Jalopnik 
Enter your username and password.
Detroit, 8:56 AM
Wed Nov 11
30 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip your editors:
tips@jalopnik.com
Editor-in-Chief:
Ray Wert | Email | AIM
Road Test Editor:
Wes Siler | Email
Weekend Editor:
Murilee Martin | Email
Associate Editor - Houston:
Matt Hardigree
Associate Editor - Detroit:
Ben Wojdyla
Editor-at-Large:
Mike Spinelli
Contributors:
Mark Arnold
John Krewson | Email
Andy Didorosi
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
10/15/09
10/15/09
10/15/09
10/15/09
10/15/09
10/15/09
10/15/09
10/15/09
@Dr. H. F. Danger: #chevroletvolt
10/15/09
10/15/09
08/11/09
[www.epa.gov]
The is no quick explanation, but I've copied some of the main points below.
"The DOE is revising its regulations to provide a petroleum-equivalency factor (PEF) and procedures for calculating the petroleum-equivalent fuel economy of electric vehicles. The petroleum-equivalent fuel economy values of an automobile manufacturer's electric vehicles may be included in the calculation of that manufacturer's corporate average fuel economy
(CAFE)...."
"...inclusion of electric vehicles in a manufacturer's corporate average
fuel economy is impossible without a method for expressing the electrical energy consumption rate as an equivalent consumption rate of
gasoline..."
The most important part of the equation is the Gasoline-Equivalent Energy Content of Electricity Factor (EG).
"Eg = gasoline-equivalent energy content of electricity = (Tg * Tt * C) Tp
where:
Tg = U.S. average fossil-fuel electricity generation efficiency = 0.328
Tt = U.S. average electricity transmission efficiency = 0.924
Tp = Petroleum refining and distribution efficiency = 0.830
C = Watt-hours of energy per gallon of gasoline conversion factor = 33,705 Wh/gal
Eg = (0.328 * 0.924 * 33705)/0.830 = 12,307 Wh/gal
That should give you all an idea of what is included in the calculations. Hit the link for the full details. Scroll to the end for example calculations. Oh hell, I might as well paste one in:
Example 1: An electric vehicle is tested in accordance with Environmental Protection Agency procedures and is found to have an Urban Dynamometer Driving Schedule energy consumption value of 265 Watt-hours per mile and a Highway Fuel Economy Driving Schedule energy consumption value of 220 Watt-hours per mile. The vehicle is not equipped with any petroleum-powered accessories. The combined
electrical energy consumption value is determined by averaging the Urban Dynamometer Driving Schedule energy consumption value and the
Highway Fuel Economy Driving Schedule energy consumption value using weighting factors of 55 percent urban, and 45 percent highway:
combined electrical energy consumption value = (0.55 * urban) +
(0.45 * highway) = (0.55 * 265) + (0.45 * 220) = 244.75 Wh/mile
Since the vehicle does not have any petroleum-powered accessories installed, the value of the petroleum equivalency factor is 82,049 Watt-hours per gallon, and the petroleum-equivalent fuel economy is:
(82,049 Wh/gal) (244.75 Wh/mile) = 335.24 mpg
08/12/09
However, from a graphic posted below we have 40 miles on an 8 kWh usable battery capacity. That's 5 miles/kWh. you quoted 12,307 wh/g equivalency, or 12.307 kWh/g.
5 mi/kWh * 12.307 kWh/g = 61.535 mpg (gas equivalence)
The gas powered hybrid portion of the cycle would need to be suuuuuper efficient, then, to get 230 MPGGE.
I suspect that they're not calculating MPGGE (or, more precisely, that MPGGE isn't what the 230 refers to), but that they're doing the EPA test cycle with a car that starts out with the batteries (at least partially) charged. In that case, only a portion of the cycle would be gas powered.
Graphic:
[jalopnik.com]
08/11/09
If you are true Jalopnik readers then you should realize as the original Mr. Jalopnik (Ray) has pointed out that this a fabulously good thing for all of us. When GM sells the Volt their CAFE saverages will increase exponentially. One single 230 MPG Volt is enough to average 35 MPG with 13 SS Camaros, or 13 CTS-Vs, or 14 ZR1 Corvettes! You should all be happy for the Volt; it insures that hot rods will continue to be built by GM. Why do you think GM is building the CTS-V coupe and maybe a CTS-V wagon?
As for Toyota, they should worry about their corporate averages because of their new super thirsty pickups and SUVS. The Taco, Tundra, Sequoia are all horrible gas guzzlers. Since Toyota has absolutely no cars worth driving then why feel bad that CAFÉ standards are now against their favor? I would love to see less Toyota gas sucking Pickups and SUVs on the roads, wouldn’t you?
08/11/09
08/11/09
08/11/09
I may be a negative Nancy, but (unlike Ray) I don't think that the Volt will 1. be a game changer; or 2. Save GM.
In fact, it probably will end up being a big boondoggle. Now I may be wrong, but I just don't buy into these schanagains.
08/11/09
08/11/09
I also imagine sales will be high because of politically correct fleet sells to federal and some state governments.
08/11/09
But the point that I was trying to make is that I respectfully but fully disagree with Ray about the viability of the Volt program. I forgive him since he did live in the D. I don't forgive him for working the socialist, federal-dollar sucking, governor of Michagin, Jennifer Granholm, who (By the way) had an approval rating of about 37% in 08. So, you get it, I don't like Granholm.
But I'm getting horrendously off topic here. Is what I really am trying to say is that right now, with the current technology (Specifically the chargers and battery lifetimes and prices) I do not believe the Volt will save GM, and will not be profitable (Also Consider the billions already poured into the Volt project).
Sorry if I sound like some deject from Fox News, but I am a person of somewhat forceful opinions.
08/11/09
08/11/09
08/11/09
08/11/09
I know it's OT but all the Eco talk had me craving for some boost. Mmmmm....EcoBoost...mmmm....Eco.
08/11/09
You can't really call that a torque curve, can ya? It's so flat...
08/11/09
This is why the American auto companies are hurting - they think clever marketing is more important than solid engineering, and that people can't tell the difference. For the $40k+ pricetag which (fairly similar engines) sounds more interesting: "Ford Taurus SHO with 3.5L EcoBoost(tm)" or "BMW 335i with 3.0L twin turbo and direct injection".
08/11/09
08/11/09
Think about it, people who drive these type of "plug-in" electric vehicles might do what they can to avoid paying for their charge up and avoid filling up. There are unprotected wall plugs everywhere!
Plug in to your neighbor's porch.
Plug in to the motel's outdoor socket when you travel.
Plug in when you park at an underground garage.
No one says they can't do it, but who'll pay for the electricity? Is it socially acceptable to just plug-in whenever you see a free socket?
08/11/09
08/11/09
08/11/09
08/11/09
230 MPG equivalent is for the charge depletion portion of the drive. Statistics show the more than 90% of commuters have a round trip of less than 40 miles per day. That would allow them to use electric only for their drive. Now unless you never paid attention in school, electricity is not measured in gallons. Golly gee, how did they come up with 230 miles per gallon? If you look at the kW/hr cost of electricity, the amount needed to charge the battery is converted to gasoline equivalent. That is how you arrive at 230 MPG.
08/11/09
08/11/09
08/11/09
And this how your charger will look like.
08/11/09
@Formerlythegreatestdriver:
08/11/09
Others have made the very important point that the electricity used to recharge the batteries to full that comes via the electric grid needs to be accounted for in that 230 mpg number - an on an energy input basis. For the financial calculations, it's likely that the electricity will cost less than two gallons of gas at current prices, but we need to be comparing apples with apples to fully understand how well their system is truly performing.
08/11/09
08/11/09
Converting energy from one form to another is inherently lossy. One of the justifications for battery powered vehicles is that it is more resource efficient. You need to look at the entire life cycle energy inputs of a given fuel source in order to understand if your are actually achieving any efficiency benefits.