# jerryguru69 (96.89)

## jerryguru69's CAPS Blog

Recs

### 0

August 13, 2009 – Comments (6)

I read a CNET story from last Sept. that the gasoline generator in the Volt gets about 50 mpg. Actually, not bad, if accurate. Besides: all you need is a more efficient generator or convert to an alternative fuel. Apparently, this is how they are getting 230 mpg rating:

1) run the battery to empty (40 miles, 0 gal of gas)
2) run the car one EPA-city-cycle (11 miles)
3) 11 miles ÷ 50 mpg = 0.22 gal of gas
4) total miles = 11 + 40 = 51
5) gallons gasoline used = 0 + 0.22
6) mpg = 51 ÷ 0.22 = 232

OK, if GM is fudging and only gets 40 mpg gasoline, mpg = 185
If we use a 100 mile battery (like the Leaf), mpg = 505

#1) On August 13, 2009 at 8:57 PM, mikecart1 (78.74) wrote:

And that's why I have the engineering degree and you do not!

j/k

Report this comment
#2) On August 13, 2009 at 9:14 PM, GCshipbuilder (< 20) wrote:

I agree with the numbers but am disappointed at how misleading they are.  Who will run the car for 41 miles and then recharge every time?  Nobody.  Bottom line you get 50 mpg with a 40 mile freebie thrown in every morning.  Still not bad considering people like me, if we only drive to work and back home, may get the best case scenario of less than 40 miles round trip with no gas.  I just bought a Traverse last month and have a Camaro SS coming in this or next month.  I may put a third car in the driveway next year.

Report this comment
#3) On August 13, 2009 at 9:49 PM, brianc410 (< 20) wrote:

and last I checked my electricity wasnt free..

I wonder what an electric bill will look like when you're juicing your car from your house...  Hell, my cousin's pool costs about \$100/month to run the filter and heat.

Report this comment
#4) On August 13, 2009 at 9:49 PM, kamuirei (< 20) wrote:

What's the equivalent mpg on plugging it in to recharge? =p

Report this comment
#5) On August 13, 2009 at 9:51 PM, NOTvuffett (< 20) wrote:

I am disappointed nobody factors in the price of the electicity, it is not like plugging in a lamp.  And the relatively high cost of of the vehicle would buy lots of fuel for a cheaper efficient conventionaly fueled vehicle.  In this respect, I think the Europeans have this mostly right, small diesel engines for the daily commuter.

It is true that a central power plant can achieve a higher conversion efficiency than a motor in a car, and they typically burn cheaper stuff on a btu/\$ basis.  The claims I have seen that it is 5, 10, or 15 times more efficient are ludicrous.  They are all bounded by the Carnot efficiency.  Coal plants come down to a theoretical eternal combustion cycle and nat. gas to an internal combustion one.

Report this comment
#6) On August 13, 2009 at 9:54 PM, NOTvuffett (< 20) wrote:

lol, *external

Report this comment