I side with Nick and Tom on this matter. It is GM that has put themselves into this position by not following up with some estimates of CS mode MPG after their initial 50 MPG goal (let's not even talk about the 230 MPG foolishness). This car was to "leapfrog" the Prius. So how did it do?

Nissan has no problem giving real life ranges estimates from 47 MPC to 137 MPC and explaining the variables that caused the variations.

The least GM can do is give their future customers the CS ranges in the format Tom suggests. Waiting for this EPA blended number is not necessary.

Stop.

I commend Mr. Colley on his comments however, nothing that he said disproves the claims of low mileage (from the choice of engine) being made against GM. Sorry I don't care about the techniques used to get 27mpg. The testing was probably misleading and a misnomer at best but EPA numbers (influenced partly by the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers) using a combo of gas/electric &/or conversions into MPGs will be misleading also.

It would be refreshing to hear some realistic estimates concerning mileage without PR spin or some journalist trying to sensationalize a story by intentionally getting 27mpgs.

Let's play a game of consumer economics

Chevy Volt $41,000 (before a federal tax credit)
Nissan Leaf $32,780 (before a federal tax credit)
Chevy Volt premium compared to the Leaf $8220 (not comparing leasing options)

What am I getting for the $8220 compared to the Leaf?
-Extended range mileage approx. 260 miles (at 30-37mpgs???)

Next the Chevy Cruze LTZ at $22,695
similar mileage 32-37 mpgs Volt premium (18,305 - 7,500 Federal $10,805)

The Volt premium for 260 miles is $8,220
(Key marketing factors: safety of extended mileage in a plug-in and extended range for farther destinations)

The Volt premium for 40 miles per charge is $10,805
(Key marketing factors: One of the first mass produced plug-ins, EV city car/no gasoline, appeal to environmentalist/causes consumer)

Sure the Volt has different features and numbers are taken for face value without factoring environmental damages, hidden petro costs, or even state rebates but this is the kind of thinking that the general consumer thinks of. I argue that any extended range plug-in must offer superior fuel mileage eg somewhere in lines of 40-55mpgs for the premium compared to the Leaf. As cars like the Leaf up battery range ie. 300-500 miles per charge cars like the Volt must up the efficiency of the ICE engine to justify the premium eg 100-150 miles EV plus 400-600 ICE & increased mpgs for ICE also. Economics may warrant a major upgrade to the Volt by the next generation or possibly a delay in production to upgrade the engine now.

In summary (maybe?), we all want some kind of MPG assessment based on a standardized test protocol that could be then compared to numbers for other vehicles tested under that same protocol.

Clearly the current federal price sticker MPG report is not accurate for every end user, and it might not even be correct for ANY real driver, but is is based on a standardized test protocol and it then allows direct comparison between different cars for general operating economy.

Now the problem with this current protocol is that over the limited total distance of the "test," the range extending fuel engine will not come on at all, so ....BIG PROBLEM.

A more generalized testing procedure is still to be finalized....My personal suggestion would be something like a single drive protocol of around 150 miles with some percentage (maybe 40%) in an urban stop and go pattern like the current "city test cycle," and the remainder at highway (65 mph) steady state cruising with perhaps 2-3 periods of slowing to around 40 mph and returning to cruise mode.

Pure EV vehicles with limited battery range would not even be able to complete such a test, but then they never use any fuel, so... Extended range EV designs could easily complete the test protocol and give a more realistic insight into what happens when the battery range is exceeded.

My $ .02

The Chevrolet VOLT is destined for a massive failure in the market place. This is 1920's technology. The Owens Magnetic, manufactured and sold from 1915 to 1924, used the same technology and drivetrain as the VOLT and achieved in excess of 50 mpg in combined mode. The VOLT is a publicity stunt that got out of hand, will be a very expensive automobile, will have a very very short electric range and will be useless as a fuel saving vehicle for anyone that consistently drives outside of it's electric range. The newer PRIUS conversions incorporating a lithium ion battery into their system and computer, delivers extremely high electric range and overall gas economy...the PRIUS heads in another direction obviously and is the forerunner of future automobiles. There is no future for the VOLT concept.

It’s simple – the car has 2 modes. So it needs 2 figures.
Test it once in KWH/mile
Test it in CS mode.
Give both values. Don’t fart around with trying to work out how many miles somebody is going to drive in each mode!
If you figure people only drove 41 miles then the mpg would be sqewed as you would drive 1 mile on CS mode (and if CS mode was 40mpg you would have used 1/40th of a gallon) – therefore you have 41×40 mpg!!! eg.
41 miles = (1/40th gallon used) (41/0.025) = 1640 mpg
50 miles = 0.25 gallons used (50/0.25)= 200 mpg
100 miles = 1.5 gallons used (100/1.5) = 66.66 mpg
It’s complete BS if they do that!!! 2 modes - 2 figures. Thanks.

TrasKY

My point is to the general consumer. Under your circumstances the $8220 premium in my example for an extra 260 (or 200, - 60...) miles works for you. But to appeal to more than the curiosity of the general consumer, the folks at GM must address the extra premium for 40 miles a charge and/or 260miles ICE you get with the Volt. In my example above, I asked why a consumer would not just buy a Chevy Cruze and avoid paying $10,805 for the 40 miles a charge if the Volt returns poor mpg, that is on average of a normal car once the charge has been drained.

I see no comments on this topic (that is talking about general consumer preferences that have real implications on the market) but typically how the consumer decides (collectively or mass appeal) on what vehicle to buy is more important than shop talk or PR spin. While I have no clue what formula would be right for mileage, I can tell you that consumers will compare the Volt to other EVs and extended range EV's, along with traditional ICE options. I would love to see more economic reasoning in stories on this site and others because I feel that this topic is poorly represented, but is one of the main factors in buying a vehicle and possibly making EVs/extended range EVs grow beyond a niche market.

GM’s Volt team is unable to give a straight answer to the American public on the Volt’s gas mileage in CS mode on the 11th hour of the Volt’s commercial launch.
Which of the following is corrected?

(a) With billions of dollar in development by hundreds or thousands of development team members, GM is still unable to tell the gas mileage in CS mode – This does not represent well for GM in terms of integrity or competency

(b) Volt team knows the answer. They do not like it. They are procrastinating in releasing the information – This does not represent well for GM

(c) Volt team released the information to GM’s management. GM management does not like the answer. So GM is withholding the information from the public – This does not represent well for GM

(d) The Volt is on the verge of launching to the mass market after years of development and GM is still arguing with the EPA in how to rate the gas mileage of its Volt – Mismanagement of its relationship with the EPA and does not bode well for GM’s image

(e) Frustrating with its failure to reach the mileage objective, GM allows Phil Colley to bash the journalists to vent GM’s screw up – bad PR management and incompetent

(f) All of the above

GM, please select your answer to the above question or release the truth to the public.

Why should we cut them any slack at all? First they take a bail out. The reason for needing it was the same as wall street, greed. GM was (is?) the poster child for arrogence. Then they jack up the announced price by the same as the tax credit. Talk about double dipping. They have been 'selling' this car for 3 years or more. Time for them to put up or shut up. Nothing they have done absolves them from their past. GM has to prove itself. This kind of crap is why a whole lot of people wanted to let GM fail. It doesn't appear to me that the mind set at GM has changed, dispite what the various CEOs have been crowing.

GM and its mouthpiece were (are) being idiots.
The car was put through hoops on a track, and the CS mpg reported. Just like the EPA cycle -- if you drive a Volt in a similar fashion, you now know what the CS mpg will be.

The "cycle" was never hidden. Now, I don't doubt that, were the Volt to be mainstream news, some people would walk away thinking "hmmm ... 28 mpg," and not put the result in the context of the test, but if that bothers GM, they can publish other data points. Just like Nissan. The GM mouth accused bloggers of 'lazy journalism', even though the data is perfectly accurate. I interpret the accusation as an expectation of GM that they will have absolute control over what Volt information is seen and when. Hah! No blogger worth reading is going to wait for GM to approve a story before it is published. Otherwise, we could all just read the official GM site. GM has turned 'communication' into an exercise in 'communication control', and they -- as usual -- are making a mash of it.

I don't buy Sexton's defense of GM's conduct as being reasonably gun shy after the "230 mpg" circus. After all, GM has been happy to disseminate estimated AER for 4 years, when they thought it good PR.

The Ford FIESTA delivers 40 mpg, is not a hybrid and you can buy two plus change for the price of the VOLT...There are nine other cars that fit this scenario, all sold in America. for $23,000 you can get a VW Golf or Jetta in gas or diesel, both above 37 mpg. Honda Fit, Sonata, Kia, even the Cruze...all better mpg buys for half the cost.

There is absolutely NO reason why anyone would buy a VOLT that was in their right mind and had researched the subject. Granted, there will be air-heads that buy a VOLT because they didn't research the subject, are looking to outfox the Fox family, think they are part of the "In Crowd" or own huge positions in the new GM stock...but lets face it, the VOLT is a dud and will blow fuses out, right along with brains, candles and your wallet.

Tom, you asked me to clear the air of this thread and tell you my MPG in CS mode. Here's what I know: the gauge tells me I've used just over 3 gallons and driven over 1100 miles. Unless you are specifically testing to determine mpg in CS mode, how would you know?

Lets try some math:

Pretend the VOLT gets 35 mpg in gas mode and you drive 12,000/year and own the car 6 years...72,000 miles...2057 gallons @ lets say, $3.00/gal. equals=$6,171 for gas and we never used the electric mode!

Initial price: $40,000 plus $6,171 = $46,171 total for 6 years driving

You buy a $18,000 car that egts 35 mpg and the cost in 7 years is $6171 = $24171

You save $22,000 NOT buying the VOLT.

The same VOLT driven on nothing but electric for 72,000 miles STILL costs $40,000

So you save $15,829 NOT buying the VOLT

The government gives you $7500 cash for buying the volt? OK, now by NOT buying the VOLT you only save $8329

Saving $8329 in the very worst case scenario is still a savings of $8329 AT THE VERY MINIMUM...

In real life, you will have been able to buy TWO 35 mpg vehicles and drive them for 7 years for what that VOLT will cost you over 7 years. NO DOUBT ABOUT IT.

The VOLT is a fiasco...MARK MY WORD

Thanks for the straight answer Brad!

Based on the above info, the mileage for CS should be roughly around 38 MPG.

If included 40 miles in pure electric mode before CS mode is activated until the tank is empty, the effective mileage for entire tank & full charge would be roughly 43 MPG (not counting the well-to-wheel costing of electricity).

If Volt user plans the commute around the 40 miles of electricity drive, then he/she can really benefit the Volt's technology with IC engine as a backup.

The above value proposition offers at $40K or around $33K after subsidies, seems to be unattractive to warrant Volt's commercial success.

If the Volt costs the user around $27K, then it's pricing would be at the sweet spot for its value proposition as compare to other alternatives in the market today.

It is possible if Volt team simplifies some subsystem in the car to lower the pricing to that $27K. Remove the bells & whistles and keep the basic to get the price lower.

Reader

darelldd
"If we make every choice based only on the cost of the vehicle and the cost of the fuel at the pump, then we might as well all exclusively shop at Walmart as well."

For greater acceptance of EV's, we must allow cost to be one of the main concerns in the discussion of EVs, that is speaking about affordability not luxury. Concerning retail yes cost is a driving factor in demand or else Walmart would not be the number 1 retailer in the U.S. Lets not dismiss price as one of the leading factors concerning consumer preferences.

None of us pay the true price of petroleum (health/environmental damages), and never will thanks to short-term thinking/politics and subsidies. That is why affordability and best use technology is important in discussing EVs. When gas prices go up based on spikes demand for more fuel efficient vehicles usually goes up as well. Irrational thinking? Yes. But as humans we tend to think about only short-term market conditions and the costs that face us now instead of factors that will happen in the long-run.

ex-EV1 driver

I don't disagree with your comments but if petroleum prices reflected actual market prices we would have greater market penetration of traditional hybrids including more choices for consumers. Additionally, we would not have failed attempts like the plug-in Prius or first two-mode system becasue technological advancement would be highly important compared to the fuel savings that you would get from the premium. Also almost every auto-manufacture would be rolling out a plug-in hybrid by the end of this year if markets reflected true petro costs. If gasoline prices are consistently stable and price reflects hidden costs & without tax breaks for oil production, the market would address using petroleum or electricity more efficiently and give consumers quicker/better options than what is being presented now.

Politicians do have a choice but don't want to take risks in the short-term to establish long-term planning or growth. Creating any shift in our energy system is not easy and does have some negative implications in the short-term. Remember politicians think in 2-4 year cycles. Examples can be health care reform that does little to control or manage actual health costs without needing silly subsidies & mandates or say smart financial reform that would certainly have meant going back into a recession in the short-term but better growth/ less bubbles in the future. The point is eventually market forces catches up to government making market prices artificially low but for any politician to address real changes now could mean short-term job loss or higher fuel prices/higher prices for goods which translations into angering the U.S. public and irrational voting decisions.

Anonymous
Comparing the U.S. to the E.U. or Singapore is silly. Government/polices are much different in the E.U. as well as in Singapore, including different transportation systems, consumption rates, and available consumer markets.

Engineering plug-in hybrids, traditional hybrids, or better ICE vehicles can be done but can add extra costs to the vehicle which sometimes means lower profit margins for auto-manufactures. How do you justify these added costs when the consumer does not have significant savings in fuel costs or does not pay directly for their Co2 consumption? example if he/she pays $5.00-$8.50 a gallon for gasoline added costs/premiums are more likely to be justified into a fuel savings benefit. Also, car manufactures need to scaling up cars like the Leaf to reduce costs and to improve battery technology or else general consumers will dismiss it as a niche vehicle. I hope you can see why talking car talk or reactions to GM spin does nothing unless real world economics/consumer preferences are added into the conversation and what role government plays in aiding or discouraging markets towards cleaner renewable technologies.

P.S. The FIESTA diesel in the United Kingdom gets 76 mpg and is readily available to the general buying public. Some of the diesel powered Japanese micro cars get much better than that.

PRIUS plug-in hybrid delivers 70.1 mpg

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/alternative/1009_2010_toyota_prius_p...

People are not cognizant of the fact that pure electric driven vehicles are quite simple, easy to design, contain very few parts and are extremely long-lived.

I expect electric vehicles will last a very long time. I can't say the same for the batteries but with projected lifetimes of 10 years and more, I imagine that battery replacement will not affect the huge savings in the very very long run. A directly driven (motor in wheel) electric car is the most efficient.

The initial cost of a pure electric vehicle is predicated on the cost of the batteries. As more and more electrics hit the streets, this cost will come down considerably. In addition, there are companies like China Sun Group High Tech (CSGH) that have proven Lithium IRON Phosphate battery technology that far exceeds Lithium Ion in longevity yet can be produced at a significantly lower cost. This company is even now expanding their plant facilities for a production run of these batteries.

Battery technology is rapidly improving and many are the new designs being proposed, investigated, improved and critiqued by the battery development community. I expect amazing progress in the next ten years.

Lauighter...you sure have some good columns out there Nick.

Ogden, if, as you say, the cost of the cars will come down dramatically as the price of the batteries gets less, then that does not bode very well for the resale value of these cars then, does it???

That's right - all you people that think you love the leaf or volt had better REALLY love it, because there won't be any trading these cars in after a 3 or 4 year lease is up, their residual values will drop faster than an electric drag racer leaving the starting line!

Well Tom, you may be right and my memory faulty. One thing for certain is that GM has issued a whole lot of garbage statistics and now has to deal with the realities that people like us demand. They are not responding.

It is like trying to get directions from someone that is lost and won't admit it. Beautiful directions, detailed, precise, full of points of interest and ultimately incorrect.

15% as a severe discharge? OK

30% as the bottom line? OK...but why can't it be charged to a full 100% like any lead-acid battery?

Whatever the limits, the vehicle is advertised as capable of 40 miles of range on one charge before the engine kicks in and sustains charge equal to moderate demands.

Thats another thing, what if you lose charge before some mountain climbing highway? That engine is not going to give what is needed. Like the Model T and its gravity feed fuel system...there are going to be a lot of "hilly hill" stories.

Anyone recall the Horsepower of the ICE VOLT engine and do you realize that KW (kilowatts) produced by lets say 100 horsepower driving a generator will only yield 75 Kilowatts? Essentially there is a 25% loss and that does not include losses in the motor being driven which is usually another 25% in the worst case. How much does this VOLT weigh folks? Lets say we get a usuable 60 horsepower to the driving wheel, is this going to propel the weight of the VOLT up a series of hills at a legal speed?

I have really valid questions based on years of dealing with these same machines used in every possible configuration and let me tell you: That VOLT is going to be a dud. The stories will be hilarious however.

People are not cognizant of the fact that pure electric driven vehicles are quite simple, easy to design, contain very few parts and are extremely long-lived.

I expect electric vehicles will last a very long time. I can't say the same for the batteries but with projected lifetimes of 10 years and more, I imagine that battery replacement will not affect the huge savings in the very very long run. A directly driven (motor in wheel) electric car is the most efficient.

The initial cost of a pure electric vehicle is predicated on the cost of the batteries. As more and more electrics hit the streets, this cost will come down considerably. In addition, there are companies like China Sun Group High Tech (CSGH) that have proven Lithium IRON Phosphate battery technology that far exceeds Lithium Ion in longevity yet can be produced at a significantly lower cost. This company is even now expanding their plant facilities for a production run of these batteries.

Battery technology is rapidly improving and many are the new designs being proposed, investigated, improved and critiqued by the battery development community. I expect amazing progress in the next ten years.

ex-EVi driver

WOW...dynamite post... lots of FACT, ideas and lots of hyped up information...I can't shoot from the hip with you...One at a time:

1st case: A constant speed engine of 100 hp driving a generator loses to the tune of 25% irregardless of some super computer factor...it is simply CONSTANT SPEED and the end KW product always equals 75% irregardless of some 1 or 2% increase due to temperature, barometric pressure or super generator design. One two, maybe three % difference doesn't FACTOR INTO THE DISCUSSION...bringing it up simply obfuscates the facts and cast doubts throughout the discussion (Nick will love this)

I already allowed 15% in variables which I thought was very generous...I implore you to acknowledge this and factor it in.

2nd case:

"25% loss and that does not include losses in the motor being driven which is usually another 25% in the worst case." that you describe simply no-longer exists."

I understand, essentially what you are saying is that they no longer exist at 25% levels.

2nd case: " Generator - to - battery - to - motor efficiency will suffer around 25% losses" This is wishful, vapor thinking, totally separated from traditional figures... Why would we suddenly have a 25% improvement ? because it is related to vehicles?

Engine-to generator-to motor losses are pretty well fixed, nor transitors, magic boxes or wishful thinking will ever make much of a dent in. Final delivery will alway hover around 50 to 60%...thats a well established FACT

3rd case: "It also means that you diesel engine experts can focus your attention on designing diesel engines that are optimized for a single operating RPM and Torque."

You mean to tell me that you don't realize that this has been the focus of large ships throughout the world for some 90 years now? The diesel motive power of these behemoths is the most optimized motive power in the world...you think some $40,000 titanium turbine wheel is beyond their reach when it costs $60,000/daily to run one of these mammoths? You have to get a grip on the fuel costs related to driving these mammoths through the seas. These engine are multi-turboed, rail injected, two cycle, liquid cooled piston, inline MONSTERS and each cylinder has a myriad of sensors and a bagful of adjustments that can be monitored and changed while it runs like a madman across the seas. The fuel is the cheapest and coarsest and engineers are able to squeeze every single smidgen of energy from it with NO CLINKERS!!!! NO SMOKE!!!! and they scavenge heat for auxiliary boilers in the process...these are 10's of million dollar plants. We monitor every aspect of the plant on a ONE HOUR basis...they run our asses off and the computers crunch this information every second and adjust accordingly.

Timing? Transmission losses? what the hell? There are NO transmissions!!!, it is all direct drive and instantly reversible through a sliding arrangement in the valve train. Stop the shaft and back up instantly. They start at 30 rpm! and run (full speed) at 125 rpm or less!!! They are about a 1/3 of a city block long and all inline (only way to go)

Timing? Jesus, thgere are a myriad of timing adjustments and the computer monitors everything constantly...we time on a constant basis...running full bore across the ocean is a "balls to the wall" operation as has been every ship to sail the seas. Breakdowns are constant, many in a day...but you had better believe, that engine never slows down...the backup systems are everywhere, mind-blowing and miraculous. It is almost impossible to stop one of these engines through some emergency condition...back ups kick in and we move like lightning in an emergency...it is one of the most dangerous jobs on the actuary tables of the insurance companies...I have sailed as 2nd engineer or Chief Electrician for tons of years on every imaginable drive types and it is hairy and scary...let me tell you.

3rd case: "This will enable elimination of timing and transmission losses since the electric part of the Volt's drivetrain is well suited to handle variable speeds and acceleration so the ICE doesn't have to."

Are you kidding? The variables of speed and acceleration are where the largest losses are.

4th case: "Also, as an old (obsolete) steamturbine navy man, I can assure you that ships today are looking toward the diesel (actually co-diesel) or gas-turbine engine driving a generator-motor combination in order to reduce fuel consumption as well. See www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL33360.pdf where you'll find that "Shifting to integrated electric-drive propulsion can reduce a ship’s fuel use by 10% to 25%;"

You actually believe that Navy pablum? The NAVY is FAMOUS for goofy ships and highly inefficient drive ideas. Every screwball new idea is tried on Navy ships first.
I was with the Department of Defense and sailed on some of these "famous" (laughter, lots and lots of laughter) screwball designs and they were hilarious...I sailed on one of the latest twin turbinesupply vessels that ate HUGE amounts of fuel and had an engine down for four months because some Navy screwball forgot to re-boot the computer (Thasa FACT son)...it would still do 23 knots...laughter and ate ENORMOUS amounts of fuel...My grandmother would have banned it from the dinner table...we don't serve hogs son.

I sailed on a diesel electric drive that was a constant breakdown scenario...some goofy V-design, huge diesels driving a generator in addition to driving through a clutch/reverse arrangement that failed almost every time we engaged it. Docking was exquisite at first and then tug-assisted for the rest of the "life" of this mirthful iteration of Navy thinking.

I sailed on the very very infamous Schyuler Otis Bland...where the special high pressure DD type boilers would lose water in the sight glass suddenly and no matter what we did, would not appear for 10, 20 or 30 minutes afterwards and they played with this ships for YEARS trying to figure it our because they wanted to go to "super critical" boilers (which they thankfully never did) super critical, high pressure boiulers where you melt the whole plant down in SDECONDS if something went wrong...and then I sailed on super fast multi boilered cargo vessels that ate fuel like a hog at a hot dog festival and were eventually sold to the US government that throttled down the steam stops to 20 knots and we tax payers paid for the 2X fuel usage even at that severely throttled down speed.

Not to mention my service in the Navy on diesel electric ships both AC & DC with multiple engines (6 & 7) in e and aft enginerooms USS SPERRY USS NEREUS and USS CHANTICLEER and my TAD duty to archaic diesel electric submarines? You think I am wrong and don't know what I am talking about? Laughter

I worked on locomotives and drove LeTourneaus so I am quite familiar with a FACT that you are totally unaware of and have taken license to try and factor in something you are TOTALLY unfamiliar with...to wit:

Getting the horsepowwer DOWN onto the tracks with a transmission is impossible in locomotives...the torgue required simply tears them apart.. Ditto earth-moving equipment in addition to the added benefit of driving them 100% electrically with instant actuating switches (no steering wheels, clutches, pedals or accelerators) I drove them for International Paper and I was a whiz...and I am not even beginning to brag.

Lets all be honest here. If the Volt cost $25k as it should, then we would not be having this debate. The MPG in CS mode is irrelevant. True, one does have to question why GM chose a gas over diesel engine, but this can be changed. This is an electric car, and if the 40 miles is what most people want, then its a leaf and/or cheaper EV car that will win the day.

IN CS mode the volt becomes a hybrid, and then you run into competing with the Prius and such likes. here the volt loses the battle too. If you are running in CS mode, you are using gasoline - so your dozen or so long trips a year in the volt will be in hybrid mode - and thus the MPG outside of the 40 mile range becomes a crucial factor.

TWO things the volt needs to be viable. 1. An affordable, competitive price - otherwise its dead in the water. 2. A diesel or highly efficient gasoline engine. Without this CS mode will be pathetic.

One has to wonder if LI or Hydrogen fuel cells are the battery of our future ..... but that's a different argument altogether !

alan has a good grip on the situation, why not just buy a 100 mile range, much cheaper EV-only? Or why not just buy a Prius?

Why would anyone pay $40,000+ for an under-performing, untested concept?

I want comment and stats from a number of un-biased testing authorities and not after the thing (VOLT) is released.

I can remember when that talking bobble head Bob Lutz was first on about the volt (got a whole hour from 60 minutes!), and how he would stake his reputation on it. My immediate thought was 'The Old boy hasn't got a clue' - and he was the nice old guy who crushed the EV1!

There is absolutely no way at $41k that the volt with its current under performing battery charger of an engine will ever sell (in large enough numbers!). When I heard that they had used a car engine for the battery charger generator I almost fell off my chair - Anyone see that Top Gear episode where the boys build an EV car and May only uses 2 batteries for power and they end up with a diesel generator in the back seat for charging on the go - Even they had a better grasp of what it took to recharge an EV vehicle on the go than GM has. Its really mind blowing to think that GM went this route. A simple efficient (cheap) diesel generator sourced from a company that makes and specializes in generators would have made perfect sense and just maybe the price would have been around $30k. With this lump of junk, anyone who buys this car is being sold a huge dummy!

Guys like me who want a commuter car will buy a Leaf, those who care about not only their pocket book but the environment will buy a Prius!

When hydrogen (yes it is plug in battery power too) gets itself sorted out, then the Clarity will make a whole lot more sense, more so than the Volt!

Nick, I am quite sure you understood Alan differently. The "used engine" in his post is quite accurate. The VOLT engine was not designed for the VOLT.

Now we understand from you (and your provided link) that the drivetrain in the VOLT is changing once again...once again!

In an earlier post I stated that GM still had not come up with a final drive train configuration but I was wholly ignored...Now you have made my contention credible!

1400 days now and the VOLT is still not on the showroom floor and this is because the VOLT has proved to be a bad deal and GM is frantically trying everything possible to make it viable to the buying public. They will never make it viable to mechanical engineers such as myself. It is pure foolishness, MARK MY WORD !

I just came across this article - pretty much sums up the volt dilemma - and it is a year old article! http://www.forbes.com/2009/09/15/general-motors-chevy-volt-environment-o...

-----
"Since the Volt must be plugged in to recharge its battery, the draft guidelines factor in 11 cents per kilowatt-hour (current kwh prices range from 8 cents in North Dakota to 20 cents in Connecticut). GM estimates that the Volt will require 10 kwh for one complete charge (40 "ideal" miles, 30 "real" ones), or 25 kwh for every 100 "ideal" miles electrically driven. At 11 cents per kwh, 100 "ideal" miles of electric driving would cost the driver $2.75 ($2 in North Dakota, $5 in Connecticut). Since 87-octane gasoline currently costs $2.75 per gallon, one might say with a straight face that the Volt can theoretically travel 100 miles for the price of one gallon of gas. That is the equivalent of 100 mpg--60% less than GM's claimed 230.

Imagine a 100-mile round trip between my workplace in Arlington, Va., and Baltimore, the first 30 miles under electric power. Using average electricity costs, the $40,000 Volt would use the equivalent of four-tenths of a gallon (one charge, 10 kwh) for the electric portion and 3.5 real gallons for the gas portion, or 3.9 equivalent gallons for 100 miles. This is a gas-equivalent consumption of 25.6 mpg, about half the efficiency of the much cheaper and roomier Prius. What if I only travel 60 miles (say, to Arlington from suburban Gainesville, Va., and back)? Gas-equivalent consumption would be 31.5, about the same as a practical and much cheaper Escape hybrid SUV. "
-----

I guess there's not much more to say - the proof will be in 'the pudding' !!

Nice and real post Alan...I have been saying essentially the same for weeks now...amazing how many people don't "get it"

The VOLT is a PIG with lipstick.

My beef is with Chevy itself for being so dishonest. This is the EXACT idea I proposed to them back in the 90's and their response was, "This concept is NOT feasible and therefore, we have NO interest in pursuing it"! Funny how it's all "their" big idea now! I also added covering the entire body of the car with flexible, solar sheets to help recharge the batteries. I even have the original letter I sent them, as well as my drawings of the concept car. Way to go Chevy! Really original stealing other people's ideas and claiming them as your own.

well well well

Just came across this http://www.capstoneturbine.com/news/story.asp?id=512

and ... http://www.capstoneturbine.com/news/story.asp?id=536

which really does beg the question 'WHAT were GM thinking?!'

and puts to rest the purile argument that the 1400cc cruze engine was the best option at the time.

Here we have a diesel gas turbine generator in an EV getting 80mpg - in long range mode.

Oh boy!!

I get around 42 MPG city on gas and about 37 MPG freeway gas (I can't go under 70!). 132 MPG EV city and 110 MPG EV freeway.

Cruising down the El Camino in Santa Clara, CA, the car actually stayed in EV mode for about 2 miles after the gas mode came on. A real surprise. Remember, when coasting and braking, the batteries are charged up enough to turn the generator off at a light or stop sign. You can go about 1/8 of a mile on EV. if the next light is red, you coast ... brake and add more to your charge. I saved $210 on gas last month. I think I'll take in a movie and dinner ... Go to a club ... do some dancing, and, oh yes, save another $10 doing all that. Projected cost of my Volt after 7 years ... under $25,000.

And please, don't compare my volt to a $15,000 car. This car is loaded. You have to spend $28,000 to get the same options. In 7 years ... that car costs $35,000 after added fuel costs.