Why Can't Other Plug-In Hybrids Copy Chevy Volt's All-Electric Running?

The Volt is designed for fuel economy. It just doesn't prioritize for it. It does markedly better than its ICEV platform mate, the Cruze. The current model is a little under the C-max, Prius v, and 3 of the mid-size sedan hybrids, but the next generation will be among them.

When talking mpg, there are only 4 hybrids with 45mpg combined or higher, and only 2 with 50mpg; the Jetta, Accord, Prius c, and Prius(3 at 50mpg if you count the PPI as a totally separate model). The rest are at low 40's and down.

If the nature of the FCV's refueling is the key to a better chance of success, why isn't that seen as advantage for the Volt or any other plugin? Along with the millions being spent on fuel cells and their fuel for research, millions is also being spent on fuels to displace petroleum as the fuel for ICEs. A break through for cellulosic ethanol or bio-mass to diesel is about as likely for cheap renewable hydrogen.

 

Well I answered cleaner gas engine, which is all I read into it. The ice of a car like the i3-rex or gen II volt will emit less unhealthy emission in a year because it will be off most of the time. So it doesn't matter if the prius ice is cleaner when running. The way to gauge clean is not emissions per mile when running, but emissions per year. Again the prius ice is so clean when it comes to unhealthy tailpipe emissions it doesn't matter, the prius or even the camry hybrids are clean enough. I believe you and the OP are satisfied with this clarification.

OK now you have added another statement that is simply complicated.
"50 MPG gas engine is as clean as 100 MPGe EV"

Here I believe you must be talking ghg emissions. GHG emissions aren't unhealthy or dirty, but they are harmful to the global environment. So let me rephrase to the

Are ghg emission from well to wheels from a 50 mpg vehicle as low as a 100 MPGe plug-in in charge depletion mode?

In this thread I believe you posted this excellent chart that helps answer the question. I googled for the source and I believe I have this correct.

How do EVs Compare with Gas-Powered Vehicles? Better Every Year…. - The Equation


Now reading the text the chart isn't for 100 mpge, it is for 104 mpge (33.7 kwh/gge / 0.325 kwh/mile)

so you may want to degrade the numbers. erct and frcc fall from 51 mpg ghg equivalent to 49, but you can see many regional grids are higher. Pick a volt and gas usage will make that even lower. If you drill down in ERCOT, austin energy has two types of customers green energy which gets assigned 0 ghg, and non-choice customers (they get assigned the green choice ghg) that would get 64 miles for the equivelent green house gas as a gallon of gasoline. Live in dallas and choose txu no cost low demand electricity (higher cost day) to charge at night and the car will get substantially fewer miles for the same ghg emissions. All of erct allows customers to choose low ghg electricity, and these choice customers are cleaning the grid.

So its complicated. no one plugs into the national grid. Most plug-in buyers live in places with lower ghg or buy or build green electricity. The grid is getting cleaner, but buy a volt in detroit or honilulu and use the cheapest electriity available, and you will produce more green house gas than a prius. Buy it in Austin or Palo alto and it will produce much less, and many in those cities choose even lower ghg options.

The next gen prius will probably get 55 mpg, which raises the bar. Unfortunately last year only 1.1% of US car buyers purchased a 50mpg hybrid (prius liftback, prius c, prius phv) and I don't expect that number to go up a great deal. Plug ins accournted for about 0.8% last year, and should grow quickly. Even in detroit a erev phev (volt or i3-rex) is going to produce less ghg than an efficient car like the focus or corolla eco.

 

... not to put words in your mouth - but don't you mean the FCV has a better chance, if;
... billions & billions turn up for infrastructure
... car costs drop so as to not bankrupt prospective buyers
... new fracked gas well finds can keep up with the 1,000's being decommissioned.

With those kinds of miracles being necessary - it's highly doubtful anyone is putting ANYTHING on the Mirai's shoulders .... much less everything.
.

 

That was zythryn, and I believe he explained himself above.

IMHO CARB, Toyota, Honda, and GM have all made a lot of fuel cell promises that they can't keep. I don't put it on Mirai's shoulders, because I believe the cooler heads at toyota aren't promising all that much, just tens of thousands a year sometime in the 2020s.

CARB/GM vision was the most foolish. In 2004 they promised 100 5000 psi fueling stations by 2015 with tens of thousands of fcv runing around today, and millions projected in 2020. Remember these were the days where oil companies would pay for much of the infrastructure, and fuel cell costs would fall close to conventional ices in 2020. GM has backed away. CARB still is saying 50,000 fcv in 2017, but none of the car companies are promising anything close.

The more optimistic heads at toyota. The chairman of the board and US marketing arm a year ago were talking mainstream fcv while bevs can't get there. Leaf plus tesla S sales were more than 90.000 world wide last year, with 47,500 in the US. That is just 2 of the 20 plug-ins offered. It will take a long time before that many fuel cell vehicles are sold a year, and I expect fast growth in plug-in sales.

Again I don't like the term mainstream. Although we both consider the prius mainstream today, I don't consider the leaf mainstream even though they sold more than 59,000 cars last year. I think better metrics and words than mainstream should be used. Phevs certainly can refill easier than fcv. I would expect a phev or a 200 mile bev to go mainstream before a fcv, but... anything can happen. 30 years from now a fcv could be mainstream, it may even be a erev with a fuel cell range extender running on methanol. That is one way to greatly reduce the cost of infrastructure. My guess is the tesla model 3 will be the first mainstream plug-in.

I think the volt drivetrain could power a mainstream car, but agree it is not likely the gen II volt layout will be anything but a niche vehicle. Americans just don't buy that many 2+2 cars that have less than 200 hp. The mirai is also a 2+2. Maybe the next gen will look more appealing ;-)

 

I enjoyed the irony of a Volt 'future' owner coming here to voluntarily post this in "PriusChat:"

It is such a familiar pattern, the Totally Reactive Obstinately Latitude Lout. Past examples:

• TDI, Jetta advocates - the Greenhuman faux race
• 'mild' hybrid advocates - when GM was pushing BAS(tard) hybrids
• '$3 gas to break even' - careful what you wish for ... do we hear $5 bid?
• 'lifetime cost' Hummer beats Prius - CNW Marketing
• Prius battery destroys Canadian town - article withdrawn when Sudbury threatened to sue

I give former Prius owners a little latitude because they ran the experiment. If they switched, fair enough ... within limits. When advocacy crosses beyond news, a thread begins to resemble Waiting for Godot to drive up in a fuel-cell, battery-electric, non-Prius plug-in, two-mode, natural-gas, e.t.c. 'anything but a Prius.' But in this case, why is this thread here instead of perhaps "Other cars"?

I appreciate "news" about the Volt V2.0, a car that Godot can not yet to buy, but the phrase, "Stop trying to convert me" pretty much crossed the Rubicon from news into advocacy.

Bob Wilson

ps. I sent a PM suggesting "Ignore user" is a more effective and raises fewer 'red flags' than the approach used. Usually I have enough patience to criticize in private and apologize for being unskilled in this case.

 

Brian has been a member of PriusChat since 2008 and his profile says he presently drives a 2010 Prius.

The full quote was:

He was objecting to being talked into a PiP.

 

As Jeff N kindly said I do currently drive a Prius and have done so for over 5 years now, I was here long before I got my Prius waiting on gen 3 to be released. I stated I was intending to buy a 2016 Volt and why I preferred a Volt over the PIP and instead of my opinion and decision being respected and left as is, I was pelted with reasons why I should get a PIP instead. I finally got sick of bickering over it and said I was done. It seems to be a common practice around here now a days to take partial quotes of someones posts and twist them around if they don't promote the Prius. This forum has become almost toxic to other "Green" vehicles over the years.

 

I cannot follow you. If it were designed for fuel economy it would hold an efficient ICE from Gen1, not a "off the shelf" Ecotec. And also seems a stretch to compare to the Cruze, a non-hybrid.
Hope the next generation Volt will perform as a compact size hybrid regarding MPG.

There is some Prius proud around here. Nothing wrong with that, I suppose. And please note the criticism over some faults Prii have, there are a lot of threads pointed at.

About other "Green" vehicles, there has always been true and objective posts. The Volt hype as a best example, as is the anti-BEV Lexus ad, and the hydrogen dishonesty from Toyota when dropping plug-in momentum, the grid mix, etc.

 

Who cares, if you like what you drive, then...... drive it.

DBCassidy

 

The Ecotec engines are newly designed and the 2016 Volt is the first car to get one. They are specifically built for getting better gas mileage across the entire Chevy lineup specifically so Chevy COULD pull them "off the shelf" and use them. This is nothing more than sharing parts across vehicles, a cost reduction measure for the company.

The Cruze and the Volt share a platform and are very similar sized cars, hence the comparison of standard ICE Vs Hybrid to show what the hybrid drive train does for MPG. The Cruze's most efficient model gets 33 combined, the Volt gets 37 combined. If anything this shows the Volt Gen 1 engine was not really optimized for fuel efficiency, more about that below.

What the Volt does not do is try and squeeze every last MPG out of it's engine, because when used properly you should be using the gas engine hardly at all, at the very least and not at all at the very best. The Volt is designed to maximize Electric miles over MPG. If you drive a lot of miles every day (I think the break even point is 250 miles per day only charging the Volt once a day using the 2016 numbers), the Volt is the wrong car for your daily drive. At that point you are better off with a Prius if you want to maximize MPG and minimize gas consumption but the break even point will get lower once the Gen 4 Prius hits the market. At the Gen 4's predicted 60 MPG the break even point is closer to 225 daily miles.

Edit: Expanded Cruze Vs Volt

Edit 2: Added original post quote from trollbait to which telmo responded, I was trying to clarify what trollbait had originally said.

 

According to DOE's Beyond Tailpipe Emissions site, it is. That's because electricity is generated from combination of many different primary fuel sources.

 

The problem has been the lack of clear intent. Jumping from plug-in Prius, to what's best for you, to Cruze, to break even for the regular Prius, with no sense of perspective leaves us wondering.

You need to state purpose to avoid misunderstandings and backlash.

 

Because HSD Camry costs more and takes up a bit of trunk space for the HV battery. It is not for everyone so Toyota is offering both.

If the bigger battery in PiP is free, does not rob the spare tire space, and the grid is clean enough, I would agree. Roll it out in all states. Reality is that, it is not.

Since the "clean enough" grid readiness is 5-10 years away. Leaf and Volt should not have done a national roll out until then. Of course, this is from the perspective of the 50 MPG Prius standard. Since Nissan and GM don't have 50 MPG gas car, I can understand why they did what they did. However, you should also understand why Toyota did not roll out EV or PiP nationwide.

 

MPGe by itself though, is useless.
You have to combine it with the data listed at the DOE website.
You continue to use blanket comparisons saying the Prius is as clean as a 100 MPGe electric.

This is true in some areas, not in others.
For 64% of the population a 104 MPGe electric is cleaner than a 50mpg hybrid. And that is using 2012 grid data.

 

I think FCV will take more time than Prius but about the same time as EVs. However, FCV adoption rate will go beyond what's possible with EV.

Both advancements in EV range and H2 infrastructure will make PHEV more and more of a niche market. It'll shrink and eventually die.

Yes, DOE data is weighted by kWh generated by various primary fuel sources.

If you go by population, it can look different. However, in more dense area, people take public transportation.

It is a general rule of thumb to go by as it is energy based emission calculation. It will change as the grid gets cleaner for sure.

 

As I said, it wasn't prioritized for it, which is different than not designed for it. It fuel economy was prioritized, the gen1 may have had a 3 cylinder turbo out the gate. But that would have increased development costs and times, and likely taken resources away from other areas, like the EV performance. The engine it did get could also have been tuned for better efficiency, but at the price of NVH. It engine whine and vibration turns buyers off, higher fuel won't matter, because less would buy it.

You stuck off the shelf in quotes. Which is fair because the engine wasn't completely off the shelf. At least here, the 1.4L block has a turbo, and other changes made to it for its use in the Volt. If fuel economy wasn't a concern then GM would have just thrown a 1.4 or 1.8 in without changes.

It isn't a stretch to compare a hybrid to a ICEV, since the ICE car is still what a vast majority of people buy. Saying the Volt isn't built for MPG, but ignoring what the public feels is good in those terms, isn't being objective.

Yet cancelling the ICE Camry is exactly what Toyota did in Japan.
Then people in those 'dirty', though some actually cleaner, states would like to at least sit in and test drive a PPI. Maybe even buy one without having to pay extra costs or hassles.

Your message here is basically that it is okay for Toyota to offer higher GHG emitting, or dirtier, Camries because the hybrid is not for everyone, but keep the PPI from those that it may be okay for because it emits more GHG, while still emitting less than any Camry.

Again, the problem with your 'clean enough grid' reasoning completely ignores the fact that a large majority of people aren't buying 'clean' cars or even ones 'clean enough'. The total CO2 emissions for the Prius are 218g/mi. The PPI on a 'dirty' grid with 80% coal is 230g/mi. The Corolla and Camry are both above 300; the Camry might be above 400. The average new car is 480g/mi. The Leaf, on 80% coal, emits less than the ICE Camry. If Toyota is in the business of reducing carbon emissions, why do they continue to offer high emitting vehicles while keeping another clean choice from the public

GM and Nissan and corporations in the business of selling cars. Plugins are a new concept to the public at large, and new things scare them. Exposure is the only thing that while cure them of their fears. GM and Nissan knows this. For this, and to show their investment was worthwhile, they have to get plugins to as many people that are willing to buy or lease them. They aren't energy companies, but wouldn't have been blind to the fact that some groups have been pushing back against the old coal plants, that new plants being built are cleaner, more efficient natural gas combine cycle, and that states and individuals are investing in renewables. They also know it is a question of if gas prices climb back up, but when.

They build cars, and they don't want to be caught by surprise again. Waiting for an area to be perfect just means they'll have to scramble when it is, if their product hasn't failed before then from lack of sales. Their biggest competitor in hybrids abandoning those markets is just a plus.

Do you want plugins out markets where the grid isn't 'clean enough' so that they have some of the regional expansion issues of FCVs?

 

Based on location.

Which has no relevance to a hybrid or EV being cleaner in a given area.

AND by location, which is why MPGe alone is meaningless when comparing the GHG emmissions of hybrids compared to electrics.

That doesn't track though, as EVs (including PHEVs) are catching on faster than hybrids did.

So, if FCVs will take longer than hybrids to catch on (which I completely agree with), they will take longer yet to catch up with EVs (if they ever do).

I would agree with that.

 

Volt was designed to reduce gas consumption, not for fuel economy. They are two very different things.

Volt's energy usage and carbon intensity is at the level of 42 MPG gas car. Volt 2.0 would become about 47 MPG.

This is the level Prius achieved back in 2004. The new 2016 Volt will be 12 years behind when it comes out.

In my view, Volt achieves the same in the most expensive and impractical way with the lure of electric joyride at the expense of tax payer money. The justification for it? Make battery cheaper. I say, make the grid cleaner first and everything will follow.

Because Volt needs 12+ hours to charge. It inherited disadvantages of EV refueling speed while making the efficiency of both HV and EV operation worse.

 

Your number is slanted, however lets go with it for now.
How many 42 MPG cars are out there??

 

Sure, if you ignore the extended tailipe at the end of powerplant or manufacturing factory plant. Shifting emission does not eliminate it.

I wasn't talking about individual case. If you read it in context, I was doing general comparison of both.

If you want to look at case by case basis, it is complicated as you made it out to be.

That chart is using Leaf efficiency. Volt is worse than Leaf when operating in EV and emit even more operating in HV (gas). Basically, you cannot use it defend the Volt.