PlasmaBomb
Lifer
Plastic is a petrochemical... although it is a stupid comparison since the plastic interior could potentially travel hundreds of thousands of miles before being decommissioned...
-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Chevy Volt to get 230 mpg rating
Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Plastic is a petrochemical... although it is a stupid comparison since the plastic interior could potentially travel hundreds of thousands of miles before being decommissioned...
Those EPA numbers seem inflated by a factor of 2.
On Ev's, you can calculate a mpg equivalent based on cost per kW/hr. Here we have hydroelectric which is pretty cheap at less than 7 cents a kW.
I believe the Volt has a 16kW/Hr battery .... so it would cost me .07 X 16kW to charge it plus some losses, maybe 10%, or ~$1.12, or 2.8 cents a mile.
Based on that I would put the mpg equivalent closer to just over 100 mpg for the first 40 miles. When you start using the generator that number drops quickly. Also, as gas gets more expensive the mpg equivalent goes up. As power gets more expensive that mpg number goes down. Based on this the epa number seems majorly inflated, even if you are only using 80% of that battery range, which means you charge 12.8 kW/hrs.
For the first 6 miles I can get an mpg equivalent of 150 mpg+ based on $2.50 gas with my Insight PHEV. The Volt is bigger and heavier which will kill any efficiency.
This is from a little spreadsheet I threw together that charts cost per mile as mpg changes based on a 40 mile range.
(Cost / gallon) (mpg) (miles) (gallons used) (cost per 40 miles) (cost per mile)
2.5 25 40 1.60 $4.00 $0.10
2.5 35 40 1.14 $2.86 $0.07
2.5 55 40 0.73 $1.82 $0.05
2.5 100 40 0.40 $1.00 $0.03
2.5 200 40 0.20 $0.50 $0.01
2.5 250 40 0.16 $0.40 $0.01
edit - chart spacing not working ... figure it out 🙂
On Ev's, you can calculate a mpg equivalent based on cost per kW/hr. Here we have hydroelectric which is pretty cheap at less than 7 cents a kW.
I believe the Volt has a 16kW/Hr battery .... so it would cost me .07 X 16kW to charge it plus some losses, maybe 10%, or ~$1.12, or 2.8 cents a mile.
Based on that I would put the mpg equivalent closer to just over 100 mpg for the first 40 miles. When you start using the generator that number drops quickly. Also, as gas gets more expensive the mpg equivalent goes up. As power gets more expensive that mpg number goes down. Based on this the epa number seems majorly inflated, even if you are only using 80% of that battery range, which means you charge 12.8 kW/hrs.
For the first 6 miles I can get an mpg equivalent of 150 mpg+ based on $2.50 gas with my Insight PHEV. The Volt is bigger and heavier which will kill any efficiency.
This is from a little spreadsheet I threw together that charts cost per mile as mpg changes based on a 40 mile range.
(Cost / gallon) (mpg) (miles) (gallons used) (cost per 40 miles) (cost per mile)
2.5 25 40 1.60 $4.00 $0.10
2.5 35 40 1.14 $2.86 $0.07
2.5 55 40 0.73 $1.82 $0.05
2.5 100 40 0.40 $1.00 $0.03
2.5 200 40 0.20 $0.50 $0.01
2.5 250 40 0.16 $0.40 $0.01
edit - chart spacing not working ... figure it out 🙂
49 USC 32904(a)(2)(B)
they're supposed to consider the energy efficiency of the vehicle, the generation and transmission efficiencies of the grid, differing patterns of use from petroleum fueled vehicles, and 'the need of the US to conserve all forms of energy and the relative scarcity and value to the US of all fuel used to generate electricity.'
they're supposed to consider the energy efficiency of the vehicle, the generation and transmission efficiencies of the grid, differing patterns of use from petroleum fueled vehicles, and 'the need of the US to conserve all forms of energy and the relative scarcity and value to the US of all fuel used to generate electricity.'
thomsbrain
Lifer
Sounds like they rated it using a complete charge of battery and a little over 10 miles of gas driving (article quotes 250 MPG for 10 miles of gas driving). So basically, it's a completely arbitrary number; something they just pulled out of their asses.
I think the EPA should test the car in both electric and gas mode and publish two sets of numbers. The electric mode would be a "gas equivalent" number based on standard electricity rates and gas prices (this number could change year to year), and the second number would be the vehicle's actual mileage when running on gas. They could add a "maximum combined" number that would provide the vehicle's mileage over an entire charge and tank of gas. That way you'd actually have relevant information.
As for power, the magazines who have done first drives are implying that the car will make less power to the wheels under gas mode.
I think the EPA should test the car in both electric and gas mode and publish two sets of numbers. The electric mode would be a "gas equivalent" number based on standard electricity rates and gas prices (this number could change year to year), and the second number would be the vehicle's actual mileage when running on gas. They could add a "maximum combined" number that would provide the vehicle's mileage over an entire charge and tank of gas. That way you'd actually have relevant information.
As for power, the magazines who have done first drives are implying that the car will make less power to the wheels under gas mode.
StageLeft
No Lifer
Not sure what this has to do with an Equinox, but the rating is BS. Can this vehicle travel 230 consecutive miles on a gallon of gas under any conditions? No.
Not only is this number meaningless but it's quite literally deceptive. If they had instead had the range test over 41 miles we'd see its rating more like 2300 mpg.
Without caveat/further explanation, a MPG number cannot be applied to a vehicle like the Volt.
Pliablemoose
Lifer
I'm going to guess that the damn thing comes in at $50K.
That makes it a footnote, hell, $40K makes it a footnote.
That makes it a footnote, hell, $40K makes it a footnote.
sciencewhiz
Diamond Member
You can blame the EPA for this exaggerated claim.
If it only uses 8kW/Hrs, then it would be around a 250mpg equivalent in cost. With batteries it doesn't mean it uses the top or bottom half of that range, but instead the middle. So the bottom 4 kW/hrs would never empty, and the top 4kW/hrs would never fill. The used number for the Hondas and Toyota Prius is closer to 80% used, bottom 10-15% never empty, top 10% never full using NiMH batteries.
InflatableBuddha
Diamond Member
I'm curious as to what the overall impact will be on energy and electricity usage. Currently, it requires a certain amount of energy to extract oil, refine it to gasoline (and other fuels) and transport the gas to a filling station. Does anyone know what the average energy expenditure is for one gallon of gas through its life cycle (from extraction through refining, to the filling station?).
Envision a scenario in the future where fully electric vehicles are as commonplace as gas-powered cars are today. Presumably there needs to be an increase in electricity production to charge all of these vehicles, but is this increased requirement offset by the reduced electricity costs for extracting oil and refining gas, since we won't be using nearly as much?
AdamK47
Lifer
I think you guys are missing the point and are wrong to flat out very wrong. What they should do is look at the current price of electricity and the current price of a Big Mac. I say Big Mac since that's what the French use and because it's so delicious. Take the national average of KW/h of electricity which is 9.69 cents and the KW/h of a Big Mac which is .214 riboflavins. Divide .214 into the national average and multiply the result with the current price of the Big Mac. The current price is $3.57 according to recent Big Mac Indices. So what you have is (.0969/.214)*3.57 = 1.6165 for the equivalent price per gallon usage.
Many utility companies charge you progressive rates anyway (do any not?). If your electric car uses a ton of juice, you will end up paying a higher rate for your usage (KWh) that goes into their more expensive tiers. Thus, the ones who use more juice, pay higher rates than those who don't already.
PlasmaBomb
Lifer
If you had read my post you would have seen that 8.8kWh out of the 16kWh are usable...
So the fully electric distance is covered using only 8.8kWh (hence the discrepancy of almost double).
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
-
-
