Chevy Volt Battery
April 22, 2013. It was on that date that I published my last update on the world of electric vehicles and related topics. The news wasn’t good:
AS A CANDIDATE for president in 2008, Barack Obama set a goal of getting 1 million all-electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles on the road by 2015. In February 2011, the Obama administration’s Energy Department issued an analysis purporting to show that, with the help of subsidies and tax credits, ‘the goal is achievable.’ This was a paltry claim in the first place, since 1 million cars amount to less than 1 percent of the total U.S. fleet. Yet it is increasingly clear that, despite the commitment of many millions of taxpayer dollars, the United States will not hit Mr. Obama’s target by 2015. A recent CBS News analysis suggested that we’ll be lucky to get a third of the way there.
The Energy Department study assumed that General Motors would produce 120,000 plug-in hybrid Volts in 2012. GM never came close to that and recently suspended Volt production at its Hamtramck, Mich., plant, scene of a presidential photo-op. So far, GM has sold a little more than 21,000 Volts, even with the help of a $7,500 tax credit, recent dealer discounting and U.S. government purchases. When you factor in the $1.2 billion cost of developing the Volt, GM loses tens of thousands of dollars on each model.
It is no better today. In many ways, the early era of Obamite enthusiasm for the green wonders of vehicular electrification has collapsed in a smoldering stew of electrolytes, but the dream limps pathetically along. “Osama Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive,” cried Vice President Joe Biden. Perhaps, if zombie-like shambling is an indicator of life. Like the Veep, some people just can’t admit failure. Here’s the administration’s spin:
As the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) continues to wind down, the U.S. Department of the Treasury today announced that it has sold all of the remaining shares of General Motors (GM) common stock.
‘The President’s leadership in responding to the financial crisis helped stabilize the auto industry, and prevent another Great Depression. With the final sale of GM stock, this important chapter in our nation’s history is now closed,’ said Treasury Secretary Jacob J. Lew. ‘The President understood that inaction could have cost the broader economy more than one million jobs, billions in lost personal savings, and significantly reduced economic production. As a result of his efforts, which built on those of the previous Administration, more than 370,000 new auto jobs have been created, and all three U.S. automakers are profitable, competitive, and growing.
Michael Barone provides the facts:
Remember how the Obama re-election campaign kept crowing that “General Motors is alive and Osama bin Laden is dead”? Well, Osama is still dead, and the government is now selling the last of its GM stock — at a loss to taxpayers of $10 billion. Who has gained? Bloomberg’s James Sherk has the answer: GM’s UAW-represented employees.
Sherk points out that the government agreed to — actually, it engineered — terms quite different from those of ordinary bankruptcies. UAW members, unlike employees of bankrupt airlines, took essentially no haircut, and there was even $1 billion for UAW employees of Delphi, to whom GM had no legal obligation. (Delphi was spun off from GM several years before)” [skip]
So our Chicago-based president helped his funders, at a cost to the government of $10 billion.
GM avoided the bankruptcy that would have allowed it to restructure, modifying or eliminating union contracts that make it difficult for GM—and Chrysler—to make a profit, and restoring profitability. Instead, President Obama enriched the unions while merely putting of GM’s eventual demise, and lost $10 billion dollars of taxpayer money to boot. Yes, that’s Democrat leadership for you.
Speaking of GM, how is that icon of green tech, the Chevy Volt, doing these days? As regular readers know, I live in the Dallas/Ft. Worth Metroplex and spend quite a bit of time driving its main arteries. Since the introduction of the Volt in 2010, I’ve seen exactly five of them, and I’m pretty sure at least two—perhaps three—of those sightings were vehicles I’d seen before. The Detroit News reports:
Chevy Volt
General Motors Co. is slashing the price of its plug-in hybrid Chevrolet Volt by $5,000, making it the latest automaker to lower prices of electric vehicles in the face of lagging consumer demand.
The Detroit-based automaker said it will cut the base price 12.5 percent, from $39,995 to $34,995. The price cut comes just weeks after the automaker announced a $5,000 give-back on the 2012 Volt and $4,000 on the 2013 model.
The first Volt, a 2010 model, cost $41,000.
As I pointed out in previous articles, Chevrolet is losing money on every Volt that rolls off the assembly line—big money. Behold the GM spin:
The lower price and cost savings from driving on electricity provide Volt owners an unmatched balance of technology, capability and cost of ownership,” said Don Johnson, U.S. vice president, Chevrolet sales and service. “We have made great strides in reducing costs as we gain experience with electric vehicles and their components.
They’re referring to lease prices, which are running about $299 per month in 2014. The primary way Chevrolet has been able to sell Volts is via very favorable lease terms, again, making not a cent on the vehicle, and losing many, many cents. Ford, Nissan and Honda have also followed suit, dramatically reducing the MSRP and lease costs of their EV offerings. Yid With Lid notes:
Even with the built-in tax breaks for eligible buyers, electric vehicles have struggled to gain market share. No more than a few thousand Volts are sold each month in the U.S., a tiny fraction of overall auto sales.
‘I don’t see how General Motors will ever get its money back on that vehicle,’ countered Sandy Munro, president of Michigan-based Munro & Associates, which performs detailed tear-down analyses of vehicles and components for global manufacturers and the U.S. government.
A normal company would cut its loses and stop producing the car. Sadly for General Motors, this is not a normal company, it takes its orders from Washington DC, who doesn’t mind wasting taxpayers money.
Quite so, but didn’t the government sell its remaining shares of GM stock? Yes, but gangster government knows no boundaries or limits.
$14,000 of incentives on a Chevy Volt and GM still does not seem to be able to sell more than about one tenth the amount of Toyota Camrys that sell in a month. GM and its shareholders lose money, as do taxpayers. Maybe it is time for GM to stop the farce and cut losses for those that are footing the bill to push a green agenda that centers on plug-in electric cars that can not succeed without massive subsidization.
Skyrocketing Sales? Not quite. EV sales in general continue to be distinctly underwhelming. Greenautoblog, which seems to be something of a cheerleader for EVs, notes:
The Leaf made a valiant attempt, and did have its best month ever with 2,529 units sold. That means that for 2013, Nissan moved a total of 22,610 Leafs, more than twice as many as in 2012 (that year, Nissan sold only 9,819 Leafs in the US) and actually more than 2012 and 2011 Leaf sales combined (which was 19,493). Nissan continues to see the effects of its price drop and expanded sales areas, with Georgia rapidly becoming a Leaf hotbed. Nissan’s Paige Presley said that Atlanta was once again the Leaf’s number one market and that, ‘sales are expanding deeper into Georgia markets such as Macon and Columbus.’
The Volt saw a boost upwards from a November slump and sold 2,392 units in December. That puts the plug-in hybrid’s annual total at 23,094, just down from the 23,461 sold in 2012. For all of 2013, though, the Volt outsold the Leaf by 484 vehicles. In a competition like this, we’ll count that as a win for both sides.
What does this mean in the general auto market? In 2013 Toyota sold more than 400,000 Camrys and 302,180 Corollas. Honda sold 336.180 Civics. Chevrolet sold 200,594 Malibus. Ford sold 234,570 Focus compacts and 295,280 Fusions.
Compare the Chevy Avalanche, discontinued in 2014. In its peak year—2003–it sold 93,482 units, but by 2010 it slumped to 20,515, firmly in Volt territory. When its 2012 sales were 23,995 and 2013 sales were only 16,526, it was doomed. Remember that it’s likely the Avalanche made money for the most part, just not enough money to justify its continued production.
Clearly, vehicles like the Volt aren’t remotely profitable. Manufacturers routinely discontinue models that sell many times the numbers of the Volt and Leaf. Even the Avalanche sold 2-4 times more vehicles for seven years of its 12-year run.
Sticker Shock: One of the biggest problems for Volt owners—particularly second owners—is battery cost. GM originally quoted replacement costs in the $8000-$10,000 range, but reality has apparently sunk in. Greenautoblog provides clarity:
There’s a growing hubbub in the plug-in vehicle community over what looks like some ridiculously cheap replacement batteries for the Chevrolet Volt going up for sale. GM Parts Online, for example, is selling a replacement Volt battery with an MSRP of $2,994.64 but, with an online discount, the price comes down to $2,305.88. For the 16-kWh pack in the 2012 Volt, that comes to a very low $144.11 per kilowatt hour (kWH). But is it a real deal? How can it be, when a Chevy dealer may quote you a price of up to $34,000 to replace the pack? [skip]
So, $144.11 certainly sounds great, but what’s the story here? Kevin Kelly, manager of electrification technology communications for General Motors, reminded AutoblogGreen that GM Parts Online is not the official GM parts website and that, ‘the costs indicated on the site are not what we would charge our dealers or owners for a replacement battery. There would be no cost to the Volt owner if their battery needs replacement or repair while the battery is under the eight year/100,000 mile limited warranty coverage provided by Chevrolet.
Particularly when used in all-electric mode, the Volt is essentially a short-range commuter, so it’s likely that initial owners would exhaust eight years long before reaching 100,000 miles. Keep in mind, however, that the average new car owner keeps a vehicle only about five years. No one knows the average lifespan of a Volt battery, but estimates of 6-8 years seem reasonable, particularly for Volts that are used daily. And while having a free battery replacement during that time is nice indeed for owners, it’s terrible for GM not only in parts costs, but in terms of resale value. Who is going to buy a used Volt knowing they will have to pay up to $34,000 for a new battery in the near future? Back to reality:
We called up Keyes Chevrolet in Los Angeles and were quoted a broad price range of between $3,400 and $34,000 to replace a ‘drive motor replacement battery’ in a 2012 Volt. Tellingly, perhaps, the dealer we spoke with was not sure what replacing a ‘drive motor replacement battery’ (and the ‘Grade B’ version, at that) entails, and told us we’d have to bring a Volt in to see what’s wrong with the pack to get a real estimate. We got the same confusion and numbers to replace the battery from Berger Chevrolet in Grand Rapids, Michigan. We asked GM to clarify what this $34,000 charge includes, but that information was not forthcoming. [skip]
So, what does a replacement Chevy Volt battery actually cost? No one seems to know for sure.
Exactly. This kind of uncertainty is not exactly a selling point, for new, and particularly for used, Volts.
It’s Chilling: As I’ve often noted, batteries lose substantial capacity and performance in cold weather. Sufficiently cold weather can drain all usable power from batteries. For EVs, this means halting acceleration, hampered regenerative braking, greatly reduced range, and of course, greatly reduced or entirely eliminated electric heat and glass defrosting.
This article at technologyreview.com is a reasonably good basic outline of the issues. Its basic premise is that technology for dealing with—not overcoming—the cold-imposed limitations on batteries is not ready for prime time and is in fact, many years into the future. However, it does offer a bit of whimsy:
For now, drivers are looking for creative ways to cope with less heat, especially on long trips. On the Tesla forum, one Model S owner recommends buying heated jackets and gloves designed for wearing on motorcycles. Dahn says the solution is ‘snowmobile suits.
There, in a nutshell, are some of the most telling arguments against EVs. While the drivers of even the most modest economy cars zip along wintry roads getting 40+ MPG in their shirtsleeves, their windows frost-free, the well-heeled owners of EVs many times their cost have to deal with bundling themselves up like motorcycle and snowmobile drivers.
Coming Next Week: Part 2 of this Update, which deals with the demands EVs put on the electrical grid, governmental attempts to force EVS down all our throats, and the fate of Fisker. I hope to see you there!
Stately McDaniel Manor 
Mike – – while my Volt loses capacity in cold weather (e.g. 18-20 miles per charge in the coldest weather vs 40+ in the summer), it has no issues with heat, acceleration, performance etc). This winter, in Michigan, it is dependable and consistent, even at 10-15 Below Zero. My lifetime MPG is still over 100 at 114 MPG, and after warmer weather returns, I expect to be pushing toward 200 MPG before next winter. Part of the biggest problem with the sales is a mis-information / marketing problem. I routinely get asked about how I can own a car with such limited range – – but with the 9 gallon tank and a full charge, it is well over 300 miles – – then just fill up like anyone else, and you have another 300 miles – – no big deal. True, if you routinely drive long distances, then this vehicle may not be the best choice, but if you drive around 50 miles per day or less (in any climate), I can’t imagine why anyone wouldn’t at least take a closer look – – it really is a great car. As far as only seeing a handful in the Metroplex – – it seems like that is only further demonstration of the marketing problem – – I would think that if it works so well for me with Michigan-below-zero-winters, it would really perform well in your region. ( I will mention that unless a car is incredibly striking, I don’t really notice them unless I own one – – before I leased my Volt, I really didn’t notice many – – after I got mine, I see them everywhere – – turns out there are 4 in my neighborhood.) Everyone knows technology solves itself with time – – and the financials will automatically follow. Electronic calculators and watches that originally cost hundreds or even thousands can now be had for a dollar or two. Disruptive technologies often have a rocky start. I still paid hundreds for a calculator 20 years after they were introduced. Most ventures lose money for a while. Big new ventures will lose bigger money for longer – – and only determined visionaries can get there from here. I am sure we all know what the black smiths and stable boys were saying about internal combustion automobiles 100+ years ago.
Dear Jspurr01:
Thanks for your informative comment. I’m glad your Volt is working for you. As to your comment about technology getting cheaper as it is more widely used, that’s the problem with the Volt and similar vehicles. Calculators, digital watches, computers and similar devices have broad applications across all demographic groups, and most importantly, they use technology that is not only inexpensive, but rapidly refined to a much higher level of performance. Current automotive battery technology shows no sign of such potential improvement in efficiency or lower cost. And it is demand that drives lower prices. Unfortunately, absent huge technological leaps that are absolutely not on the horizon, EVs are impractical for most people, thus, little or no demand.
It’s true that most people drive less than 40 miles a day, etc., but virtually everyone needs a car that will deliver, on demand and impulse, far more mileage that EVs are capable of delivering. Being visionary will not repeal the laws of economics.
The Volt works for you and you can obviously afford it. Great. The problem remains that it doesn’t–and won’t–work for most people and they can’t afford it. Thus has Chevy dropped the price another $5000, and thus does the government continue to subsidize them to the tune of $7500. This is not a money-making proposition, and as much as any company might like to develop new technology, they have to make a profit to stay in business. Unless of course the point is keeping the UAW rolling in money and rewarding political cronies and crooks.
Thanks again!
Mike McDaniel wrote: “Calculators, digital watches, computers and similar devices have broad applications across all demographic groups, and most importantly, they use technology that is not only inexpensive, but rapidly refined to a much higher level of performance. Current automotive battery technology shows no sign of such potential improvement in efficiency or lower cost. And it is demand that drives lower prices.”
Expecting EV technology just a few years in to be the same initial purchase price as legacy gasoline engine technology ignores both the history of the automobile itself as well as the other technologies mentioned. But the undeniable fact, as shown on multiple automotive consumer websites and by (Volt) owners themselves, is that despite the initially higher purchase price, the 5 year cost of ownership of a Volt is thousands less than even virtually all so-called “economy” gas cars…and that was BEFORE the $5000 price drop. This is a still a little known fact among the general public, but word is getting out.
“Unfortunately, absent huge technological leaps that are absolutely not on the horizon, EVs are practical for most people, thus, little or no demand.””
I think you meant to say “EVs are not practical for most people”, but regardless, this is a myth that continues, that the technology has not arrived, and is untrue simply on a a consumer cost basis as demonstrated above. What is true is that they are practical, particularly the EREV technology in the Volt, however the public is up to 95% unaware of this practicality. So what we are describing is not a technology-limited demand problem, it is a consumer education problem. Again, word is getting out.
Gasoline is expensive on an annual basis for the average driver ($2000) and will not be getting any cheaper. Year after year electric car technology gets cheaper, and education about both things continues to spread. As much as it may upset the author, electric car’s dominance a question of when, not if.
The author wrote: “As I’ve often noted, batteries lose substantial capacity and performance in cold weather…For EVs, this means halting acceleration, hampered regenerative braking, greatly reduced range, and of course, greatly reduced or entirely eliminated electric heat and glass defrosting.” This may be true of certain EVs designed 10+ years ago, however none of the above is true with the Volt, so that should be noted in your piece if you wish to keep it honest. The Volt’s battery (as is the Model S and Nissan Leafs) is heated with a Thermal Management system. There is NEVER any performance loss in a Volt due to cold for this reason, and that also the battery never depletes lower than ~20% by design. So anything you wrote about “halting acceleration” or “hampered regenerative braking” is simply untrue. Cold alone combined with the energy used to keep the battery warm has approximately a 20% effect on range, not “greatly reduced” as you claim. Gasoline cars also experience 5% to 10% range loss expressed reduced mpg, though not as great because of their inherent energy waste. So in fact that really equates to only a 10% to 15% difference. Of course, liberal use of electric forced air heating (rather heated seats) will reduce electric range further, but that is not a function of the battery’s performance, that is a function of the driver’s preference. As for “greatly reduced or entirely eliminated electric heat and glass defrosting” The Volt (as does the Model S and others) has fully functioning electric heat and defrost at all times in both battery and hybrid modes, so it is an excellent all-season car. To attempt to paint it and other mass-marketed electric cars as otherwise simply shows the author’s ignorance on the topic.
Dear Mark Renburke:
I’m a bit confused. The Internet carries many examples of significantly lowered performance of Volts in cold weather, including the comments of one such Volt owner to this particular post.
I’m glad you acknowledged the problems of heating an EV in cold weather, but this is indeed a function of the battery’s performance. Batteries have only so much capacity. The greater the draw, the more quickly that capacity diminishes. My comments regarding this were not focused specifically on the Volt, but on all EVs as a class, which of course suffer the problems I mentioned to greater and lesser degrees depending on their designs, battery capacities, weather, use patterns, electrical accessory usage, etc. You did read the article, no?
Ignorance? As always, I trust readers to decide.
“The Internet carries many examples of significantly lowered performance…”
Please don’t be obfuscate, Mike. You and I both know that the words “performance and “efficiency” and not interchangeable when discussing the operation of cars, and it is you who keeps talking about performance when the other Volt owner and the Internet examples are speaking about efficiency (as expressed by range).
In a modern electric car such as a Volt, Model S, or Leaf, car even in extreme win is no difference or lack of performance (or as you describe it in your article, “halting acceleration, hampered regenerative braking…and of course, greatly reduced or entirely eliminated electric heat and glass defrosting.” None of those things actually occur, except perhaps in extreme double digit below zero cold that would prevent most gasoline engines from even starting or running properly. I challenge you to present any real world examples of your claim. Electrics actually work great in winter, you should try one out and give us your report.
“My comments regarding this were not focused specifically on the Volt, but on all EVs as a class, which of course suffer the problems I mentioned to greater and lesser degrees depending on their designs, battery capacities, weather, use patterns, electrical accessory usage, etc.”
Your article in fact starts with a picture of a Volt battery, followed by 3 separate quotes reference the Volt and/of GM, followed by a “How is the Volt doing?” with a picture of the Volt and summary and several more quotes primarily about GM and the Volt. And then you jump right in to the “It’s Chilling” paragraph, which we’ve now determined except for some winter range reduction, actually doesn’t apply to the Volt nor in fact most electric cars being sold.
OK, so specifically, which EVs currently being sold are you talking about then that have all or even some of these other real world cold weather problems? We’ve already determined that yes, both fossil fuel and electric cars have less range in winter) For example, fueleconomy.gov states, “…in short-trip city driving, a conventional gasoline car’s gas mileage is about 12% lower at 20°F than it would be at 77°F. It can drop as much as 22% for very short trips (3 to 4 miles)” Rather than discuss electric car winter efficiency in a vacuum, this info actually allows an apples-to-apples comparison of urban winter commuting efficiency in a gasoline car versus an electric car such as the Volt.
If you’d prefer anecdotal evidence, such as was provided by the previous Volt owner, my Volt averages ~50 miles range in Spring/Summer/Fall, and ~42 miles range in winter (New England, 34 mile non-highway commute). That’s a ~16% drop in mileage. But when comparing with a gasoline car’s winter efficiency loss, I experience what amounts to +4% to -3%; hardly a “greatly reduced range”. Be it a gas or electric, as with many things, YRMV.
On average, in winter I get 2 to 3 times greater efficiency than the (non-winter) EPA rating of a Toyota Prius, without any required compromise for comfort or safety (in fact the Volt exceeds both in winter in comparison to a Prius and many other cars). My other car is in fact a 2008 Prius.
Forget that massive bribes are given to the manufacturer and the buyer at the
expense of the taxpayer,these things are still impractical on many levels.
Car and Driver actually pitted a Tesla S against a 99 year old Model T Ford starting
in Ann Arbor Michigan to Long Island New York. The Mo. T had a handicap of
having to run the race on streets because it could not go fast enough to run
on a freeway, so it had to drive about 40-50 miles further to finish the race.
The Tesla had to stop for 5 hours two times to complete the 700+ miles. The
trip took about 24 hours in total. If you subtract the extra mileage the T. had to
drive, it would have been a near photo finish, but the T did have a few issues
that kept it from winning the race as it had two minor break downs.
I realize this is different than Hybrid vehicles, but even here the Bovine Excrement
is too obvious:
Number one, the claim that the Volt is capable of “Combined fuel economy”
of 114 is absurd. In the above case, the figures were 300+ miles from a 9
gallon fuel tank, and 40+ miles in warm weather on the battery.
Let’s say 40MPG times 9 = 360 on the ICE, and 45 on the battery for a total of
405 miles. That raises the combined mileage to just about 45. Even with the
regenerative braking and charging while running, I doubt that it could more than
double the combined mileage.
The generator that charges while on the IC engine involves parasitic loses,
meaning that a large electrical load actually creates a physical load on the
generator, robing the ICE of power. So there is a limit as to how much current
one can pump into the batteries before having an adverse effect on the
engines mileage. Even if the 114 claim is true, it is unlikely that by simply
massaging the accelerator pedal will result in 200 combined miles by
next Winter.
I wish I was in on this scam! Build an Uber expensive car that nobody would
manufacture or purchase without bribing them with tax dollars, in order to solve
a problem that does not exist (Global warming,) under the premise that it will
reduce CO2, when it actually relocates the emissions to the power plant
instead of the tail pipe. These EV and hybrid cars are actually making more
money on BS carbon credit than they are on the sale of the vehicle. What is
worse, there are taxpayer funded subsidies for the owner from the electric
company!
A simple solution would be to take the handcuffs off the oil companies and allow
them to start drilling and building refineries again. This way, we can have <$1.00
a gallon gas instead of being forced to drive some piss weak piece of crap the
size of a shoe box that needs to be recharged every 2-4 hours, or provides
only marginal increases from my old 1969 Triumph Spitfire like the hybrids.
My Triumph was made of the finest British steel, so it was significantly safer than
most of the small cars on the road today. There is a reason that most Yuppies
go for big SUV's. Mass = safety.
Has anyone considered how many hundreds of billions will be wasted building the
charging stations from coast to coast, or the needed and long overdue upgrade of
our electricity infrastructure, including additional power plants?
Leonard Jones wrote: “Car and Driver actually pitted a Tesla S against a 99 year old Model T Ford…The Tesla had to stop for 5 hours two times to complete the 700+ miles. The trip took about 24 hours in total.”
You haven’t been keeping up with the technology. As has recently been proven in multiple cross country trips, a Tesla Model S could easily complete this 700 miles trip in ~13 hours; less than 12 hours driving and three ~30 minute pit stops at Supercharger stations that provide 170 miles more range in ~30 minutes while you pee’n’eat.
Here’s the math for you 265 miles range + 170 * 3 = 775 miles.
700 miles / 60 mph average speed = 11.67 hrs + 1.5 hours = 13.17 hours total
Sure, you could get there a little faster in a gasoline car…if you break the speed limit, and eat cold food while you drive…and wear Depends :)
Leonard Jones wrote: “..the claim that the Volt is capable of “Combined fuel economy”of 114 is absurd. In the above case, the figures were 300+ miles from a 9
gallon fuel tank, and 40+ miles in warm weather on the battery.
Let’s say 40MPG times 9 = 360 on the ICE, and 45 on the battery for a total of
405 miles. That raises the combined mileage to just about 45. ”
Nobody would drive a Volt regularly like that (except maybe Forest Gump:). You don’t run the battery down, then always run the gas tank down before recharging every time you drive the car; you only do that once in a blue moon on a loong, non-stop trip. You actually charge at the next OPPORTUNITY. Which for most commuters (~78% according to studies) is back at home again at night and within the Volt’s EV range. So the Volt stays on the battery, and no gasoline is used. This is why a lifetime mpg of 114 is easily attainable; I’m at over 400 mpg for 40,000 miles…and my commute is 68 miles round-trip. Now these numbers are based strictly on gasoline usage-cost basis and do not take in to account the energy from electricity. But even with that factored in, many Volt drivers (myself included) are averaging efficiency that is 2 to 3 times better than the BEST gasoline hybrids (Prius).
“My Triumph was made of the finest British steel, so it was significantly safer than
most of the small cars on the road today.”
I’m glad you like your car; however by all objective safety measures and tests, the Chevy Volt is a MUCH safer car that a Triumph.
My ‘absurd’ 114 MPG is what my lifetime mileages is *down* to now, since the winter cold this year (including many sub-zero temps) forces the gas motor to run more often (mostly to help keep the powertrain warm), but some to compensate for the lower cold-weather battery capacity. I will restate that there is *no* performance compromise in the winter, just some range/efficiency. My Volt is faster off the line than most conventional gas vehicles I have owned in the last couple of decades – – and it never hesitates when I punch it – also unlike most gas cars I have owned.
I am just now at my 1 year anniversary owning this car. Since I only filled the tank last summer once between May and October, my lifetime MPG was nearing 180 before winter set in. I expect to beat that by October this year. The math that produces only “45 mpg” is based on the flawed assumption that it only gets charged once per tankful. Every Volt owner plugs-in over night, every night. It costs me about $30-$40/mo to charge it. Even if I charge it every night from a totally dead battery, it would cost less than $50/mo to charge (max ~= one tank of gas for most cars). In a consistently warm climate, it could be theoretically possible to get infinite MPG, except for the fact that the computer will insist on running the gas engine for a short time every couple of months, no matter what.
Much of the negative side of this discussion underscores my point that the main issue is education. It’s an excellent commuter car in nearly every climate. Other than being a bit smaller than the Malibu I turned in, it is better in every way. (oh – except you can’t get a sunroof for some reason!)
Some people have bought the Kool Aid! I am in fact a mechanic, a Millwright and
an electrician.
Tesla was caught falsifying the “90 second” battery swaps in order to qualify for
hundreds of millions in BS carbon credits in my home state of California!
GM was caught with their inflated 200+ MPG “Combined mileage.” They promised
40 miles on the battery alone. The reality is that it was more like 25-30, which is
less than the legitimate 40 miles per charge that the 100+ year old Roberts Electric
Car was capable of.
I can change the subject to windmills or solar or photovoltaics and leave the two
of you in the dust because I worked in refineries, power plants, wind farms, etc…
I am a science geek. I understand the law of inverse squares, something you guys
need to learn.
If either of you own cordless tools, when was the last time it took less time to charge
a Lithium Ion battery than it took to discharge one?
Even the Tesla used off the shelf Toshiba batteries. Every electromotive element
in the periodic table has been known since before WWII! The electrolytes in Li
Ion batteries are flammable. They have a habit of catching fire sitting at a curb,
being discharged or recharged to fast.
When I was 14, I memorized the entire planetary tables in a single night. I read all
4 of the Asimov On Physics volumes. I watched and understood all 52 episodes
of Dr. David Goodstein’s The Mechanical Universe on PBS.
The people who believe that a Chevy Volt can get 200+ combined miles, or that
a Li Ion battery can propel a Tesla 400 miles cannot be reasoned with! No amount
of logic will ever penetrate their brains. These are the same mind numbed
robots who believe in the dis-proven concept of global warming!
I am really going to rain on your parade, having consumed a ton of adult beverages.
CO2 constitutes .035% of the Earths atmosphere. To put this into perspective,
this is less than 400 parts million. In order to explain this simple concept to the
mentally deranged, this means about 350 PPM.
This is what used to be called trace levels by scientists just 50 years ago.
Take 10,000 pennies. Remove four of them. Cut one in half. You are left
with the the total concentration of CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere.
But this gets better, mankind is only responsible for about 3 percent of the total,
Nature contributes 97%. Now, you are left with 1/10th of a penny put of 10,000
There is no way to get through to people like this, they have bought the banquet
of Bull Shit. They will never admit that they were screwed. Even as they are
being subsidized for their mistake, they will never admit it!
They will never admit it because the federal government gave them taxpayer
funded tax credits, and other benefits to entice them to buy a piece of SHIT
that nobody in their right mind would buy absent these artificial inducements.
Tell me how much money you are saving when the government is subsidizing
your electric bill!
Tell me you would have bought the piece of shit you are driving without a $7,500
taxpayer funded bribe?
You would also not be driving these cars were it not for sates rewarding these
scam artists with bogus “Carbon credits” to the tune of hundreds of millions
of dollars.
Sorry, until you people understand Ohm’s Law, Power Factor, motor efficiency,
and dozens of other physics and electrical concepts, I would still read your
posts, but I will not take you seriously!
I think I have finally figured this out. There are two possibilities here;
One is that while coasting down hill, that cute LCD display might just show
a fuel economy figure of 175 or 200 MPG. This is a momentary figure, not
a sustained “Combined mileage equivalency.”
The other (And more likely) explanation is that the Volt owner takes his fully
fueled and charged vehicle out on day one and puts in 50 or so miles a day.
The battery is fully discharged in <1 hour, and the internal combustion
engine takes over. If the ICE burns 1/2 or so gallons of gas a day, you are
looking at pumping gas into the Volt every 18 days or less.
What is not being counted is that the car is being plugged into a charger every
evening, giving the car a roughly 40 mile range every day that is not being
counted when the owner calculates his gas mileage. I will conclude that a
near 100 MPG is possible.
40 miles on the electric motors, another 360 on the 9 gallon fuel tank for a total
of about 45 MPG. I will concede that one could charge the battery in the 6 hours
at freeway speed while running on the ICE one time, but no more. This would
give a realistic range of 440 miles.
The empirical test is to drive the car until the battery runs out and the fuel runs
out and you use up whatever energy has been pumped into the battery without
refueling or recharging. Best guess, maybe 88 MPG, or about 100 with
regenerative braking!
You will have to note that the Volt's battery is empty in less than an hour at
freeway speed. There is something terribly wrong when people are bribed with
thousands of dollars to buy one of these cars. And the government is also
bribing people by paying a portion of their electric bill.
But the ultimate obscenity is the fact that we are no longer teaching math, science
or physics in our public school systems! ICE's and motors are both about 25%
efficient. 1 gallon of gas = 3,600 kwh. The batteries that the Volt and the Tesla
use are off the shelf Toshiba's. The power density of Lithium Ion batteries
are no more efficient than when they were first introduced.
Scottie from Star Trek said it best: "You cannot change the laws of physics!"
Leonard, my apologies for the long delay in response – – it’s been on my to-do list, however life seems to have had other priorities demanding my attention since then.
So, let me take your points in sequence:
#1) The Volt does not have a real-time MPG readout, it actually wouldn’t make much sense since it would always be ‘infinity’ while running on battery power, although it would look like many other cars when running on gas (yes, I suppose, including the momentary 200-mpg-like figures when coasting down hill) Volts keep track of lifetime fuel and electricity used, and every Volt owner can tell you exactly how many miles has been traveled on electricity or gas since it rolled off the assembly line with a couple of clicks on their smart phone.
#2) You are generally correct on the plug-in-overnight-and-drive-50-miles idea. Realistic math actually produces more significant results than your conceded possible 100 MPG. For example, if the ICE gets 36 MPG (a reasonable figure), and you drive 39.6 miles in a day (not far from an average round-trip daily commute – I am going to use 39.6 for simple math – but it will still be a good representation), 36 miles is on battery and 3.6 miles on gas. At 36 MPG, that means 1/10 gallon of gas is consumed each day for 39.6 miles travelled (ignoring the battery charging factor, of course [for now]). This means as a typical commuter vehicle at ~40 miles per day (~14,600 miles per year) the Volt can get almost 400 MPG in this ideal (but not unrealistic) scenario. Over the entire year only 36.5 gallons would be burned, vs 350+ for conventional high MPG vehicles driven under the same circumstances. Actually, using these same numbers, your 50 mile/day example would consume ~0.39 gallons per day, resulting in 128 MPG – – still pretty darned good, and in the ballpark of my own actual results. (note: 36 miles per charge and 36 mpg are not unrealistic numbers – – in the summer, I always get between 40 and 50 miles on a charge; also, I only put regular gas in it – – I am told I would get about 10% better MPG if I used premium)
#3) I am not entirely sure how one should adjust gas mileage to account for the energy burden of charging the battery, but I ran financial models in Excel before I bought it, and now keep track of actual costs based on the separate electric meter and billing I get. My monthly bills have ranged between $19 and $24 to charge the Volt. If I charged it from dead every night, the maximum bill for a month would be about $29. It charges after midnight, and gets ~40% discount. Un-discounted, the numbers would be $31-$40 with a maximum of $49. (keep in mind that similar discounts are available for electric water heaters, electric heat, air conditioners, commercial usage, etc) Bottom line: if an ordinary car gets 36 MPG for 14,600 at $3.50/gal, the annual cost would be about $1400. For the same profile (see numbers above), the Volt would cost ~$128 for gas (36.5 gallons) and $348 for charging, totaling $476 for energy costs. This is a ~65% lower total energy cost – – more than $900 per year. [you can adjust by $232 if you don’t like the electricity discount]
#4) Your Range calculation at 440 miles is a bit high – – I figure 324 miles on the 9 gallon tank, and 40-50 on the battery for about 370. No one would charge on-the-run with current charging technology availability. Personally, I have driven more than 350 miles in a day only 3 or 4 times in my life. Besides, just fill up the 9 gallon tank again – – so this is really a non-issue. You don’t buy this car for its long distance performance. It is targeted for local/commuter driving.
#5) It is not entirely clear how much energy is retrieved from regenerative functions. While the Volt tells me when it is regenerating, and also I see another mile or two magically added to a dead battery on longer trips, I know of no way to determine how much the regenerative value contributes. I suspect your guesstimates may be generous. What I can tell you is that while I tend to limit my Volt driving to local trips and commuting, I am not a fanatic, so I will drive it longer distances when I feel like it, including some trips of several hundred miles. My lifetime MPG was in excess of 170 MPG at the end of last summer, and recognizing that hard Michigan winters take their toll on the efficiency, my lifetime low at the end of this past winter was 110. The lifetime is already approaching 115, and it has only been sort-of warm around here for about a month. Yesterday was the first day this year that my battery life exceeded 40 miles on a charge – – yep, its getting nice outside finally.
#6) “the Volt’s battery is depleted in less than an hour at freeway speed. There is something terribly wrong …” – – this is a misleading sound bite – – sounds good, but if that is your driving profile, don’t buy a Volt. Most people don’t drive like that most of the time. The battery life is around 36 miles – – an hour at 70 mph is 70 miles – – easy math – – TRUE: the battery is depleted in under an hour. The better characterization is that the average daily commute/travel is around 40 miles – – an excellent design target for a 36 miles/per charge battery with a 36 mpg supplemental ICE – – nothing “terribly wrong” here. Regarding the discount on my electric bill, you can take the discount away, and it’s still nearly half the energy costs of an efficient conventional ICE vehicle. More to the point, the discounts are similar to those that have been available for decades for other purposes like electric heat, electric water heat, etc – – the discount is not an extreme & special subsidy.
#7 “the ultimate obscenity …” I suggest you check out the NEMA website or other sources of performance standards for electric motors. You will find that large electric motors are typically >90% efficient. A quick empirical analysis of the Volt’s performance proves this point since when the ICE is running, the Volt’s gas generator charges the battery which powers the electric motor – – the ICE does not drive the vehicle directly. In this model, if the both the ICE and the motor were ~25% efficient, then this Powertrain model would be only 6.25 % efficient – – a ridiculous design. As it stands, the Volt’s motor only saps maybe 6 or 7% from the overall powertrain = – not 75%. Scotty’s right – you can’t change the laws of physics, but wherever efficiency is less than 100%, there is room for improvement.
Final Note: in reference to your earlier post, I am a degreed Mechanical Engineer (BSME), and worked as a turbine engine simulation and performance engineer for a major aerospace defense contractor. I wrote or improved 10’s of thousands of lines of jet engine & flight simulation and performance analysis software. I do understand Ohm’s law, Power Factor, motor efficiency, and dozens of physics, energy, and electrical concepts. I was the first student in the known history of my university at that time to have received 100% scores on final exams in two of my college chemistry courses. My brother received his Master’s in Mechanical Engineering on am academic full-ride scholarship from the University of Michigan, and all my nephews have become highly successful engineers in major corporations. I am not the smartest one of this bunch, but we are a family that delves into complex engineering ideas and invention for entertainment. I know I don’t have all the answers, but I do have a pretty good handle on the overall principles. I am glad for anyone to read my posts, but I don’t personally care whether or not you take them seriously. I did, however, want to set the record straight for other readers.
Dear jspurr01:
Thanks for the technical info!
General Motor’s new model of the Volt is expected to be packed with a more powerful battery that runs for longer before it requires conversion to liquid fuel. Currently, battery packs for the Volt provide only 40 miles worth of battery power.
In 2011, in order to meet the goal of putting 1 million electric cars on the road, the President’s FY 2012 Budget proposed to:
-transform the existing $7,500 tax credit for electric vehicles into a rebate that will be available to all consumers immediately at the point of sale
-advance innovative technologies through new R&D investments by investing $588 million for vehicle technologies at the US Department of Energy (DOE)—an increase of 88% above current funding levels
-reward communities that invest in electric vehicle infrastructure through a $200 million program, modeled after Race to the Top, which provides an incentive for communities to invest in electric vehicle infrastructure and remove regulatory barriers.
So how many of those things got cut from the budget by Congress? And you want to blame Obama for not keeping his word on vehicle electrification, when the prerequisites for what he said was needed to do that job was not provided for?? Sounds like the very definition of a revisionist historian at work.
Dear Mark Reburke:
Welcome to SMM and thanks for your comment. I’m afraid, however, you’re missing the thrust of my general argument with EVs. If a company wishes to market any EV in the free market that’s fine with me. I’ll comment generally on the limitations of contemporary EV technology merely because the topic interests me. However, when government gets involved, picking winners and losers, and encumbering taxpayer dollars, then I have a more significant problem–we all do. I blame Mr. Obama for wasting huge amounts of money on green schemes that can’t sustain themselves, nothing else (at least not in this particularly realm). I haven’t mentioned Congress because that’s not the issue.