In the last few days I’ve been reading about the gas mileage of the Chevrolet Volt, a hybrid vehicle that can run as an all-electric for a range of 40 miles. My local newspaper and various articles place it at 230 miles per gallon.
Two hundred thirty?
What does this actually mean? When you put 10 gallons into your Volt’s tank, you can travel 2,300 miles? No, not exactly.
According to the New York Times, Tony Posawatz, the vehicle line director for the Volt, said miles per gallon is “…probably not the best measure of goodness” for evaluating the Volt. However, he also mentions that “…it’s what people are accustomed to, [since] m.p.g. calculations have been around since there have been vehicles.” No kidding.
The logic is as follows: Most Americans commute less than 40 miles a day. The Volt travels 40 miles on a single charge. If you drive 20 miles and 20 back (or less) you can get a theoretical “infinite fuel economy.” But there’s no such thing as infinite fuel economy! You’re either paying for gas or electricity. I understand that we don’t often think of electricity as “fuel,” but by that token, we shouldn’t be translating a plug-in electric vehicle’s fuel economy to miles per gallon, especially since most of the time it won’t be using any “gallons.” It’s misleading.
Over at GM-volt.com, they offer an explanation of the mileage calculation. Two additional factors (to speed, intensity of driving, etc.) are how often you charge and how long you drive. It stands to reason that your fuel economy will be infinite when driving with the battery alone, and will only really exist when you actually use gasoline. The number seems almost irrelevant to the regular consumer, especially since he or she may or may not head out on a full charge. This fuel economy rating seems like it will vary too much to give you an accurate estimate of how much gasoline you are actually using.
I’ve gotten a better representation of the vehicle’s fuel economy: miles per charge and miles per gallon in a “charge-sustaining mode”. If I have a 50 mile commute, then I can subtract the 40 miles and calculate the gasoline consumed with the second number. Maybe a third number could be included: kW-hrs per charge, or even the time it takes for a full charge. These numbers are much easier to understand than a highly convoluted “230 miles per gallon” would be, and are certainly more useful.
No related posts.
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
the chevy volt kind of looks like ass lol.
The body reminds me a lot of the Chrysler Crossfire…
compare side by side:
http://www.thetorquereport.com/04.chrysler.cros...
http://www.autospectator.com/cars/files/images/...
The Volt doesn't get 230; by my calcs (on a post it) it requires the equivalent (in whatever resource you want to consume) on roughly 80mpg. My confidence range is about 20% for this (so I'd be unsurprised if it were really 65 or 95 virtual MPG)
That is pretty darn good in my opinion. But I wonder why they (the EPA) sets up a specious claim like 230 when pretty much nobody is going to believe that, except for people who believe in perpetual motion machines.
The Volt doesn't get 230; by my calcs (on a post it) it requires the equivalent (in whatever resource you want to consume) on roughly 80mpg. My confidence range is about 20% for this (so I'd be unsurprised if it were really 65 or 95 virtual MPG)
That is pretty darn good in my opinion. But I wonder why they (the EPA) sets up a specious claim like 230 when pretty much nobody is going to believe that, except for people who believe in perpetual motion machines.