is falling every year. http://bundupower.co.za/news/coal-share-of-us-power-drops-to-32-eskom-at-92-businesslive/
        tecmec
        • 2 Years Ago
        @TrueDat
        Except a large coal power plant is still way more efficient than thousands of little (by comparison) internal combustion engines. Look it up, idiot.
          tyler
          • 2 Years Ago
          @tecmec
          Typical pulverized-coal power plant efficiency: 33%. Fuel source: United States Typical natural gas combined cycle power plant efficiency: 50%. Fuel source: United States Nuclear power: no carbon emissions. Hydroelectric power: no carbon emissions. That covers about 95% of the electrical energy put into a Chevrolet Volt in the United States.
          TrueDat
          • 2 Years Ago
          @tecmec
          yes i know, but that's not the point. even if every car on the road was a Volt, it still wouldn't save the planet. while tech like this is cool and a good start, it's not good enough. if we are serious about reducing emissions, then we shouldn't be getting so excited about cars that are powered by fossil fuels like coal and oil. cars like the Volt serve as bridge to what's next, and nothing more. it's not THE answer, even though GM is branding it as such, and it's important people recognize that.
        D
        • 2 Years Ago
        @TrueDat
        A lot of the power where I live comes from dams so, yeah it does mean ****. It means you're an idiot.
        kontroll
        • 2 Years Ago
        @TrueDat
        hey asswipe...my neighbor has a Volt and powers it entirely from the photo voltaic panels on his roof...you MORON idiot with your republican POS thinking
          A P
          • 2 Years Ago
          @kontroll
          Listen Lefty, quit stereotyping.....you are doing EXACTLY what the Left accuses the right of doing......not everybody that watches Fox (you must HATE that it is the #1 news site) hates electric cars or loves buying oil from the middle east. You are such a bigot.
        • 2 Years Ago
        @TrueDat
        [blocked]
      Super D Spamalot
      • 2 Years Ago
      The US uses nearly 10 million gallons of gasoline a day. So by flooding a market that didn't want them in the first place with thousands upon thousands of batteries that are eco-damaging to build and even more eco-damaging to dispose of, they've managed to put a statistically insignificant dent into the yearly use of fossil fuels in the US. That was millions of research dollars well spent, gents. Good job. Maybe next time you should just take your research budget and just flush it directly into the toilet for all the good it's done the problem.
        MONTEGOD7SS
        • 2 Years Ago
        @Super D Spamalot
        You need to turn off Faux News for awhile. As a libertarian I wholeheartedly approve of the Volt, and look forward to how far the technology will be pushed with alternative forms of onboard generation such as fuel cells, solar, diesel, etc. No one car will reduce our dependency on oil enough to matter, but as a combined whole with enough of them out there it can. If you keep saying no to everything new, then sell whatever car you currently drive and start riding a horse.
          Super D Spamalot
          • 2 Years Ago
          @MONTEGOD7SS
          I've never watched a single minute of Fox News, actually. Nor am I even a conservative. I'm not even an American. Thanks though, I appreciate the effort. I'm sure being that closed minded and cynical is intellectually taxing for you. Maybe try to form your next counter argument based on facts and information rather then mindless conjecture? Battery technology never should have even been considered for real vehicles. Current battery technology is just not good enough. It never has been and it still hasn't after years and years of companies wasting millions trying to get it done. If you can't charge a battery in 2 minutes and get a 500 mile range out a battery small enough to fit in a small car yet not sacrifice safety, performance and storage then it's not worthwhile. It just isn't. You can say that it is all you want, but it's a waste of time and should be relegated for use in tiny, personal transport like scooters and segways. Fuel Cell technology and Hydrogen technology however are were this money and time SHOULD have gone. If it had, the problem would be well on it's way to being solved. Battery powered cars are a red herring. They're a way to distract people and make them feel good about themselves while oil companies continue to make billions at the expense of the planet. Saying that you approve of the volt, or any battery powered car means you've fallen for it. Battery tech has improved, but it's still being misapplied. Misapplications of technology can never be called stepping stones unless you're talking about going backwards. When the day comes that someone releases a compact battery that can power a laptop 24 hours a day for a month that can be charged from empty to full in 2 minutes, then we can consider battery power for engines. Until that day it's just a huge waste of time and resources.
          TrueDat
          • 2 Years Ago
          @MONTEGOD7SS
          while the VOlt is a good place to start, it is still 100% powered by fossil fuels. in the end, when the battery factories are built, batteries are made and transported to assembly plants, used, and finally disposed of, the end result isn't very much different from that of a 40 mpg car. net contribution of CO2 still isn't being reduced enough to even begin to notice a difference. however, like you said, if we can take this tech to the next level using fuel cells and other self-staining fuel technologies (whatever those will be in 10 years), then this is something that could really take off. because having that "back-up" of gasoline is quite attractive to consumers.
        carboy55
        • 2 Years Ago
        @Super D Spamalot
        Oh good lord. So now it's okay to buy 60" plasma TVs, throwaway appliances and gas guzzling trucks and SUVs, but we're "concerned" about the "eco-damage" of batteries? Here's one for you, Einstein: How many oil, air and gas filters get thrown away each year in the US? Then add belts, anti-freeze and transmission fluid. You want to cry about "eco-damage?" My LEAF uses none of that nasty crap, and it doesn't have a tailpipe either. Idiot.
          Justin
          • 2 Years Ago
          @carboy55
          I'm not pro- or anti- electric car, but this puts things in perspective. http://theweek.com/article/index/216263/are-electric-cars-actually-bad-for-the-environment
          Super D Spamalot
          • 2 Years Ago
          @carboy55
          Battery technology is fine when used for things that batteries should be used for. I never said one single thing about televisions and appliances (Very few of which run on batteries, by the way. Also, they usually arn't cars as well.... So you may have lost the plot, I think.) I don't recall ever saying that ICE powered cars are better then battery powered cars either. I think their time has long come and gone, we should have moved on gasoline decades ago. Could it be that maybe thinking battery powered cars are a waste of time doesn't mean that I think ICE is the be all end all of transportation technology? Also, I don't think you've considered that at the end of the day, your Leaf is still a car and will end up in a junk heap one day, oil filters or not. And that huge ass battery will be costly and dangerous to dispose of. Your hands arn't clean either my friend, so get down off your high horse.
          axiomatik
          • 2 Years Ago
          @carboy55
          Spamalot All of your posts seem to be general arguments against any sort of research and development. Should the Wright brothers given up on the airplane because the first flight was only 120 feet and lasted 12 seconds? That is worse than a hot air balloon in every conceivable measure. What a waste of time! The first bicycles weighed 50 pounds, were made of wood and iron, and were called "boneshakers" because the ride was so harsh. Why not just ride a horse? Without the first steps of development, there can be no progress. What miracle fuel source are you waiting for to wean us off petroleum? Some sort of wonder-power that is instantly inexpensive, instantly better than petroleum in every way, instantly clean and recyclable. Oh, and another requirement is that you have to be able to build it from materials gathered in your back yard, since you are so intensely concerned about the supply chain of batteries, but apparently not at all concerned about the supply chain of every other thing you purchase. While you are typing long posts on Autoblog, waiting for your wonder fuel source, other people are actually hard at work trying to develop and improve the technologies to wean us off oil.
        • 2 Years Ago
        @Super D Spamalot
        [blocked]
          TrueDat
          • 2 Years Ago
          " I studied chemical engineering for 4 years" aaaand the bias' finally revealed... no wonder your so happy slappy about the volt, you jerk off with battery acid and decorate your cmas tree with DD's...
          Super D Spamalot
          • 2 Years Ago
          1) Do you know how batteries are made? Where all the materials come from? Especially the large ones put into cars? I suggest you read up on it. 2) Of course they can be recycled. I think you'll find though that most forms of recycling for most items actually causes more pollution then would be saved by just making a whole new one. You're right though, maybe car batteries will be different... Except, since they're basically big laptop batteries, and laptop battery recycle is neither cheap or terribly cost effective, be prepared for huge stories about old car batteries being dumped somewhere by unethical companies. Just sayin' is all. Thank you for your well reasoned and intelligent rebuttal. I will cherish it always.
          • 2 Years Ago
          [blocked]
          Super D Spamalot
          • 2 Years Ago
          Well Nick, I'm quite pleased to hear that you're highly educated. We need more people like you in the world. Now if you could just work on your level of discourse, you'd be all set. No sense being smart if you come across dumber then a bag of rocks. Now then, since being a chemical engineer clearly doesn't include a unit on reading comprehension, let's go over that. I acknowledged that batteries can be recycled, and you shot back with "THE CONTRACTS, OH GOD THE CONTRACTS!"... Yes, I am aware that they have plans in place. What I'm saying that you're not getting is that all the contracts in the world won't ensure that it's done properly. Everything is more profitable when it's done half-assed, and recycling companies are no exception to this rule. Second, I never said one word about batteries being toxic. I didn't even consider they might be. What's horribly inefficient and polluting about battery constuction is the methods used to extract the materials, ship the materials and assemble the materials. You're aware of the existence of supply chains, yeah? I think you'd probably be surprised at the steps needed to put all this stuff together. As many people commenting on this story have correctly mentioned, the coal plants providing the power to charge these batteries are way cleaner then they used to be, but the mining operations and shipping operations needed to create them are not. They're more polluting then ever. All I'm saying here is that as a sustainable step forward as a replacement for fossil fuels, batteries fail on almost every conceivable metric. As a "green" alternative, they fail in worse. So why bother? You guys can insult me all you want, but none of you have provided an actual argument to prove why spending time and money on battery research was worth it over other avenues.
          axiomatik
          • 2 Years Ago
          Oh my god, spamalot. So many words saying so little. Why are you so worried about battery supply chains? And what is it about batteries specifically? What is the supply chain for the gasoline/diesel you currently use to fill your car? I live in America, so there's a good chance a portion of it was drilled and pumped from the Gulf of Mexico, from an oil platform floating 5,000 feet off the seabed. A large portion of it probably came from Canada, strip-mined from tar sands and then boiled to extract the petroleum. A portion of it was probably drilled in Venezuela and shipped a thousand miles or so to a refinery in Texas. A portion of it probably came from the Middle East, and shipped 12,000 miles to get here. And that supply chain comes into play every single time I put gas in my car, every 2 weeks. 26 times a year. Now, for an electric car, the battery is built once, and then shipped to the factory that assembles the car. So tell me, which supply chain has more impact, the one that is used once per car, or the one that is used 300 times per car?
          Super D Spamalot
          • 2 Years Ago
          I appreciate your discourse, Axiom. It's far better then pretty much everyone else on these boards. You also make good points that I can agree with. Like the rest of the people who commented, however, your counter argument is predicated on assumptions that I feel I've adequately squashed. So let's be clear here: I am -NOT- a proponent of ICE technology extending into the far future. I greatly dislike the fact that ICE is still the way it's done in 2012. It's ancient, dirty, inefficient and expensive to maintain. I'm not a fan and it needs to go. So that should get rid of all the "Well current cars are just as bad or worse!!!! OMG!!!" retorts, yeah? I argue against battery electric vehicles because of the reasons that have been used to explain why they're so important. People say they're an alternative to ICE.. They're just not. People say they're greener... Only in the sense that it's slightly less polluting then ICE in grand picture. Had they just come out and say "Look, we're lazy and cheap and don't want future tech cutting into our profits, so here is a car powered by a laptop battery" then I would have just laughed and moved on. This crap is legitimately stolen time and resources from future tech, though. I guess if you don't see that it's fine, but again, why take such a hostile tone against my opinion? I wish every single disposable dollar that every government had went towards science, education and research, but because I have well reasoned (And they are well reasoned, just because you disagree doesn't mean my opinions don't have merit) opinions for why battery electric cars are a waste of time I'm against progress? What a disgraceful argument. Second, I'm arguing that the effort and money spent on battery tech for cars was misplaced and took away from research that could have actually solved the problem instead of putting a very expensive band-aid on it. You're all missing the point that yes, hydrogen and fuel cell tech isn't ready yet, but only because nobody is flogging it. Imagine if GM put as much time, effort and money into making the Hy-wire work as opposed to the Volt? Everything would be different, and we'd be on our way to cutting out fossil fuels completely. We likely wouldn't be there, but it would be within our grasp. This is the last post I'm going to make on the subject. History will prove me wrong or right accordingly. I just wish this could have been a discussion instead of a pissing contest. Alot of you people need to examine what intellectual, reasoned discourse can do for sharing ideas.
        icon149
        • 2 Years Ago
        @Super D Spamalot
        Super D Spamalot... you are the reason the US is losing it's edge. Thanks for being worthless.
          Super D Spamalot
          • 2 Years Ago
          @icon149
          First off, not an American, so I could not care less about your "edge". Second. If you think battery powered cars are the key to the revival of the American dream you've either been living with substantially large blinders on, or you just have no idea what you're talking about. I'll bet on the latter.
        Val
        • 2 Years Ago
        @Super D Spamalot
        Only a complete retard can say that oil companies are somehow pushing battery tech, since there is factual historic evidence that chevron bought patents for NiMH batteries and banned their use on cars. Meanwhile, you have to be even more retarded to say that hydrogen is the answer, when the biggest proponent for hydrogen are the oil companies, who will just replace one pump with another. Hydrogen is made from natural gas, in a way that is no more efficient than just burning the natural gas in an ICE engine, costing a fraction of the cost of a fuel cell and tank. And you don't have to spend trillions on a hydrogen infrastructure. All the hydrogen stations have some funny logo on them, like BP, Shell, Agip, Total etc, nice little companies that just happen to deal mostly with oil. And don't bother with the pipe-dream that hydrogen is renewable if it is made from solar or wind, if electric cars are charged with coal, as you claim, then the hydrogen will also be made from coal. At a huge loss of energy. The FEARS you have that batteries will not be recycled properly, despite the contracts, are no more substantial than the fears that hydrogen cars will explode all the time, especially at recharging stations, fears that fuel cells will be stolen for the platinum in them, fears that lead acid batteries are not properly recycled, fears that engine oil is not properly recycled and discarded etc.
      dfarleydds
      • 2 Years Ago
      they(Goverment Motors ) sold 168 in june, at real cost of $250,000 per car. This involved support by the goverment to build the batteries in South Korea, rebates of 7,500, and the Government forcing GMC to build them. Where's the logic on this goverment Fiasco? Sounds like Solydra on steriods.
        kontroll
        • 2 Years Ago
        @dfarleydds
        people like you shoiuld have their balls (if you even have any) connected to the battery of their prius or leaf
        kontroll
        • 2 Years Ago
        @dfarleydds
        hey uneducated and uninformed moron...the prius and the Leaf **** gets the same rebate and those are **** asian POS subsidized with my own tax money... if anything makes me sick is that i support the asian car industry. It is VERY VERY sickening and dumb un-american people like you are outright inducing vomit
          dfarleydds
          • 2 Years Ago
          @kontroll
          Moron, I have two degrees and I am very informed. I've been watching the GM mess since Obama took over the industry and turned it over to the Union. Chrysler and Fiat have to buy out the unions to complete their take over, have you seen what Gm is worth? The US will lose at least $50 Billion dollars when do sell GM.
          • 2 Years Ago
          @kontroll
          [blocked]
        • 2 Years Ago
        @dfarleydds
        [blocked]
          • 2 Years Ago
          [blocked]
        Sir Duke
        • 2 Years Ago
        @dfarleydds
        http://media.gm.com/media/us/en/gm/news.detail.html/content/Pages/news/us/en/2012/Jul/gmsales.html He was correct in calling you a moron, because you state figures which are not based in fact. If you are not a moron, then you are a LIAR, you choose. The link I provided you with is public record. That is, if you even want the FACTS. In June of 2012 Chevrolet sold 1,760 Volts not 168 jackass. The FACTS are out there. The stupid Iraq war, though technically over, is costing us about a Solyndra per month just caring for the wounded soldiers and paying them permanent disability pensions. That is if you want to compare poor decisions side by side.
      • 2 Years Ago
      [blocked]
        carboy55
        • 2 Years Ago
        Let me school the flat earth society members here. Even an electric car that is 100% powered by coal-fired electricity creates significantly less CO2 than a car that gets 25 mpg. Like 60% better. And that isn't factoring in the nasty diesel big rigs that have to trasport fuel. Everyone got it now? Good. Now get back in tour Hummers and STFU.
          • 2 Years Ago
          @carboy55
          [blocked]
          A_Guy
          • 2 Years Ago
          @carboy55
          @Nick: Thanks for the snarky comment, but I didn't ask you. Raise your hand next time if you have something to say and maybe I'll call on you for input. :)
          A_Guy
          • 2 Years Ago
          @carboy55
          I have heard this too, but I think many (including myself) would appreciate if you had a link that backs up that claim. I'd like to educate myself on the topic as I like the Volt and it's technology.
          The Wasp
          • 2 Years Ago
          @carboy55
          @Nick Coincidentally, you could also raise your hand to indicate that you're an a-hole.
      Tone
      • 2 Years Ago
      Vaporware. /sarc
      PeterScott
      • 2 Years Ago
      So many ridiculous arguments in this thread: #1: Crunching the numbers, total cost of ownership is cheaper for a compact gas car: True, But If we all ran spreadsheets to determine which car to buy, we would all be driving a Toyota Yars, or Hyundai Accent, preferable purchased used. But if you look around most people prefer to spend more, to get something they enjoy more. So there is nothing wrong to spend more, to get an electric. Why the sudden problem with how other people spend their money? Why is buying a $35K EV worse than buying a $35K crossover? #2: Electricity comes from coal, so electric miles are worse than gas miles. Untrue. The US electric grid is getting cleaner every year. In 2012, only 32% comes from coal. Running a LEAF/Volt on US grid electricity is now cleaner than any gas powered car, even a Prius. Let alone the average car which uses twice as much gas as Prius. #3: You don't like the Volt, because of the Automotive bailouts. This seems to be real driver of all the arguments: Politics. People think the Volt is somehow the poster child of their political opponents. But a couple of reality checks, the Volt was started during a republican administration and finished during a democratic one. The Auto bailouts were started during a republican admin, finished during a democratic one. The auto bailouts had bipartisan support and likely saved one of the few remaining US manufacturing industries from total collapse. Playing political football on this one, is just silly. Focusing your misplaced political ire on one car, even sillier. Now real positives to Consider. *Domestic fuel EVs Burn Domestic fuel, not foreign petroleum that contributes to the trade deficit. Electricity comes from Domestic Natural Gas, Domestic Coal, Domestic Hydro Dams and Domestic Nuclear power plants. *Much cleaner EVs are not only cleaner overall, even including the power plant emissions, but they produce Zero emissions in town. Imagine if you could take all car emissions and move them to power plants located outside city limits, imagine how much cleaner city air would be. Benefits quality of life, lifespan, healthspan, lower medical costs. Heck they also reduce another often overlooked pollutant: Brake dust. With good regen, there will be much less friction braking and much less brake dust in our atmosphere. *More gas for you Even if YOU don't like electrics, you should applaud other people buying them, because more gas for you. I hate riding the bus, but I fully support public transit because it saves more gas for me and reduces traffic for me. So again what is the problem? When reality enters the picture, it is hard to find any factually sound reasons for the hate some people heap on the Volt. It is built in the USA, runs on USA sourced fuel, it is better for the environment, and any politics surrounding it, is largely bipartisan. IMO EVs like the Volt and Teslas should be considered patriot mobiles, built in USA, running on US Fuel.
        A P
        • 2 Years Ago
        @PeterScott
        I agree with much of your post but the GM bailout was changed by the Obama admin to hugely favor the UAW....dont overlook that bit of graft. AND the UAW got its money back with a tidy profit that the US taxpayer will never get.
          PeterScott
          • 2 Years Ago
          @A P
          Does this kind of political minutia have anything to do with the car? Also to be clear, I don't see the UAW profit. This was the VEBA support. Basically the Pension plan for workers that was owed 29 Billion dollars by GM/Chr, it ended up getting 23 Billion in combined assets. Owed 29 Billion, and getting 23 Billion is not profit. Again this is not really a reason to get riled up about a single car.
          Sir Duke
          • 2 Years Ago
          @A P
          I suppose writing an additional 1 million plus unemployment checks every week was the SMARTER option for you. The stupidity of this argument is maddening. In life, sometimes you have to kiss the ugly girl. BTW: every pay period, the US government collects this thing they call a payroll TAX, look it up. I'm sure that taxes collected from saving these jobs by far EXCEEDS the cost of the bailouts. So, let me get this straight, you're saying that it would have been better to let these companies go under, and have their employees become wards for the state/federal government. Or we the Tax Payers could float them the cash to get through the rough times while standing on their necks, forcing them to come up with a better business model as a condition receiving the loans. Get this straight the US government came out way ahead on this one.
      • 2 Years Ago
      [blocked]
        Sir Duke
        • 2 Years Ago
        Thor: You and the EPA are both wrong about the metrics that apply to the Volt. I do understand the EPA's folly, the Volt was a new animal and they didn't quite know how to quantify it. You on the other hand, now have a wealth of data and evidence at your disposal and you choose to be stupid. Here is the reality, The majority of Volt users can go months without using a drop of fuel. I started tracking the OnStar database when there was a total of 66,057,500 EV + Gas miles. I track the percentage breakdown monthly. http://www.chevrolet.com/volt-electric-car.html - This is a running clock for the domestic Volt fleet. Here is the breakdown: May 18: EV Miles - 40,236,050 = 60.911% Gas miles - 25,821,450 = 39.089% Total Miles - 66,057,500 June 18: EV Miles - 49,534,198 = 62.135% Gas Miles - 30,186,077 = 37.865% Total Miles - 79,720,275 July 18: EV Miles - 63,950,837 = 63.177% Gas Miles - 37,274,433 =36.823% Total Miles - 101,225,270 Notice that EV miles continues to gain percentage points over gas miles. Within the next year, the Volt should reach a 70/30 split in percentage points. Find a Prius that can match that,
          • 2 Years Ago
          @Sir Duke
          [blocked]
          ChrisH
          • 2 Years Ago
          @Sir Duke
          Trends only work like that in Hollywood and boardroom meetings where you hope you aren't around next year to explain why it did not work out.
      Hazdaz
      • 2 Years Ago
      This proves that what most analysts were saying before in which average consumers would be spending most of their time in EV mode. If you look at it from an average Volt buyer, it looks like they drive 55 miles for every 35 miles that this car is able to go on pure EV mode. So with battery costs dropping, and density increasing, if GM could raise the EV mode to 55 miles, it would cover almost all trips that an average consumer takes and do it without burning any gasoline. That is quite the eye opener because most people seem to say that unless an electric car can do hundreds of miles before a recharge, it wouldn't be practical. The Volt is probably the most advanced car on the market today, so I can't wait to see what GM can come up with for the 2nd generation.
        montoym
        • 2 Years Ago
        @Hazdaz
        Not that it won't be practical, just the fact that you'd still need a 2nd vehicle (or have to rent a lot) whenever you wanted to travel outside of that range. Even though most consumers might drive 40-55mi in a given day, that doesn't meant that they don't go well outside of that range often. The Volt allows those individuals to use a single vehicle for all of those purposes while a pure EV wouldn't give the long range option and the owner would need a 2nd vehicle or would have to rent to make that trip. I still believe that until an EV can support a range of abotu 250-300mi between charges and can be recharged in a short time (5-10minutes, comparable to a gas car), they still won't run very far into the mainstream. People don't want to step backwards with their technology and yes, a much shorter range and longer recharge/refuel times would be considered a step backwards for most consumers.
        icon149
        • 2 Years Ago
        @Hazdaz
        i don't agree with what you wrote here. i have a feeling the mileage isn't so nicely split. my guess is most people drive aound the 35-40 miles range every day on there commute. perhaps going a bit over to run errands or something. But then on a weekend or maybe a business trip happens and instead of the normal commute they put 100+ miles on the car in a day. perhaps more all weekend without being able to charge. Maybe it's a once a month trip of hundreds of miles that you can't do with an electric car but can with a volt. My guess is even with a 55 mile range, 1/3 of the miles will still be on gas, it might be slightly less than 1/3 but it won't be eliminating all gas. remember the beauty of the volt, is that it can be driven on that weekend trip, or the business trip where you can't plug in at night. Those are the miles that will always be on gas.
          A P
          • 2 Years Ago
          @icon149
          Your "GUESS"????????????????????????? Keep talking out of your ass.
        PeterScott
        • 2 Years Ago
        @Hazdaz
        It is more likely that most Volt buyers have commutes under 40 miles and they do occasional longer trips that hit the gas. Putting in a bigger battery, than they need on a daily basis just makes the car heavier and more expensive than it needs to be on daily basis, to handle the more rare longer trips. You actually want the smallest battery to cover your daily needs and use the gas for occasional long trips. A 20 Mile range Volt might still meet the typical day for many people, while being several hundred pounds lighter and several thousand dollars cheaper, while really being just as good for them. On longer weekend trips you burn gas, but you would anyway.
          • 2 Years Ago
          @PeterScott
          [blocked]
          • 2 Years Ago
          @PeterScott
          [blocked]
        • 2 Years Ago
        @Hazdaz
        [blocked]
      James Reid
      • 2 Years Ago
      If the numbers are correct, these figures were accumulated by about 16,000 cars over an average of 18 months. That's about 350 miles a month per volt. Spending what a volt cost to drive 350 miles per month seems silly?
      throwback
      • 2 Years Ago
      This is what the car was designed to do. Travel most of the time on battery power and use the gas engine as needed. People who own the car seem to like it. i was impressed when I drove it but it was just too much money for me to spend.
        Timothy Tibbetts
        • 2 Years Ago
        @throwback
        I will give it to Chevy on marketing. Rather than try to tout the same limited distance you get from electric they marketed the 30 mile a day thing.
          • 2 Years Ago
          @Timothy Tibbetts
          [blocked]
          • 2 Years Ago
          @Timothy Tibbetts
          [blocked]
      CarNutMike
      • 2 Years Ago
      Well said, PeterScott. I have a Ferrari 360 , a Factory Five Cobra replica, and ... a Volt (some other junk too - but stay with me). The first two are essentially useless devices that get shitty mileage, are ridiculously loud (the 360 has aftermarket headers/cats/muffler), and have operational costs measured in dollars/mile. I have service and parts receipts for the 360 that exceed the cost of an entire Volt. Noone has ever questioned either of these two ridiculous uses for my money yet with the Volt, everyone is suddenly an accountant. I have a theory: people, particularly CarGuys, perceive a value in a screaming-8500rpm-piece-of-Italian-sculpture/money pit. Further, they understand why someone might build a replica of a 45 year old bastard child of a fading British car company and a chicken farmer with no top that vibrates the house's front door in sympathy with its idle. They get why one might buy a stripper F10 BMW rather than a cheaper better equipped Hyundai something-or-another. These same people have No Idea why anyone would ever purchase a car that propelled itself primarily with electrons. They perceive no value. Worse, their only frame of reference to anything EV-like is the sh*tbox Prius driven by the Birkenstock-wearing Cello-playing coworker who complains about tailgaters ruining his hypermiling zen (<-real person, I sh*t you not). Not seeing any value in the experience, observers are left with evaluating the pure financials of the car. A reasonable response. So let me tell you why *I* spent my money on a Volt. First, electric drivetrains are...awesome. A good EV is dead silent, instantly responsive, perfectly smooth (no transmission shifting gears), and convenient. No warm up. No maintenance (you change the battery coolant every 5 years or so). Everything you want in a non-enthusiast vehicle. In short, I think electric operation is worth a premium that has nothing to do with saving the rainforest whales for the children or whatever. I don't particularly care if my electricity comes from burning coal, baby seals, whatever. My green cred sucks. The Volt, it turns out, is a great implementation of the ideal that throws an ICE into the mix. In 16,000 miles, I'm about 75% EV. Commuting, I'm 100% EV. I tend to either not use the ICE at all, or put 300 miles on it. In those 16,000 miles, nothing has broken. I am, frankly, amazed. My car is one of the first 1000 too. In other words, I got a Volt because it's a really good car that I enjoy driving. The low operating costs are a nice bonus. Not buying gas is nice. I personally believe that, eventually, Joe Average will get in a Volt or other electrically powered car and say "hey, this is really sweet.". My other CarNut friends thought I was an idiot but now they Get It and admit that they would like to have one too. Jeebus, I do ramble.
        nomadsto
        • 2 Years Ago
        @CarNutMike
        Bless you sir, happy motoring... Or not i guess! ;-)
        ryanmit01
        • 2 Years Ago
        @CarNutMike
        CarNutMike, thank you, my thoughts exactly. I traded my CTS-V in for a Volt and people thought I was nuts.
        montoym
        • 2 Years Ago
        @CarNutMike
        Well said.
    • Load More Comments