Talk:Chevrolet Volt/Archive 1

Battery Life
The battery life of the EV1 was in fact greater than the Volt it is the same company GM. and may i ask what is the deal with the omission of this fact. the EV1 got 75 to 120 miles per charge, that is three times more than the Volt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.109.173.233 (talk) 05:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

The EV1 was a pure electric vehicle while the Volt will have a gasoline engine allowing it to travel over 600 miles on a single tank of gas. The EV1 was a test vehicle with an unknown production cost while the Volt is going to be a mass produced vehicle. Considering these differences there is good reason why the EV1 and Volt can not be directly compared. For example an all electric vehicle currently being produced is the Tesla Roadster which costs $109,000 so the cost of the battery was likely a factor when designing the Volt. --GrandDrake (talk) 01:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Actual CO2 cost of running the Chevy Volt
I calculated the CO2 costs of running the chevy volt in the gas-powered and purely battery-powered modes. Some interesting surprises emerged:

(all figures here are to a few percent accuracy, for clarity. There's no sense in working to 3 significant digits here)

burning 1 gallon of gas produces 8.5 kg CO2. (http://www.epa.gov/OMS/climate/420f05004.htm) Hence a 25mpg car produces 34 kgCO2/100miles.

The Chevy Volt running on gas (where the petrol engine powers the turbine which powers the electric motor) gets 50mpg. Hence we get 17 kgCO2/100miles.

Now let's think about the Chevy Volt running on purely batteries. The battery capacity has 16 kWh capacity and lasts 40 miles. How much CO2 does it cost to recharge the battery?

In the united states, we know the fractions of total electricity production produced by various methods (coal, nuclear etc), as well as how many kgs of CO2 one kWh of electricity produced with these methods costs. Hence we can calculate a weighted average for the USA for the CO2 cost per kWh:

Coal: 50% of supply, 0.95 kgCO2/kWh

Natural Gas: 20% of supply, 0.6 kgCO2/kWh

Other (includes nuclear, hydro, renewables): 30 % of supply, ~0.05 kgCO2/kWh

(CO2 use data comes from http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/page/co2_report/co2report.html#electric)

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_generation gives us the fractions of total energy production in the US that are produced by the different power generating methods)

--> on average, 1 kWh produced in the USA produces about 0.61 kg of CO2.

Hence, to recharge the battery of the Chevy Volt produces 9.8 kg of CO2.

Hence, when running on battery power, the Chevy Volt produces about 24 kgCO2/100miles.

THEREFOR, interestingly, given the USA's current electricity production infrastructure, it is paradoxically better for the environment to run the Chevy Volt on gas (17kgCO2/100miles) than off the battery charged by outlet power (24 kgCO2/100miles).

Of course, the actual cost is another matter. Running on gas at 50mpg costs about $7 per 100 miles (at $3.50 per gallon), whereas running off battery costs (at 15c per kWh) $2.40 per 40 miles, or $6 per 100 miles. This is the same as refuelling a 50mpg car with gasoline which costs $3 per gallon.

HENCE for purely environmental reasons, one should run the Chevy Volt on gasoline until the United States adopts a more CO2 efficient power generating infrastructure, since that produces about 30% less emissions than running it on electricity (of course that can change if you're in an area where a smaller fraction of electricity than the national average is produced from coal).

On the other hand, financially, running the Chevy Volt off electricity is the same as having a 50mpg car with the gas price locked in at $3 per gallon. Pretty good.

Anyway, the Chevy Volt a great car because it is a bridge between purely petrol-powered-transportation and purely electrical transportation, and it can use the current petroleum-refuelling-infrastructure. These types of hybrids also makes the CO2 problem from transportation tractable by shifting (potentially) all emissions to the electricity production sector, over which the government has centralized control and can initiate CO2 reduction measures which will affect both emissions due to domestic/industrial electricity use AS WELL AS transportation. In both plug-in-recharged and gas-powered driving, it is both environmentally and financially much less damaging than normal cars.

However, strangely enough, for purely environmental reasons one should, at this point, still simply refuel this car at the gas station.

 This information should probably be included in the Chevy Volt wiki article, but I wanted to put it out here first rather than editing the wiki right away.

Interlooper (talk) 17:06, 16 September 2008 (UTC) interlooper

Addendum: there is a complication that I did not include here: if we were to charge the Volt at night (as most people would), then it would use off-peak power. This should be cheaper than normal power. Furthermore, since the grid must at all times maintain a certain minimum of capacity, and since the actual use during the night is far below that minimum, a lot of CO2 gets "wasted" during the night in order to maintain the ability to supply the set minimum of power to the entire grid even at night when no-one is using it (i.e. to keep the boilers hot dispite the fact that their steam isn't driving turbines right now). If we could use off-peak power to recharge the Volts, then that CO2 wouldn't be produced "in vain", and the effective gain in CO2 efficiency would be much higher.

128.84.45.232 (talk) 01:24, 17 September 2008 (UTC)interlooper

I have found several dead links and questionable sources in the first website you linked to so could you point out exactly where you are getting the data for those calculations? Also trying to calculate the average amount of CO2 per kWh for the United States would be useful but I think it would be even more useful if that was done for each state. --GrandDrake (talk) 03:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

You're right... I actually just posted another site's references. I've now gotten the numbers from an official US government source, and that changes the values slightly, but not in any really significant way. I updated the above. thanks. 24.58.23.148 (talk) 05:02, 18 September 2008 (UTC)interlooper

Also, I think calculating the CO2 cost per kwh for each state would be a fairly major undertaking worthy of its own wikipedia entry(or at least a major section in some other entry). That stuff would be very useful, but I don't have time to do it myself. 24.58.23.148 (talk) 05:04, 18 September 2008 (UTC)interlooper


 * I don't know where you get "15c per kWh"... I get power from Austin_Energy in Austin, TX and pay between 4 and 8 cents per kWh depending on summer or winter rates. (See Residential Service (E01) rates here ).  I would pay about 1 cent per kwh if I could get time of use metering.  Granted... how much I pay for electricity is kind of a moot point since I get most of my electricity from the solar panels on my roof.   Azoreg (talk) 05:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh... I found some good pollution stats here... http://www.seattleeva.org/wiki/Generator_Emissions Azoreg (talk) 05:26, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I pay 15 c/kWh in New York State.24.58.23.155 (talk) 04:55, 29 September 2008 (UTC)interlooper

These calculations are important, but you missed something very important: The Volt battery is 16 kwh, but only 8 kwh is actually used in order to preserve battery life. The battery is never fully charged or discharged, instead it is kept within the range of 30-80% of charge. So you need to divide your 24 kgCO2/100mi by 2, since it only takes 8 kwh to go 40 miles. This makes the Volt look somewhat better on wall power than gas (12 kgCO2/100mi), although you're right: the electric mode is not nearly as good for the planet as you might think, if you're burning coal & not sequestering the emissions. BryanC (talk) 05:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Batteries
"Due to the high cost of fuel cells compared to newer lower cost lithium batteries, General Motors has publicly suggested that the Volt will not be using fuel cells in any near term production vehicles. [20]" I don't have a WSJ subscription, so I can't verify this. But, I would assume if the Volt was to ever use a fuel cell, the fuel cell would be used as a replacement for the engine, not the batteries as implied by the above statement. --99.249.204.255 (talk) 03:42, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

"General Motors states that battery technology available as of 2007 is not sufficient to store the 16 kilowatt-hours of power required for the vehicle"

Yet the Tesla Roadster already has batteries that store 56 KWh and that is available this year.

Upon what does GM's base their claim then, that batteries aren't ready? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Silas10961 (talk • contribs).
 * From ABC News last night, the batteries do exist but they would make the car cost "several hundred thousand dollars". The price has to come way down for existing batteries or new, cheaper technology has to be found to make this car economical. --StuffOfInterest 12:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * "Several hundred thousand dollars" is probably bogus (the Tesla Roadster costs $90,000 for a base model, and has a battery pack three times the necessary size for this vehicle). My guess has been it's more in the range of $10,000 to $15,000, and they probably want to have something that's significantly cheaper.  They've also expressed concerns about weight (I've seen quotes of 400 pounds or less, but a Tesla-style pack would probably weigh less than 300 with that amount of energy storage).  Reliability (they want 10 years and 4,000 charge cycles) and safety are things they're working on.  Personally, I think the technology is here now for anyone who wants to pay the price premium, but GM has gotten burned in the past for reliability and safety issues, so I'm sure they want to test this adequately.  Now I just have to scrounge up sources for these things and get them in the article...  &mdash;Mulad (talk) 14:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Related Vehicles section, there should be a clear reference and comparison to EV1 SERIES HYBRID version, not to the EV1 battery version. EV1 series hybrid is listed on EV1 page, as the cars are much more similar to eachother. So the improved range argument is moot wrt to Volt. Savuporo 12:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Er, in fact, the four-seat argument is also moot as the 1998 EV1 Series hybrid also had four seats. Another point is that 1998 EV1 prototype was actually a running vehicle, while Volt that has been shown to date is just an shell with four wheels, it doesnt have a drivetrain to speak of, only a small DC motor to roll it around on show floors. Savuporo 12:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Modular System ? Why don't they just specify an interface for the energy-cell ? Then other competitors can work to provide better ones. I think of a PC-Like System, made of parts that can be provided by others. It will bring the price down.--83.222.48.228 (talk) 08:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)Caid

Regenerative Braking
Does anyone know if the Volt will include regenerative braking?


 * Yes: http://www.gm-volt.com/chevy-volt-faqs/ -Bluetd —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluetd (talk • contribs) 04:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Image
There are several images of the Volt out now, http://images.google.com/images?q=chevrolet%20volt - can none of them be used here? -Sud. 18:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It all depends on the license. The license must fall under Wikipedia accepted ones.  We can't just use any image which happens to be on the Internet. --StuffOfInterest 18:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I went to http://media.gm.com/volt/ where GM has cc-by 3.0 images (whatever TF that means), uploaded one to commons, crawled over broken glass to put in the right attribution template, added the image here; and within an hour "Removing "2011_Chevrolet_Volt_exterior.jpg", it has been deleted from Commons by Badseed because: Copyright violation". I came, I tried, I failed :-) -- Skierpage (talk) 04:46, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Sites
Chevy Volt information site http://www.chevy-volt.net/ Any feedback? --Seyoda 22:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Ya, it's been added and removed a number of times. I'm guessing that it's being removed per External_links point number 10, no links to social networking sites. Though I think it's an alright site to list in external links, it won't seem to stick. --D0li0 02:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Good selection of videos and news. 70.0.224.183 14:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Seems like good enough content to me, any idea where they will be building it?--192.30.202.18 19:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Probably Wilmington. Also, this policy of removing 'social networking' links is applied very inconsistantly thoughout wikipedia. The fact is, leading automotive enthusiast websites often provide the information in advance of 'major' publications like Motor Trend, et al. --24.96.193.136 21:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks like a me-too site imo. Just some ripped pics and weak info and a bunch of Google adds. --Bluetd

Charge time
Whomever added in the line about charging via a "standard 15 amp outlet" seems to have pulled it out of thin air (it's not in the cited article), and crunched their numbers wrong too boot. This source gives some more numbers. Given the minor assumption that fully charged means fully charged (from 0%) and a lossless rectifier, it would take 20.5 amps to charge the battery (16 kWh / 120V / 6.5 hours). It still takes 17 amps if we go with a more realistic 80% discharge, and 97% combined efficiency for rectification and charging (98%, 99% respectively). --Belg4mit 03:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

120V*15A*6.5H=11.7KWH power from standard outlet. The car generator turns on at 30% left in the 16KWH battery. 16KWH*0.3=4.8KWH is as low as the battery can go. 16KWH-4.8KWH=11.2KWH power the battery needs for changing. 11.7KWH-11.2KWH=0.5KWH is far more than required for the small losses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.47.73.242 (talk) 17:20, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I have another question about this. The gas motor has to be able to provide atleast 100% of the power that the electric motors require, or does GM get away with something else (actually, I was thinking the motor has to generate something like 120% to make up for heat loss and to charge the batteries just enough). Basically, if the electric motors are upgraded to larger motors that draw more amps from the batteries, does this mean that the gas motor has to be upgraded as well to be able to provide that power to them? Smartmlp
 * The Volt is a "No Compromise" series configuration PHEV, and by that GM means that the ICE/genset is large enough to provide enough power to the electric motor to maintain 100mph, at lower speeds there would be excess energy which would be used to charge the batteries. If anything the 3 cylinder turbo ICE is oversized, but I suppose that's what makes it a "no compromise" kind of car. --D0li0 01:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * This answers my question, but at the same time raises more. If this is true, it would mean that the Volt is much more efficient than traditional ICE vehicles that require much larger engines to move car. Smartmlp
 * This probably has to do with the fact that it's set up in series, not parallel. An ICE used to directly move a car has to vary in RPM greatly and often run at inefficient speeds. The Volt's ICE runs in series and will always be performing at its most efficient. 72.153.184.32 (talk) 13:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, series hybrids tend to be LESS efficient, not more, on the ICE side. In a parallel hybrid, the ICE can put power straight into the transmission, which eliminates line losses and other inefficiencies of the electrical power system seen in a purely series architecture.  Still, a series ICE has the potential to be plenty efficient, especially in a setup like the Volt's with a small ICE and a big electric motor.  See this article for a rather simplified explanation of the efficiencies of the two architectures.  Fbagatelleblack (talk) 18:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I crunched some numbers. A 71bhp vehicle with 20 square feet of frontal area and a sleek Cd of 0.25 could achieve a top speed of 115mph.  It wouldn't get there very quickly...  0-60 time is 24 seconds, but that's where the electric drive system dominates the equations and scoots such a vehicle to 60mph with mind-blowing quickness.  Of course, as I mentioned previously, there will be significant power losses due to inefficiencies between the ICE and the traction motor, but we are certainly in the right ballpark here to achieve 100mph steady-state.  The bottom line is that in a series setup like this, the ICE only really needs to cover AVERAGE power, which is going to be somewhere under 20hp in this vehicle.  As mentioned by an astute poster above, this ICE in the Volt is bigger than it really needs to be.  Fbagatelleblack (talk) 18:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

General class of hybrid
There should be mention that the Chevy Volt would be the first mainstream series HEV. The others: Prius, Insight/Civic/Accord, and all the SUVs are parallel config. In fact this is the only reason that I'm interested in the Volt. Russella 18:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

-- "However, there was a 1998 prototype version EV1 in series hybrid configuration, that also had four seats and the same 40 miles of all-electric range as the Volt, and featured combined range of 390 miles. In contrast to current Volt, this car was actually a running prototype."

This sounds like some kind of vague "dig" at GM a la "who killed the electric car" conspiracy crap.SecretaryNotSure 18:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

volt4me.com Edit Wars
I suggest we use this discussion area to resolve this dispute. Would the interested parties please present arguments for or against including volt4me.com in the external links area of the main entry? I look forward to reading what you have to say.Fbagatelleblack 18:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * WP:EL rule 4 states that links intended to promote a website are to be avoided. --Denimmonkey 18:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * An excellent point. I guess the next question would be, 'Does the disputed link primarily promote a website, or does it primarily add to the information content of the page?'  I'll hold back expressing my opinion until we hear from the link poster.  --Fbagatelleblack 21:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * As the designer for volt4me.com...my intent is to make the world a better place and I am investing a considerable amount of time researching and proposing concepts which are all related to the Chevy Volt. Since there are other blogs, etc. linked on the site - it seems only fair that volt4me.com would also be linked.  I will, however, leave it to the community to decide.  Thank you for posting this forum to have the discussion.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jccrowley (talk • contribs) 15:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for joining the discussion. At first review, volt4me does not appear to be a suitable reference site which contributes to an encyclopedic article on the Volt.  Don't get me wrong; it looks like a worthwhile, valuable site which definitely could help make the world a better place.  However, these are not the important criteria in determining whether a site should be referenced in Wikipedia.  I am afraid that most Wikipedia admins would frown upon the fact that you are both the site designer and the person who keeps posting the link to the site.  Generally, this is not allowed on Wikipedia.Fbagatelleblack 00:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I have requested that a sensible Wiki admin who has helped me in the past weigh in on this matter. Fbagatelleblack 00:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * With only ~450 registered users (displayed in small print at the top of volt4me.com), it seems like it is not really a significantly popular site yet. Your goal of introducing a link to it seems to be to attract more users to it--wikipedia should not be used for advertising; linked sites should be notable already.  I'm also a little suspicious of a third-party site's need to collect email address, name, and postal addresses just to be able to sign a petition.  Any official pre-ordering list would undoubtedly need to be names and addresses collected directly by GM. -- Bovineone 05:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I appreciate the discussion on this topic. If you think of Wikipedia as a pure reference site...then I would have to agree that it does not qualify as I am not interested so much in the basics of the Volt.  If, however, Wikipedia is an information site then I believe it more than meets the standards.  I have written many articles on the future and how it will look after the Chevy Volt arrives in an effort to spur innovation now.  It is much more than a pre-order site.  Regarding the comment about about GM's list .... that would be a good idea if they actually had one which they don't and they never will because they don't get involved in the sale - they leave it up to the dealers.  For me, this car is more than about saving a few dollars at the pump - it is an opportunity to change how we do everything.  A complete redesign.  Lets think of this as starting out again instead of ending up with what we have.  That is what Volt4me is all about and if it isn't right for Wikipedia I would appreciate any feedback that would help make it right.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jccrowley (talk • contribs) 10:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * This edit is now in violation of Wikipedia's three revert rule, WP:3RR. While you are welcome to continue to make your case on this discussion page, please stop reposting the link on the main page.  Thanks.  Fbagatelleblack 16:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok...so now what needs to be done to make it a suitable reference? Do I need to write a book on the topic?  An article?  Publish some original research?  I have fallen in love with this car and the concept.  Tell me what is appropriate and it shall be done.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jccrowley (talk • contribs) 23:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I realize this is sort of a dead discussion, but to answer your question... Creating content in order to create a reference is not the way things work on Wikipedia. When the site grows and becomes a wealth of information, and the community here agrees that the site is worth a reference, it certainly will be added. And BTW: I too am in love with the concept of serial hybrids and the Chevy Volt. I wish more people would be made aware of the car, or at least, the concept. A link exchanges, or perhaps, a link directory would probably be the best place to spread the word of your site. Good luck! 68.79.122.3 (talk) 07:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Electric Vehicle Controversy Section
The comments/position attributed to Chris Paine do not seem to accurately reflect his position on PHEVs. However, I am trying to get his response before I start to edit. In any case, this new section needs to be tightened up a referenced my more precisely. More to follow.Fbagatelleblack (talk) 17:52, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I sent these edits to Chris Paine, and he confirmed that they do not accurately reflect his position, so I deleted those comments attributed to him. He sent me some ideas, which I will try to work into the entry ASAP.Fbagatelleblack (talk) 21:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The section currently refers to "critics" but only mentions one by name: Chevy's direct competition, Tesla. It also fails to mention the biggest problem with BEVs: the inability to make a long road trip. It doesn't seem very balanced to me. 72.153.184.32 (talk) 13:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that the Volt is a BEV? It is not.  It is an E-REV which can make long trips. -Bluetd  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluetd (talk • contribs) 23:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

with fbagatelleblack on this. Also, tesla doesnt deserve a mention in this article because not only is this article about the chevy volt, but tesla is also a company that isnt noteworthy enough to include in a discussion considering they havent even produced 1 single car. LightSpeed3 (talk) 20:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * NOT TRUE! Tesla "delivered" roadster #1 to Elon Musk on 2/1/2008.  But, yeah.  Rumor has it there are still problems with the transmission.  I think Tesla is a highly noteworthy company, but such notes do not belong in an article about the Chevy Volt.  Fbagatelleblack (talk) 21:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Tesla
I have noticed some users (example: LightSpeed3) removing all refs to Tesla on this Volt page. Why? The Tesla is what made GM decide to bring the Volt to market (Lutz has said this over and over in interviews ). The Tesla is very important to the Volt's history. -Bluetd
 * Be that as it may, this article should deal with only subject matter DIRECTLY related to Volt. While the Tesla may have an indirect relation to the subject matter, discussion of the Tesla, or quotes from Tesla employees should only be included when they directly and specifically address the Volt.  I side with those who say your recent verbiage should not be included.  Also, the remaining text of the Controversy" section needs to be cleaned up to make it more encyclopedic.  This matter is turning into an edit war, and I will not hesitate to call in the admins if it continues.Fbagatelleblack (talk) 20:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Fbagatelleblack, thanks for the feedback. I yield to your wisdom. *bows low* Bluetd —Preceding comment was added at 01:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The good news is that there are other plenty of other places on Wikipedia to put this info Battery electric vehicle, electric vehicle, etc. Fbagatelleblack (talk) 04:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * can you stop mentioning the tesla roadster and its imaginery existence, tesla is a stupid scam company that makes idiot nerds who dont know about cars think they are all of the sudden experts on this. LightSpeed3 (talk) 03:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The Tesla Roadster may never end up on the market but that doesn't change the fact that it has had a tremendous impact on the automotive scene. It is the first fully street worthy BEV sports car.  It has turned a lot of heads and shown many people the potential for BEVs.  It has done more to improve the image of the BEV than any other car.  It is the first EV to say "EVs don't have to be slow and dull". Bluetd  —Preceding comment was added at 16:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Tesla may have many problems, but it is not a "scam company." They've spent millions of dollars developing a wonderful car, and they are working (to a debatable degree) on developing others.  And all those "idiot nerds" to whom you refer will likely be the folks who save us from our current self-destructive addiction to oil.  Fbagatelleblack (talk) 18:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * there is no addiction to oil. sorry but oil is the most cost effective method right now. The tesla is an elise with a powerpack and some motors instead of an engine. wow good job, look at the interior, its disgusting. LightSpeed3 (talk) 01:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * LightSpeed3, what is the point of this tirade? It is already obvious you hate the Tesla Roadster. -Bluetd


 * "oil is the most cost effective method right now" Well... I bet if we set up nuclear reactors with no containment and no safety measures, we could generate power in a very cost effective manner.  Similarly, if we ignore the cost of the present and future catastrophes oil renders upon our planet, it appears to be cost effective as well.   But the catastrophes are real, and oil represents a financial as well as an environmental disaster in the long run.  Fbagatelleblack (talk) 23:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Why not add this to the page? show the real story.
http://www.trollhattansaab.net/archives/2006/04/did_gm_screw_sa.html

http://www.trollhattansaab.net/archives/2006/04/the_smoking_gun.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.24.143.83 (talk) 20:46, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

The standard electric outlet
The standard outlet in the home is 120 volts at 15 amps not 20 amps. The kitchen outlets are higher with 120 volts at 20 amps. The electric drier is 240 volts at 30 amps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.47.73.241 (talk) 19:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * No. There are several "standard" outlets. They range from 15 to 30 amps at 120 volts.  Ask your local electrician for more information. --KJRehberg (talk) 13:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

60,000-Volts-in-First-Year Rumor
Perhaps we can discuss this. It's not really a huge issue, but for the overall cleanliness, relevance, and accuracy of the article- I'm for removing, or at least relocating, the 60,000-Volts-in-First-Year rumor to some place else other than the opening paragraph, since I feel it's not relevant.

1) Do refuted / corrected estimates really belong in this article? If so, what benefit would obsolete estimates serve the reader? If the rumor does belong on the article, is it relevant enough to belong in the intro paragraph along with the latest figure of 10,000 units? Speculation is great, especially in pre-production, since that's often all we have to go by. But keeping old figures just doesn't seem relevant to me.

2) The current "by GM staff" is an error (or assumption at best), as not even the source identifies them as staff members. They are identified as "anonymous people with knowledge of GM's plans" . Is this a reputable source for information? And when this information is contradicted on the record by actual known name like Lutz and Wilkinson, does it still remain accurate and relevant enough to be mentioned? Again, back to #1.

3) There are many guesstimates floating around about production- one even said there would be 100,000 units in the first year . But this too was refuted by GM's Tom Wilkinson, who said he never made that quote, and the official production numbers are still not final. That leaves the (still non-final) "10,000" by Lutz as the only recent and non-anonymous figure given by GM, and by a GM higher-up at that.

So we have "100,000" which was later found to be a misquote, "60,000" by anonymous, "10,000" estimated by Lutz, and "not final" by Wilkinson. I feel that the information from Lutz and Wilkinson is most relevant. "10,000 units, but those figures are not final".

I suggest the first paragraph should read something like...

"...range is potentially increased to 640 miles (1,030 km) on the highway. GM estimates that initial annual production will be 10,000 units, but those figures are not yet final."

...then if we are to include the old figures and other information that has changed over the past few months, I suggest a new section be created, such as "From Concept to Production". I expect there will be many changes from the concept period to the production period with regard to information we have received (design, specifications, cost, battery supplier, production, availability, etc...). Perhaps it would be best to move the old information someplace else, in order to preserve the speculation on original planning, while still keeping current data in the most relevant places.

Any input on this? Kubel (talk) 04:52, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The whole article is full of fanboy speculation, so I suppose if it were cut back to what has been reported by WP:RS (not blogs etc) as well then your proposal would make sense. I think it is a shame to lose the record of the ridiculous claims that were made over the last couple of years. So I suggest cutting out everything that does not have a good ref. Greg Locock (talk) 11:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree, too much speculation. The whole article needs to be rewritten (or at least thoroughly trimmed) so that we have more data that is verifiable and less that is wild speculation (and in many cases, just hopes and wishes). I too see more of a 'historical' value in the ridiculous claims, since it shows the path that the Volt has taken through its conceptual/speculative years, but I'm not sure where it should be in the article now that the Volt is leaving concept status and entering production status. Kubel (talk) 04:52, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Significant mainstream media article on the history and future of the Volt
There is a significant mainstream media article on the history and future of the Volt in The Atlantic this month. Here is the URL:. I'll let someone else decide if and how to work this source into the Chevy Volt WP article, but I will note that it has some significant claims on the history of the program, among others. Worth a read if you are Volt-interested. N2e (talk) 04:16, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Many more sources to choose from, including some "first looks" at the car body design details. From the New York Times:


 * Plug-In Hybrid From G.M. Is Nearly Ready for Testing
 * And GM has been giving a lot of videos and press interviews. They are claiming to be back on schdule, having recovered some or all of the time that was lost in the design process:


 * 
 * 
 * 

Why does chevroletvolt.org keep getting deleted
Why does the link to chevroletvolt.org keep getting deleted. Last time i checked it is a real, high quality site for the chevrolet volt..... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.20.164.101 (talk) 20:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

50 minute half charge - Impossible
I have removed text saying, "A half charge reportedly takes 50 minutes." There is no way to half charge a 16 kWh battery in 50 mins on a 120 V, 15 Amp circuit. Allow my friend Swaff to demonstrate why. —fudoreaper (talk) 07:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * 120V x 15 amps = 1800 watts. If a full charge is 16kWh and the car only allows the battery to get down to 30% charge, then for practical purposes a "full charge" is 11.2kWh. Therefore it stands to reason that a "half charge" is 5.6kWh. To pull that in an hour would require a circuit producing 5600 watts. To do it in 50 minutes would require 6720 watts. 6720 watts at 120 volts = 56 amps. Conversely, a 120 volt 15 amp circuit producing 1800 watts over 50 minutes would only produce 1.5kWh. The 10 hour full-charge time is believable, as 10 hours at 1800 watts equals 18kWh. —Swaff (talk) 07:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * a full charge is 16kWh. Please dont put a biased "practical purposes" spin on the batteries power. LightSpeed (talk) 17:28, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

How many wheel drive is the volt?
Some vehicles with regenerative braking on all 4 wheels still use only two for drive. How many wheel drive is the volt?--15.219.153.74 (talk) 17:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * As the sidebar says, it is a front engine/front wheel drive. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 21:06, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Is that the "FF" next to layout? If so that is rather terse.--15.219.153.74 (talk) 22:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Which is why it is a wiki link that you can follow. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 22:13, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Thermovoltaic roof option
On a recent episode of the Colbert report, Bob Lutz indicated that they will be offering a solar power roof option allowing the user to charge the car with sunlight. Anyone else heard about this? WhoIsJohnGalt? (talk) 04:34, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I wrote a long explanation of 300W (0.4 horsepower) from the car roof vs a 16kWh battery pack, but Lutz himself says on the Colbert Report "leave your Volt in a sunny parking lot for two weeks and you'll get it charged" which sums up physical reality nicely. -- Skierpage (talk) 04:35, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Concept and Production Car
I suggest create specific sections about the concept vehicle and the production vehicle (unveiled in the 100th aniversary). I.e. the production vehicle is more aerodynamic for a bigger range--Mac (talk) 13:45, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Attn: RedHarvest
The Volt does not have the capability for the engine to directly drive the wheels, it can only produce electricity. Per the reference after the line that is in dispute: "The engine’s job will be to maintain the battery at a SOC of 30%, and will do so by continuously matching the average power requirement of the car once it is turned on. " Harksaw (talk) 21:51, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The sections I have changed have said the generator will recharge the batteries, which it will not do. See http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/News/articleId=132112  "No 'Revolting' the Volt: Chevy Battery Does Not Recharge While Driving." Red Harvest (talk) 21:54, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * You folks need to go back and correct the article as the wording you have is incorrect. I'm not going to edit war, but you are incorrect. Red Harvest (talk) 21:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * the Range extender will Recharge the batterys not Run the motor "It will use a lithium-ion battery with a variety of range-extending onboard power sources, including gas and, in some vehicles, E85 ethanol to recharge the battery while you drive beyond the 40-mile battery range." See     Speer320 (talk) 22:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I believe what is happening is the generator is creating roughly the same amount of power that the motor is using. The battery is still connected to the circuit but is not gaining any net charge. There is only a small difference between saying that "the generator is powering the motors", and "the generator is holding the charge in the battery which is powering the motors," but the battery is not disconnected as far as I have read. Harksaw (talk) 22:05, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * It is not recharging as the article stated before my edits corrected that (since reverted by others). The electric motor is being propelled by electricity from the generator in range extended mode.  The batteries are likely floating to maintain 30% but they are not being "recharged."  I understand very well what they are saying, unfortunately other editors do not. Red Harvest (talk)


 * I don't think the word "recharge" necessarily means "recharged to full capacity." It can mean any amount of charge that is added to the battery. I like Greglocock's suggested line below. Harksaw (talk) 20:55, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The confusion has been caused by GM, possibly abetted by people not understanding the information GM have given out. The latest info (from Edmunds but they don't give a source) says that once the battery reaches 30% it is NOT recharged by the gas engine. Previously it was more like the operating cycle of the Prius, albeit with an initial EV only range. But... Edmunds don't give a source, I think we should let the article stand until one is found. I wouldn't mind betting GM release a clarification soon. Greg Locock (talk) 06:03, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The "recharge" parts of the article are flat out wrong. GM is clearly not planning to recharge the battery with the engine.  If they did so it would defeat the purpose of being a plug in and take a huge hit in mileage.  (Consider the EPA controversy for a moment.)  They are holding a state of charge, not recharging, big difference. Red Harvest (talk) 21:17, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree. I understand what they are doing, but what I do not have is a WP:RS that makes it clear in language that the enthusiasts editing this article will understand. Ideally we'd find a couple of sentences like "Once the battery falls to 30% SoC it is used as a buffer to provide short term traction assistance for the IC, and regenerative braking, but it is not recharged significantly by the IC. The battery can only be fully recharged by an external electricity supply."Greg Locock (talk) 02:00, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The statements regarding the supposed inability of the range extending ICE to be able to "charge" the Volt's batteries have been debunked by GM engineering staff and the original Edmunds thread as stated above by Red Harvest eventually retracted. Here is link the "clarification" post at Edmunds. http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/News/articleId=132246 The Volt's range extending ICE will infact maintain and potentially increase the SOC of the battery to an upper set-point where the ICE shuts OFF, until a lower setpoint is reached. It's all in the EREV SAE paper GM published(and now have finally made publically available on their media site here: http://media.gm.com/volt/eflex/index.html) WopOnTour (talk) 08:34, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Shrugs, it is funny that Edmunds have retracted a statement that is more-or-less right, and from which we were able to divine the actual state of affairs. By the way there is no guarantee that the SAE paper (thanks for that, it is a little useful) is revealing ANYTHING about the Volt's setpoints. Until they finish battery testing then I doubt they'll be even close to making decisions like that. There is no operational advantage in charging the battery from the IC, once it is over the lower limit they've set for durability (the 25/30% SoC) Greg Locock (talk) 11:17, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Unindent.Disagree with "more or less right" The original Edmunds article stated that once the battery was depleted (to whatever lower limit) that it's SOC was not affected by the range-extender ICE powered generation and that from that point forward ICE would need to operate constantly in order to create all "sustaining" energy requirements to continue the current trip cycle.The original Edmunds article also indicated that the only method to recharge the HV battery was thru grid-connected station charging. Neither of these are true.

How long ICE runs and the duty cycles of ICE ON vs OFF periods depends totally on energy required to provide propulsion and operate other vehicle systems weighted against the total energy created thru the combination of ICE powered generation and cumulative regenerative braking events. Once ICE props the SOC back up to the upper set-point, ICE shuts OFF.However the upper set point is not a "fixed" point and will be selected dependant on current average demands to prevent excessive ICE cycling especially under constant high demand. (such as high speed/highway scenarios) Since the operating energy demands will generally exceed regenerative braking levels the deficit created means SOC will gradually decrease and eventually reach the lower set-point firing UP ICE for another cycle.(or the trip cycle ends and station charging off the grid commences)I agree that it is difficult to establish the "exact" lower set-points used however (and you stated) the lower set point will likely be 25-35% to extend the battery life cycle.

One other erroneous related comment made in the Edmunds article is one that ICE will only operate a a specific "efficient" fixed RPM, this gives the illusion that ICE will ALWAYS operate at this one single RPM.Again, not true as the ICE RPM on the Volt will be automatically controlled by an electronic throttle based on an algorithm allowing the controller to set the most appropriate generator (ICE) speed to insure generation rate always EXCEED current demands and permit SOC to increase towards the upper set point as efficiently AS POSSIBLE.WopOnTour (talk) 02:55, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Removed section that reads like press release
I have removed the following wikitext, because it's a repeat of the information also found elsewhere in the article, and because it reads as if it were advertising. If fact, 2 of the 3 references are advertising, and the third it essentially and industry magazine reprint of the same press release. I think the best thing to do is just remove the section, I am sure Wikipedia's editors can create something more informative and concise. —fudoreaper (talk) 23:30, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

GM 100 Birthday Unveiling
On September 16 2008, as part of General Motors' 100th year celebration, the company unveiled the production version of the Chevrolet Volt. GM took design cues from its muscular concept vehicle in its creation of the Chevy Volt, but the pursuit of aerodynamic efficiency for the highest fuel economy led to a softer, more rounded shape for the production vehicle. According to GM, the company has created one if its most aerodynamic vehicles ever in order to achieve its goal of traveling up to 40 miles without using gasoline or producing emissions. For longer drives, a flex-fuel engine will burn gasoline or E85 (a blend of 85% ethanol and 15% gasoline) to drive a generator that will recharge the battery.

The Chevy Volt will feature a lithium-ion battery pack consisting of 220 battery cells that can store 16 kilowatt-hours of electricity. The battery will provide power to a 111-kilowatt electrical drive unit that will produce 150 horsepower and 273 foot-pounds of torque, allowing the Volt to reach a maximum speed of 100 mph. The vehicle can be recharged in about 8 hours using a standard 120-volt outlet or in less than 3 hours using a 240-volt outlet, the type commonly used for electric dryers or ovens. GM estimates that the Chevy Volt will cost about 2 cents per mile to run in electric mode, while even a 60 mpgus hybrid fueled with gasoline at $4 per gallon will cost about 6.7 cents per mile. GM expects to build the Volt in Detroit, Michigan, beginning in late 2010, but it has not yet determined a price for the vehicle. 

Fuel consumption
I have reverted the addition of a couple of comments regarding fuel economy figures being misleading as the fossil fuels might be burned to produce the electricty to charge the vehicle. Unless someone can provide an actual source pointing it out I think it has to go. I don't really agree with the logic, you could say the fuel consumption figures on any car are misleading as fossil fuels are consumed refining and transporting the gasoline as well. However if some reliable source disagrees with me, I would have no problem returning statements similar to these in the article. --Leivick (talk) 22:58, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I fail to see why high-handedly removing the sentences in question, rather than asking for cites, is a good way to improve the article. Methodologies to establish well to wheel efficiencies for both electric and IC engined cars are out there in the literature. I must admit I doubt anybody has spent much time analysing the Volt in particular, not least because such effort is likely to be wasted.


 * One difficulty is that there are at least three valid criteria on which it needs to be assessed, and any answer would be in the form of a graph, depending on what proportion of the time is spent running in EV mode, for a given drive cycle. The three obvious criteria are running cost per mile, CO2 emissions per mile, and hydrocarbons used per mile. EVs tend to score well on the first and third of those, if capital costs are excluded. Obviously in reality a 40k EV/IC car is going to struggle to save its owner real money compared with a 20k IC car in practice, as the interest on the capital employed will pay for 20-30 gallons of fuel a week.Greg Locock (talk) 23:18, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If a reliable source has discussed it would be great to add. --Leivick (talk) 04:02, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

"Recharge" verses "Maintain"
No "Revolting" the Volt: Chevy Battery Does Not Recharge While Driving

I just made some edits related to the above article. The onboard generator will (according to GM terms) "maintain" the battery pack at 30% charge, but will not recharge it beyond that. Recharging the battery pack to full charge can only be accomplished via external power sources (plug-in realisticly though the solar cells can help). This is an important distiction as it makes the Volt a very different sort of hybrid than everything else on the market since it will *require* plugging in to get the benifit of it's batteyr pack and electric-only range. I have not had a chance to go back through the article and adjust the wording for all of it. However we should be careful to use "maintain" when referring to the onboard generator powering the battery pack and only use "recharge" to refer to external power bringing it above that 30% maintenence level.Improbcat (talk) 14:08, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Your statements made above are TOTALLY incorrect. The ICE IS able to increase the state of charge above 30% state of charge. You are reading from and Edmunds article that has since been debunked by GM. Refer to the SAE document that I have referenced in the aritcle. Instead of risking the potential innaccuracies using terms such as "30% state of charge" I suggest the terms "lower SOC set-pont" as the actual SOC details are dependant on numerous physical and ambient conditions. The intricate details of which are known only by the GM software engineers involved, therefore speculative statements towards actual SOC values should be avoided. WopOnTour 07:39, 2 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by WopOnTour (talk • contribs)

"The engine’s job will be to maintain the battery at a SOC of 30%, and will do so by continuously matching the average power requirement of the car once it is turned on. Those energy requirements will roughly be about 8 kWh in the city, and 25 kWh on the highway." That comes from an article that claims to be the result of a conversation with a GM engineer. I could not find the SAE document you purport to quote. Please give an unambiguous reference to it. Greg Locock (talk) 22:58, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The actual "setpoints" of SOC that influence ICE duty cycles have NOT been officially disclosed by GM. They make reference to it being ~25% in the GM SAE paper that I have referenced. (for a link see reference item #5 in the article) So there will be a lower set-point (according to the paper <25% SOC) when the range-extending ICE will initiate, then (depending on numerous charging factors, contributions from regen braking events etc) ICE will shut OFF at an upper set-point (possibly as high as 35-50%)If you look at Figures 6 & 7 from the paper you will see what I mean. So I question the term "maintain" as there is a clear line of hysteresis shown in the paper where the state of charge is managed and allowed to fluctuate through a specific range (of currently unknown specific set-points)

WopOnTour 23:49, 2 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by WopOnTour (talk • contribs)


 * The statements regarding the supposed inability of the range extending ICE to be able to charge the Volt batteries has been debunked by GM and eventually retracted by Edmunds- who erroneously reported as such in the previosly cited article.I really dont see how anybody can cite BLOG sites such as Edmunds as a definitive reference to ANYTHING regarding product functionality and operation. These items should be cited from GM documents or quoted from GM represetatives only IMO. Here is the "hard to find" link to Edmunds retraction of their previous statements. So easiliy willing to just to whip-up a revised article with "Remember when we said... well we were wrong" is hardly the type of sources should be considered reliable. They didnt even bother trying to correct the original article. http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/News/articleId=132246

WopOnTour 00:23, 3 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by WopOnTour (talk • contribs)

For more info on "charge vs sustain" see RED HARVEST thread above WopOnTour (talk) 03:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Volt more CO2 emissions then BMW 118d claim
I question the claim of Source that the Chevy Volt will generate more CO2 emissions then a BMW 118d. This claim is completely unintuitive. A purely electric vehicle should be significantly more efficient then an internal combustion engine powered car, and therefore generate significantly less CO2 emissions. Then consider the amount of energy required to refine and transport diesel fuel. These emissions may not be factored into the 123 g/km figure for the BMW 118d. Although electrical transmission lines aren't 100% efficient, electricity doesn't require the movement of mass so it should produce less emission during transportation.


 * The source of the 118d statement you make above IS NOT part of the Volt WP. So why are you going to all this trouble debunking what is not being published here?WopOnTour (talk) 08:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The source link is not specific about how this calculation was performed, therefore I'd call it completely unsubstantiated. In an attempt to substantiate this claim I've performed my own "back of the envelope" calculation of CO2 emissions of the respective cars using CO2 emissions from electrical power published by Pacific Gas & Electric HERE and the Volt's energy efficiency from HERE. The energy efficiency of the Volt at 8 kWh per 40 miles is rather old, and is a questionable source, but that's all I have to go on. If someone has better information please point to it and I'll update my calculations. The CO2 emissions number from PG&E should be reliable.

So here are the numbers:

Calculation of theoretical CO2 emissions of Chevy Volt:

Energy efficiency = 0.13 kWh/km, Emissions = 238 g/kWh

Emissions rate of Volt = Emissions * Energy efficiency = 30 g/km (fixed typo)

For comparison, the BMW 118d generates 123 g/km.[http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/carreviews/firstdrives/208560/bmw_1series.html

I've just demonstrated ~4 Chevy Volt's generate as much CO2 as 1 BMW 123d.

I recommend the section of this article be corrected or removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frank Ravizza (talk • contribs) 06:29, 18 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, (a) that is WP:OR (b) your figures are wrong and (c) we have a source for the statement in the article. 130 Wh/km is an incredibly low energy consumption for a 4 seater car that meets all the normal regs, never mind one which is dragging an IC engine around with it. Greg Locock (talk) 06:52, 18 October 2008 (UTC)


 * With respect, the Source is not (WP:RS), please a) refute my calculations or b) substantiate your source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frank Ravizza (talk • contribs) 06:58, 18 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Even if the Volt consumed all 16 kWh over 40 miles, which it probably doesn't, that's 0.25 kWh/km and only doubles the emissions to 60 g/km. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frank Ravizza (talk • contribs) 07:05, 18 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I didn't need to look far to show the Volt doesn't consume all of its 16 kWh battery over 40 miles, see previous discussion topic that shows minimum charge is 30%. I'll refine my number based on that figure to 0.18 kWh/km which bumps the emissions rate to 43 g/km. Your comment about incredibly low energy consumption, consider this, for the Volt to travel 1 km require 11 kJ of energy, as much energy as it takes to lift something weighting 12 tons 3 feet off the ground. I'd say that's a significant amount of energy. These are introductory high school physics calculations.


 * Shrugs, don't you think by challenging me to correct your equations and then having to alter them yourself indicates a problem? Maybe where you work 50%-200% errors are acceptable. I agree with your 70%*16 kWh figure, for 40 miles of the urban cycle. Your 238g/kWh figure is rather more wildly innaccurate, at least for the average electrical power available in the USA. eg http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/page/co2_report/co2report.html#electric . In reality overnight electricity is more likely to be used, and this tends to be coal, the worst CO2 emitter. You are also ignoring charger efficiency. I don't know how you got your BMW figures, hopefully a high school student did them and got them right. Make sure you use the urban cycle. I vaguely remember that the well to pump efficiency of the diesel distribution system is 85%.  Greg Locock (talk) 07:31, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Your bias against the Volt is apparent and your derogatory rhetoric does not reassure us of your credibility. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frank Ravizza (talk • contribs) 07:54, 18 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not, actually, biased against the Volt. I think it is an interesting alternative to the Prius' approach, and will be very keen to see how it turns out, in terms of cost, emissions, and efficiency. I did rather dislike the appalling hype that surrounded its launch, with ludicrous styling, and whacky estimates of the cost. But as an engineering approach, it is interesting. Greg Locock (talk) 08:25, 18 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I think electric vehicles are the going to be the future of the automotive industry. Hopefully, the Volt will be an important first step. GM is desperate for winner that isn't an SUV or Truck. Gas prices should fall to below to $3.00/gal for awhile and that will help relieve their pain. To make electric vehicles viable their specific energy (Wh/kg) is going to have to increase to be comparable to that of an internal combustion engine. I believe supercapacitors, such the EEStor is developing, will prove to be a better technology then batteries. For examples, the Volt's battery will have a specific energy of 88 wH/kg, while EEStors will be 682 wH/kg. But that's not the only advantage to a supercapacitor, they can charge and discharge much more quickly the batteries and should last longer. I am of course skeptical of EEStor's claims, I hope they can produce these units as claimed.


 * I just found the 1.34 lb/kWh for the US from the DOE link. This adjusts the figure to 110 g/km. In California we have a lot of low emissions power (Nuclear, CH4, Hydro-eclectic, wind) so for me the 43 g/km figure is correct. These are nebulous figures. For someone driving in France where a large majority of their power comes from Nuclear, these numbers would drop to insignificant levels compared to the US. If I used my roof mounted solar panels, my Volt would emit zero CO2. If you're arguing a Diesel powered BMW is more "green" then an electric car, I think your opinions are very unusual. Personally I could care less how much plant fertilizer I add to the atmosphere (CO2 ), all I care about is $/mi, for driving the Volt it would $0.0007 per mi (PG vs. $0.11 for my Ford Focus. I think you'll find most people feel the same. I don't have illusions that by driving a particular car I'm saving the planet. But that's a different discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frank Ravizza (talk • contribs) 07:46, 18 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Good, we finally seem to be getting some accuracy. Now all you need is a WP:RS that repeats these calculations. Do you understand the substitution/marginal CO2 emissions problem with your solar cell justification? Also bear in mind that the Volt will use substantially more electricity once it is on the highway. The BMW will use less. Greg Locock (talk) 08:04, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd like the see this section deleted. I still challenge the reliability of the source for this claim. It's less substantial then my own calculations because I describe how I arrived at my numbers. GM is not marketing the Volt as a low green house gas emitting car anyway. This CO2 claim is misleading and the numbers vary from 0 to 110 g/km depending on how you justify your g/kWh figure. The fact that Volt uses less energy to travel 40 miles then watching a 50" Plasma TV for 20 minutes is a more telling perspective.Frank Ravizza

Unindent. Interesting go-around on a similar subject here, with yet again people ignoring the substitution problem, and somehow imagining that their EV's charger can select all the green and reject interstate electrons. http://ergament.blogspot.com/2007/09/chevrolet-volt-plug-in-polluter.html. Incidentally I should point out that I personally don't give a stuff about anthropogenic CO2 emissions, so far as I'm concerned you can burn all the coal you like to fuel your car indirectly. I'm interested in technology, accuracy, and NPOV, and this whole article is severely lacking in the latter two. Greg Locock (talk) 05:08, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I've added it to the 'Controversies' section, and attributed it in the text to Auto Express. They report having performed the calculations, although they do not publish the input data. As it is a UK publication, although they don't state which Government's figures they have used, I imagine it would be those of the UK - so have removed the "U.S." qualifier.


 * I fully agree with Greg Locock that accuracy and balance are required here. We should not be afraid of letting readers know what is being said, and allow them to judge for themselves the weight that they give to that information. -- de Facto (talk). 08:37, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree including a section about how electric vehicles emit CO2 at the power plant should be an important piece of this article. What I don't agree with is misleading the reader with ad hoc unsubstantiated references. This section would benefit from major revision, it is not informative to the lay reader which needs to understand the concept of where electric vehicles get their power, and that power has, for lack of a better term, a "carbon foot print". The BMW 118i comparison is wrong, I've proven it is with solid references. Furthermore, it's an esoteric way of explaining this topic, and that makes it ineffective.--Frank Ravizza (talk) 05:17, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Well done. Thanks for your help.  I think your edits should keep everyone happy.  Fbagatelleblack (talk) 05:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I've removed all references to power plant CO2 emissions and specualtive calculations of CO2 emissions created by charging cycles of electric vehicles. This is a wiki on the Volt not a debate thread on the merits of electric powered automobiles.Any statements GM makes regarding potentially lowered emissions of the Volt are based on EPA regulated tailpipe and evaporative emissions.WopOnTour (talk) 02:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Sinced the references to power plant CO2 emissions appears to have been retored by User:DeFacto apparently as a balancing NPOV edit.While I am tempted to revert, I dont wish to get into an edit war, so I have instead (at least temporarily) moved the entire "Recharge CO2" topic to the Controversies section as "Other Eissions".IMO the data from The UK based magazine appears to be original research with no cited scientific sources or published methodologies used.WopOnTour (talk) 05:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Volt more CO2 emissions then BMW 118d claim Pt.II
The Auto Express claim that the Chevy Volt CO2 emissions exceed that of the BMW 118d is not controversial, it's just false.

Here is my calculation for the Chevy Volt again:

Average US electrical power CO2 emissions: 608 g/kWh.

Average UK electrical power CO2 emissions: 467 g/kWh.

Energy efficiency of Volt is 0.175 kWh/km, (30% of 16 kWh battery capacity per 40 mi or 64.4 km)

Volt Energy Efficiency:

11.2 (kWh) / 64.4 (km) = 0.175 (kWh/km)

Volt CO2 Emissions Rate:

For US: 608 (g/kWh) * 0.175 (kWh/km) = 106 g/km

For UK: 467 (g/kWh) * 0.175 (kWh/km) = 82 g/km

CO2 Emission Rate of Volt Compared to 118d:

Chevy Volt (US): 106 g/km

Chevy Volt (UK): 82 g/km

BMW 118d: 123 g/km

Frank Ravizza

=
FYI General Motors (nor ANY source quoted in the Volt Wiki) HAS NOT stated in any way shape or form that the Volt produces less total CO2 emissions than a BMW 118D THAT IS YOUR OWN QUOTED SOURCE HAS DONE THAT!! This wiki is not a blog debate on the pros and cons of electric vehicles or coal burning power plants. RELEVANT FACTS ONLY PLEASEWopOnTour (talk) 04:06, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

=
Sorry to Frank Ravizza, I assumed YOU were the original author of aformntioned CO2 vs 118D. In any case, since it was restored I've just moved it (for now) to the controversies section. IMO it should be deleted from the Volt WP and moved to a WP on plug-in hybrids where the case for and against grid-charged electric vehicles can be delivered with more balance WopOnTour (talk) 04:29, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

CO2 Emissions Pt.III
I'd like to congratulate those authors who have contributed to the latest version of this section, it is much improved. It successfully conveys to the reader electric vehicles are not necessarily emission free. Emissions are tied to the power station that generated that energy, which most likely burn hydrocarbons which releases CO2. I still believe the Autoexpress reference is irreverent and inaccurate, but I'll let that one go, I imagine it will be deleted eventually regardless of my efforts. I would advise the section heading be revised to just "Emissions". Non GHGs are mentioned. I'll volunteer that edit, I doubt anyone will object. --Frank Ravizza (talk) 05:04, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

This is a wiki on the Chevy Volt. Not a debate on the merits of Electric Vehicles or emissions of power plants and how they compare to a European BMW Diesel.Why list these factoids here?? WopOnTour (talk) 02:49, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with WopOnTour completely. I'm proposing the section of the article comparing CO 2 emissions of the Volt to the BMW 118d be deleted. The fact I've shown Auto Express's calculations are wrong (misleading at best) is a moot point.--Frank Ravizza (talk) 21:19, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * For now, I've seperated "tail pipe" emissions from "other" emissions in the article.Yet I firmly believe this business regarding CO2 emissions of power plants creating the grid based charging energy either be moved to the CONTROVERSIES section OR deleted and added to a Battery Electric Vehicle(BEV) or Plug-in Hybrid Vehicle (PHEV) Wiki. I don't see any mention of this controversy on "other" PHEV or EV wikis so WHY is it here in the VOLT WP (certainly this debatable issue is not exclusive to this particular future product) The real problem (and as previously discussed) is the CO2 poduction of the grid energy sources will be so difficut to nail down as the root source of energy varies greatly country to country, state to state, and potentially even seasonally and chonologically adjusted WopOnTour (talk) 04:03, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I have in fact moved this data to the contoversies section. Since the source of the orignal UK based Auto Express article statements failed to provide the complete methodologies used to calculate the CO2 production of the power stations, it should be considered it non-verifiable data. Unless the source chooses to edit their article to include such details, I will suggest it be removed from this WP.WopOnTour (talk) 04:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Since CO2 emissions from vehicles is currently "unregulated" in both the USA and the UK, AND combined with the fact that there is no indcation that IF these emissions were to become regulated it would include CHARGING EMISSIONS for plug-in EVs or hybrids AND combined with scientific dispute that CO2 is truly a greenhouse gas (I'm not personally in agreement with that, but the fact that there IS a scientifc body disputing those Kyoto claims) I think it appropriate that the Section "Charging CO2 Emssions" be moved from "Regulated" emissions back to Controversies.Until such time vehicles are to be regulated and rated for CO2 emssions through scientific test methods AND that these ratings will INCLUDE charging rates for HV batteries (doubtful, you dont see CO2 emissions for the tractor/tank truck that hauled the gasoline or diesel fuel to the fuel depot/station) it should IMO remain CONTROVERSIALWopOnTour (talk) 21:28, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately the set of edits that Frank commented on only lasted a day before being rewritten. Ditching the reference to the Autoweek BMW comparison in the latest round of edits has some merit - the comparison isn't fair as it has unconventional features like regenerative braking, etc - BMW describe it as a "mild hybrid". However the use of a section name like "Controversy" here is a POV-loaded term and not very good - it suggests that producing lower overall emissions is not achievable. It would be better to leave it just as "Emissions" and introduce the difficulty in measurement in-line. Unfortunately W-o-T's Holy Grail of a perfectly calculated answer will never come - the nature of the grid is such that it can and will call on whatever source is appropriate at that moment in time. E.g. in many countries if you charge up overnight then the baseload is often from low-carbon nuclear sources, while day-time charging typically calls on peak loading produced from fossiliferous coal, gas, etc. In the future, as more renewables get added to this mix, there will still be a need to make up the shortfall using fuel sources that can respond rapidly - that means fossil fuel (though perhaps with Carbon capture one day). Suffice to say, until the far off day when there is an international standard established to calculate this in its entirety, the best we can get is a range of values. Ephebi (talk) 23:50, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The data that you imply as being deleted is still in the WP under the Controversies section. (more on that in a bit) The question is for just how long. FYI - The article in question was not sourced from Auto Week, it was a UK based web-zine called Auto Express. IMO this data is WP:OR (and no different than Frank's calculations) as they do not conform to any established protocol for CO2 capture/calc for fossil fueled automobiles, but instead represents an unknown "blend" of automotive ICE combustion and grid energy calculations that is non-verifiable.WopOnTour (talk) 20:29, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, since you seem to support the inclusion of electrical charging emissions in evaluations of the emission footprint of a vehicle, then perhaps we should factor in the fossil fuel exploration/drilling,crude oil refining, and transportation emissions necessary to get that gallon of diesel to the pump and ADD THEM to the BMW's numbers? And then perhaps we shouldnt forget the "captures" attributed to the additional refueling cycles, and various diesel only service maintenance.(let alone diesel particulate issues, even with after-teatment) I mean,just where do you draw the line? Isn't "dust to dust" evaluations the subject of another WP??WopOnTour (talk) 20:29, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it's important that we look at energy/environmental cost of everything that must be done to bring the gasoline to the pump. Maybe this deserves a mention in the article or a seperate paragraph on the talk page. -- Joe2832 (talk) 11:39, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * That's known as the well to bowser efficiency. It is about 85%. That compares with the mine to plug efficiency for a coal fired electrical generation system, which is about half that. You also need to include an allowance for the capital infrastructure required.Greglocock (talk) 21:53, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Auto Express is a mainstream weekly motoring news magazine. They also publish many of their articles on their website.  The Wikipedia definition of OR applies only to Wikipedia editors, not to reports published by third parties.  The test for inclusion is in WP:RS.  Auto Express state that they used published data for their calculations. -- de Facto (talk). 16:37, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I dint realize they were a mainstream print magazine in the UK.(Never seen it on an NA rack but...) Still I wonder if the paper version of the article migh expand on their calcs. For the life of my I can't find a point of reference for their conclusion that even at the full depletion and off-board charge of 8kWhr could ever equate to anywhere near 125g/km CO2 WopOnTour (talk) 04:12, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * And yet Frank's calculation ended up in the same ballpark, suggesting you didn't try very hard. Greg Locock (talk) 09:54, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * So can we assume your position is that the calculations from the Auto Express article are sufficently accurate then? WopOnTour (talk) 03:54, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * This is a model specific automotive WP. Automotive emissions are most often defined as those measurable at the tailpipe (or evaporative) and regulated by some form of government mandate. (such as HC, CO and NOx) Certainly there are current proposals in many levels of government to add CO2 as a regulated automotive exhaust constituent, but it hasn't happened yet. So as such I would hope it could be deemed by consensus that the clarification of regulated tailpipe emissions as they currently relate to this automobile be included as a separate topic,(i.e. the potential benefits of this particular design has to improve currently regulated emissions) and the topic of CO2 emissions be based (as is the practice for automobiles) on the fuel volume consumed per distance travelled (per trip cycle or annually) once the EPA assigns a final MPG rating for the Volt.


 * The controversy is whether plug-in EVs should actually be allowed to carry a "zero" CO2 footprint in the formulation of upcoming legislation, given the grid based CO2 emissions necessary for daily recharge cycles. But on the other hand, it perhaps isn't fair to add grid created CO2 as in any other automotive CO2 calculation the mining,refining,production, transportation and movement of the fuel to the supply tank is NOT a consideration of a specific vehicle's CO2 footprint. Those would be covered by "other" CO2 non-automotive regulations for each particular industry and therfore so perhaps should the grid generated CO2 for EV charge cycles also be left out of the equation?


 * I believe we should therefore be hesitant to include factoids regarding station charging CO2 as part of an "Emissions" topic as they currently relate to automobiles, until such times as a standard practice of dealing with it can be established by the automotive and regulatory community.WopOnTour (talk) 04:08, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

It appears as though this discussion never arrived at a conclusion, despite assertions to the contrary by Greglocock. I am sorry if this seems repetitive, but to anyone (especially Greglocock) who wants to include the Auto Express comparison to the BMW vehicle, you must explain to the group this: how a well-to-wheel analysis (for the Volt) and a tank-to-wheel analysis (for the BMW 118d) can be compared directly. Is this not an example of the proverbial apples vs. oranges debate? Furthermore, the Auto Express article shows ABSOLUTELY NO methodology or calculations. Greglocock, by looking over this talk page, it's obvious you have some deep-seeded bias against the Volt. Not sure why that is, but this reference should be deleted in any case, your one-man crusade to discredit this vehicle notwithstanding. Jeffwishart (talk) 05:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The content based on the Auto Express article is perfectly valid as it accurately reflects what they, as a reliable source, reported. Whether we agree or disagree with their findings is not relevant.  The addition of criticism of their findings may be valid, but only if it is also reliably sourced.  Wikipedia expects a neutral point of view, so we must endeavour to include all qualifying material, and not attempt to suppress unflattering content.  Balance is important.  Please do not personalise the argument, and always assume good faith with regard to the contributions of other editors. -- de Facto (talk). 09:34, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate what you say about a neutral point of view and that balance is desirable for any article. But you haven't explained why two completely different analyses can be used to compare a given vehicle specification. If we are going to compare the CO2/km emissions of these vehicles, we must choose between well-to-wheel or tank-to-wheel: we can't mix and match analyses and expect to have anything useful. Ergo, the entry must be deleted. Please don't undo this change until the arguement about different analyses is addressed.Jeffwishart (talk) 01:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:IDONTLIKEIT would seem to be the real basis of your objections. Please do not keep deleting the section from the article until you have established a consensus to do so. The para that is in there was the result of protracted discussion.Greglocock (talk) 02:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The basis of my objection to including this Auto Express reference has been laid out above. You keep on ignoring the substantive aspect of my objection and instead keep focusing on some imaginary consensus.  Let me express my objection in simpler terms: the Volt emissions are "calculated" by the Auto Express article by considering the emissions coming from the power plants (they may also be considering the emissions associated with the mining of the coal for the coal plants too, but since they did not include their method, it's IMPOSSIBLE TO KNOW).  The BMW emissions, conversely, are calculated while it is actually being driven.  The latter emissions are the standard way of calculating emissions for a vehicle, because it is very difficult to know how to account for the different ways that gasoline can be sourced and delivered to the pump.  I am a believer in a full well-to-wheel analysis to see which vehicle emits more during its operation (a life-cycle analysis (LCA) is even more accurate, but an order of magnitude more difficult).  But this was not done for either vehicle!  Thus, the two cannot be compared with the numbers supplied by Auto Express.  So why would we want to confuse readers of this article?  Please address this specific argument when you next comment (talk).  Jeffwishart (talk) 03:58, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Greglocock, if you look above at the last point before I entered this discussion, WopOnTour was saying that including the Auto Express part was not a good idea. So there goes your supposed consensus. This discussion will go nowhere unless you engage in the logic behind why I believe that the Auto Express "article" shouldn't be discussed. Can you refute the notion that the analyses done for the Volt and the BMW 118d by Auto Express are completely different? If so, please elaborate. If not, the entry has no place in this article. Jeffwishart (talk) 04:52, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I am not going to debate the technical details with you until you stop vandalising the article, and you find a WP:RS that refutes the Autoexpress article explicitly or implicitly. If you persist in vandalising the article then I am sure your behaviour will have predictable consequences, you have already contravened WP:3RR once. Greglocock (talk) 21:51, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Greglocock, you also contravened this rule, so spare me the high-and-mighty lecture. And why do you keep doing this low-key threatening? But ok, notice I have not removed the Auto Express exerpt, and won't for 24 hours.  If you haven't responded to the technical details, then I will have no choice but to remove it. And when I do, it certainly won't be "vandalising" the article--if the article in nonsense (as I suspect it is, unless you can convince me otherwise), then removing it is completely in the spirit of what Wikipedia is all about--accuracy. Jeffwishart (talk) 02:01, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * If you can identify where I broke the 3RR rule then I will stop editing the article on this issue. That is you will be free to delete the para in question, so far as I am concerned (de facto can handle it as he pleases). Now please identify the four reverts within 24 hours as required by WP:3RR, or admit that you are mistaken and don 't know what you are talking about. Next, you need to find a WP:RS that refutes the Autoexpress article  explicitly or implicitly. Otherwise there is no point in discussing this. Please read for comprehension in future.Greglocock (talk) 04:48, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I removed the para more than 3 times and it reappeared each time (and is there now), and de Facto only undid my edit once, thus you broke the rule as well. Regardless, the need for accuracy trumps this rule--this discussion on who did what how many times and consensus is absolutely beside the point. You ask me to find an article that refutes the Auto Express article? Why must it be an article, when the article in questions shows no details behind its numbers and admits to using a well-to-tank analysis for the Volt and a tank-to-wheel for the BMW? Are you sure you understand what the difference between the two is? This magazine is not a peer-reviewed source, so it is not inherently reliable. I asked you to engage me in a debate on the merits of the article, and all you can come up with is to say that I have to find an article that directly refutes it. Trying to throw the burden of proof back at me is hardly an intellectually honest way to engage in a debate. And your condescending manner and threats don't help your cause either. Jeffwishart (talk) 08:21, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * No, 3RR refers to more than 3 reverts in 24 hours. As it happens, ironically, my last revert also broke the rule, therefors I will abide by my challenge and not revert your reversions of that para any longer. That does not apply to shitehead anonymous IPs doing the same thing, of course. You are arguing about verifiability vs OR. You need to read up on the difference. So, I strongly suggest you read up on wiki fundamentals before you try and engage me on technicalities. You WILL need a WP:RS to support your position. Greglocock (talk) 10:20, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the update on 3RR. I am amazed at your ability to talk about rules and customs for multiple posts without ever discussing the actual content. You can try and hide behind these things, but you cannot deny that Wikipedia is nothing if it doesn't provide the correct information. If you want an article that refutes the Auto Express article directly, the task is impossible--it is an article of no consequence whatsoever and other than this discussion, it has been long forgotten. What I can provide are numerous PEER-REVIEWED articles stating that the electricity generation-transmission-distribution sequence releases fewer emissions than does an ICE vehicle, if we are talking well-to-tank and tank-to-wheel. Will that be sufficient? Why are you so afraid of talking about these so-called technicalities? Are you unwilling to leave your comfort zone of Wikipedia rules and talk about the substantive reasons why you think this Auto Express article deserves a mention in the Volt article? I find your adamancy puzzling--did you write this article and want it to live on? Or is there some reason that you feel the Volt needs detractors that point out its (imagined) flaws? Our previous discussion about the batteries' cycling cannot be forgotten: there seems to be an a priori bias on your part to try to discover reasons why the Volt is a bad idea. I can't figure out why, but it is unmistakable. In any event, I hope that you will talk about tank-to-wheel and well-to-tank issues in your next post. I look forward to talking about real issues rather than real technicalities. Jeffwishart (talk) 23:51, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I see by your inclusion of Aussie power plant emissions stats that you are trying to formulate an actual argument. That's a good first step. But you gave well-to-tank numbers, and you didn't discuss any well-to-tank numbers for the BMW vehicle. Are these not crucial to this discussion? Without addressing the fact that two different analyses were used to compare these vehicles, those numbers you added (and note that using your own numbers that the Volt was an order of magnitude less C02-emitting in Tasmania) are meaningless. Jeffwishart (talk) 00:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Your rather flaky concept of identity seems to have failed again, I wonder is that the real Jeff or his sockpuppet account User:124.254.121.40 speaking? No, those are not my figures, they are GrahamP's. I also particularly enjoyed the way you could discern what other people were thinking in earlier paras. I am refusing to take you seriously because you are going about the entire thing in the wrong way. Your repeated reversions of the page are not acceptable behaviour, where I come from, and your pathetic attempt at using a different account to evade your own promise was quite hilarious. I've told you what you need to do, if you can't do it, that is not my problem. I have, as stated elsewhere on this page, no problem with the Volt, just the hype. I /think/ they are on the wrong track, but am quite keen to see it in action. Not that this article will make the slightest bit of difference to that happening, by the way. Bear in mind that GM were the first to spruik the CO2 advantages of the Volt, something they haven't repeated in a LONG time. I suggest you get a grip, and I hope you are having fun. I am, I need some low bandwidth entertainment while my PC runs another batch job. Speaking of which...Greglocock (talk) 02:35, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I am confused--have I not been signing everything that I have written? I can't find any place that I didn't. But I am certainly not attempting to remain anonymous in our little discussion here. The weakness of your logic and utter reliance on child-like ad hominem attacks make you less than an intimidating opponent. You seem incapable of directly answering the one question I have for you: do you understand the difference between well-to-tank and tank-to-wheel? Take your time. And while you are struggling with that, let me ask you also if you can comprehend what the meaning of the unit kg-Co2e is--in your Aussie numbers, you fail to notice that the factors listed in your reference are in kg-CO2e, and so direct multiplication to arrive at kg-CO2 does not work. I will leave it up there for a few days so that you can correct it yourself (if you can). So I say this: figure out the difference of the aforementioned analyses and then find upstream numbers (i.e. well-to-tank numbers for gasoline in Australia), and use the numbers to get a fair comparison of the emissions associated with the operation of the Volt and the BMW 188d. If you do it properly (I have my doubts), then I think it would be a useful addition to the article. As for GM's claiming reduced emissions from the Volt, I would disagree with the statement that they no longer make this claim; but it's irrelevant, because they don't have to. Study after peer-reviewed study shows that PHVs will result in fewer emissions than conventional ICE vehicles, even if the power generation distribution is heavily coal-based. And the grid is only going to get cleaner, as you can see by the moratorium in many parts on new coal plants that don't use advanced technologies like IGCC or even CCS. I think that the person who needs to get a grip is you on your a priori bias against the Volt. Doubt all you like, but faulty logic and cherry-picking of information shouldn't be included in what is an encyclopeadic article. Jeffwishart (talk) 05:57, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * is an anonymous edit to the article by yourself. I obviously understand well to wheel calculations since I have told you several times what the correction factor is for CO2 usage for gasoline cars. You choose to ignore that and carry on whining. Find a WP:RS, get a grip, stop whining. You still seem to be confusing me with someone else.Greglocock (talk) 07:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Quick note about the units - thanks for highlighting this Jeffwishart. The numbers all come from the Australian Greenhouse Office emissions calculator and refer to CO2-e. In the case of burning of petroleum products and coal, it makes little difference. There is little release of methane, nitrous oxide etc, and CO2 has a GWP of 1, by definition. I don't know what the difference between kg CO2 and kg CO2-e would be for these examples, but I suspect not much. Thanks for pointing it out anyway.GrahamP (talk) 19:58, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

GrahamP, you are correct-it wouldn't make much difference. I was just pointing out to my friend Greglocock that his simplistic calculations were wrong. He doesn't seem to understand that the peer-reviewed papers in the section already contradict what he has concluded, even after he incessantly asks for me to provide him with one. He further claims to understand the difference between well-to-tank and tank-to-wheel, but clearly doesn't. I, for one, would be very interested to see what a full well-to-wheel analysis would come up with for both vehicles (indeed, for all vehicles!), so that the consumer could really fully appreciate the emissions released during the operation of these vehicles. Better still, an LCA for all vehicles should be the goal. I am hoping that Greglocock will figure out (finally) what I am asking, and find the emissions related to the exploration, drilling, transport and refining of oil so that the well-to-tank emissions of non-PHV vehicles can be determined (he will also need those numbers for all of the power plant fuels--it's not a small task, but his beloved para is useless without this info). This poor, lost soul needs to come out of the scientific wilderness and use the accepted methods for comparing the emissions of vehicles, not his own (incorrect) pet methodology. Jeffwishart (talk) 23:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Jeffwishart, the edits on the Australian greenhouse data have been mine - I'm not sure which sections you're referring to as edited by Greglocock? My simple analysis is based on a simple proposition: I live in Victoria, and if I already have two cars, a Toyota Yaris and a Chevy Volt, and I want to go for, say, a 20km trip, then the marginal difference to the atmosphere is that the Yaris will contribute less greenhouse gases - as you point out, this requires one multiplication and one division on a calculator. But if I chose to live in, say, Tasmania (or France or a whole bunch of other places), it will work out substantially in favour of the Volt. This is all this is saying - its not including the fact that maybe in a couple of years, another power station might be built, or that another crude oil wild cat needs to be sunk, or that another river will get polluted by the new mine that is built to get more lithium for the batteries - it is simply saying that for the couple litres or kWh that the trip will take, the Yaris, in Victoria, emits less gases. The section makes clear the assumption that it is a simple "this versus that" comparison. This is the standard method by which vehicular comparisons are made for consumer information, and is a perfectly valid method, although I agree that it isn't the only way to measure these things, and better LCA analysis for consumers might be a way forward, although I'm not sure that the wiki Volt page is the best place to start. I'm guessing that just about everybody that has contributed to the page is interested in EV's, but regrettably in countries like Australia, the use of high greenhouse intensity generation negates some (or most) of the substantial efficiency benefits of EV's. This is more a reflection of our local politics than a deficiency in EV's - sad, but true. Some of the people that already have EV's here choose to pay the extra couple of cents a kWh to use green power for this reason. I know that there are many other ways to kick around the analysis - why don't you include references to other analyses and include more detail, or find a good critique of my analysis? GrahamP (talk) 00:25, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and it's a small point, but the numbers from that Australian green car website aren't accurate. The Prius, for example, gets 45/48 mpg according to the EPA for 2009, which corresponds to 5.2/4.9 L/100km, not the 4.4 L/100km displayed on the site. So the CO2 value is wrong as well. Jeffwishart (talk) 23:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

GrahamP, I did assume that Greglocock was the one who added this section. My mistake! As for your challenge, I would point out that your analysis, like the now-expunged Auto Express article, is comparing two different aspects of a vehicle's operation. You say that your method is "perfectly valid", but I have never read a peer-reviewed article in this area (and I try to read as many as I can) that compares the well-to-tank and tank-to-wheel emissions of two vehicles. IMHO, you can't pick and choose which aspects of the fuel cycle you compare: your statement that PHVs in Victoria would be worse than the Yaris can't be substantiated without the full analysis. Because the emissions from the gasoline production process vary widely, just as electricity production does (as you so rightly pointed out), the emissions associated with actual operation of combusting the hydrocarbon have been used almost exclusively. Only rarely (mostly in scientific journals) have attempts been made to account for the gasoline and electricity production processes. And these peer-reviewed articles have shown that PHVs emit less over the entire well-to-wheel analysis than do non-PHVs. If you want, I can point you in the direction of some. I was also commissioned to analyze the transportation-related GHG emissions for a university, and so I could provide you with these numbers as well to show you that even with high GHG-emitting power plants such as are found in Victoria, Australia, it's better to electrify our cars if we want to reduce GHGs (not to mention all of the other criteria air contaminants (CACs) such as nitrogen oxides, volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and carbon monoxide that can be reduced). I appreciate your thoughtful post and the change in the level of civility of this argument. Jeffwishart (talk) 00:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Jeffwishart, why don't you include in the section a discussion of the problems inherent in analysing electric versus ICE. My view is/was that using the "official" greenhouse factors provides a very good first order estimate of the marginal emissions, in other words, the increase in emissions as a result of driving one car versus the other, compared to staying at home, assuming that we already have the energy infrastructure (we do) and both cars sitting in the driveway. I'm happy to be shown wrong if I'm off the mark. While I can claim research in energy related areas, I am happy to have my edits re-edited or changed to reflect superior expertise. GrahamP (talk) 02:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

GrahamP, I suppose that the crux of our discussion is how close your "first-order" analysis is to the actual emissions associated with operating a vehicle. I think we can agree that there are emissions associated with exploring, drilling, transportation, refining of oil and subsequent transportation of gasoline. There are similar emissions associated with the exploring, mining, transportation and combustion of coal. The numbers in the Australian Greenhouse Office emissions calculator only count the combustion process for both gasoline and coal. But, for argument's sake, suppose that the well-to-tank emissions for the gasoline production were twice what they are for electricity production (they aren't of course) and these emissions were greater than the combustion of gasoline--would it be a fair comparison to compare just the tank-to-wheel emissions of the gasoline to the combustion of coal? Because the numbers are unknown, it is customary to establish a boundary for an energy or emissions analysis and confine the analysis to staying within this boundary. I am of the opinion that the comparison you make could quite possibly lead to erroneous conclusions that would be misleading to the average reader of this article. We could go into the well-to-wheel numbers for the Volt and other vehicles, but this deserves a page on its own. It's my feeling that in an encyclpeadic article, that simplicity and direct relevance to the topic should be paramount. Short of an entirely new page, I feel that since we don't have all the numbers required to categorically state that in Australia that the Yaris would release less CO2 than the Volt, that it shouldn't be included. I am all for finding out though. Jeffwishart (talk) 03:18, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I understand completely where you're coming from, and I agree that including a discussion of the limitations of my figures would be useful. However my exposure to LCA's is that they can become very grey and caution needs to be exercised in their application, particularly outside of academia. I know a lot of work goes into LCA's and my intention isn't to deride their application. I don't claim to be an expert in LCA's, other than having done a limited amount of work in the context of sustainability. My figures are firm, reliable numbers in the Australian context, and further LCA analysis would only increase them, and I am satisfied that they provide a good first order estimate in Australia, short of there being referenced data showing otherwise. I suspect that the additional emissions from exploring, mining, transporting etc. in the case of the Victorian open cut plants (less so for other states) would be minimal relative to the direct combustion. The AGO figures already take into account plant efficiency. Hazelwood is reputed to have the highest emission intensity in the world, and was commissioned in 1964, supply 20-25% of Victorian electricity. I would have thought that the second order emissions from old plants of this type in Australia would have to be an order of magnitude below the direct emissions - this is a 1,600 MW low efficiency, plant with an adjacent open cut - this is emissions on a massive scale - how can the secondary emissions come anywhere near this? (This of course makes the case for electric) I'm reluctant to simply drop the numbers unless there is good referenced material to demonstrate that they are likely to be misleading. I think your point about direct relevance to people is a good one, but I think people need the truth about EV's, in all its nuances. I think my edits are truthful - if you can improve on the state of knowledge, including showing my numbers to be imprecise, or providing a critique on the simple analysis, I think the article would benefit. GrahamP (talk) 06:30, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * GrahamP, I made some small changes to the section--see what you think. Also, check out the EPA website at http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymanu.htm and look at the Prius section. You will notice that the EPA expects the Prius to emit 4 tons CO2 for a full-fuel cycle and 15000 miles driven.  Using the 115 gCO2/km value, this gives 2.76 ton CO2 for the direct combustion, meaning that the full fuel cycle contributes 1.24 ton CO2, or 44% of the direct combustion value.  So I agree the the numbers are nebulous, but not that they aren't significant.  But I think that with the amendments I made to your point, i.e. that for places with really high GHG intensities that it might be less beneficial to buy a PHV, the section is useful, with some caveats that these numbers aren't the whole picture. Jeffwishart (talk) 02:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks good Jeffwishart. In the long run, it would be good if some firmer numbers could be applied to some of these issues - maybe needs another page. GrahamP (talk) 06:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Transmission/Transaxle
I'e been trying to "obtain" more complete details on the choice of transaxle design for the Volt. Obviously with the complications created by packaging of the range-extender IC, 2 PMSM and the FWD configuration this was/will be a challenge.Most everyone I speak with seems to agree that it very likely WILL NOT just be a directly driven gearbox with final drive and differential assembly.It's been proposed on various forums that GM is intending on maintaining a variable ratio mechanism through input-split paths of power, much like many current hybrids. It just might be a modified version of the 2MT70 transaxle currently being used in the 2-mode Saturn Vue hybrid. A zoomed view of GMs Volt artwork http://media.gm.com/volt/eflex/tech_ill.html seems to look very similar to it. (Although there would likely be internal mechanical differences to decouple ICE from the P2 and P3 gearsets) Does ANYBODY have any of these types of details to add to the wiki? WopOnTour (talk) 07:02, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

3 cylinder or 4 cylinder
Latest info is 4 cylinder naturally aspirated ilo 3 cylinder turbo. Oh, and the hot rumour is that it is going to be cancelled, sorry, 'delayed', as the battery technology is still mythical. Greglocock (talk) 23:23, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I say poo poo to your "rumors";) Source? Some "competitors" lunch room? (I am certain it's not sourced from anyone reliable on the "inside")WopOnTour (talk) 19:34, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * No, just the Interwebs, and common sense. Of course you have a much better source of information. Greglocock (talk) 23:08, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Myths? Whatever! If you actually have something to contribute with reliable sources, why don't you add it to the WP instead of stirring the pot and attempting to discredit others in discussion pages? FYI- I've personally seen the most recent iteration of the Volt's Li-Ion battery pack. It exists. What possible incentive do you have for spreading false rumors? Are you trying to concoct yet another rediculous "vaporware" theory? WopOnTour (talk) 00:47, 29 November 2008 (UTC)


 * So you've seen one LiON battery pack. Big woop. There is a big difference between putting one battery pack together and building 60000 a year and getting them to operate reliably in the real world. They have finally announced a supplier (good, if late, hence the delays comment). However the people I talk to (CSIRO battery researchers) say that the instability problems with LiONs make them a curious choice for an EV. I'll find out more tonight. Greglocock (talk) 01:08, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

That's absolutely true. Even once the final production candidate has been locked in, delivering the goods won't be easy. And if the reliability won't be there, then the Volt and numerous other Li-Ion based vehicles are destined for failure. But using the term "mythical" creates all sorts of negative "vaporware" images of course. Instead of being so colorful why not just come on out and say what you think (as your clarification now does) Big-whoop? My point was a Li-Ion battery at/near the dimensions and mass GM has indicated AND with the necessary energy density to create an EREV that will meet/exceed their design criteria DOES exist. But alas, you just may be proven right if the appropriate production infrastructure can't be created within the next 12 months or so. But where are you getting your 60K units? Not from GM. They have already openly stated that the initial production cycle was very likely going to be limited to perhaps 10,000 units. Perhaps that's also ambitious but I guess we shall see if GM is even going to be able to survive long enough to prove one of us wrong! WopOnTour (talk) 02:14, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

60k units from the article itself, under Production and Sales. Here's Toyota's take on Lion: http://www.autocar.co.uk/News/NewsArticle/Toyota-Concepts/236192/. That could be FUD, but at least it isn't just Australian battery researchers saying it.Greglocock (talk) 05:57, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Still waiting for that reference of the Volt having 4 cylinders. Usually when you change a statement with an existing reference, you must provide a better reference to prove your change. Now we have the article saying 4 cylinders with a reference saying its 3 cylinders. --MarsRover (talk) 06:25, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * GM's 'Boost' In Efficient Four-Cylinders Includes More Turbos
 * Greglocock (talk) 12:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks --MarsRover (talk) 21:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

SAE definition for hybrid vehicle
Despite the fact that it is well referenced, someone keeps removing the clarification in the article, whih clarifies WHY GM does not use the term when referring to the Volt or other E-Flex based vehicles. Reverting unless someone wants to reword in Enlish... lol WopOnTour (talk) 19:11, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Incidentally, you seem to think that SAE papers are authoritative. These days they are just marketing, by and large, although most do include some useful info. The SAE does publish standards and so on, this one is probably relevant http://www.sae.org/technical/standards/J1715_200802, but it would be more accurate to say that "In SAE paper XYZ GM's employees have defined a hybrid as...". Personally I think they are on a sticky wicket with this one, it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck. It certainly meets the definition of a hybrid in the Bosch Automotive Handbook, 7th ed, p744. If it isn't a hybrid, why are they going to talk about it at the 2009 SAE Hybrid symposium? Greglocock (talk) 00:41, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Not at all, but I do feel that a published SAE paper might just be considered by many to represent a more a reliable source than quoting some blog site at myownopinion.com, but then that's just my opinion;)Sure there can be a lot of questions as to the techncial merits of some of what's published through the SAE (your own papers the exception of course) but most either survive the scrutiny of peer review or perish in obscurity. Certainly almost anyone can see the Volt "belongs" to a technological grouping of vehicles that includes almost all multi-mode electrically propelled vehicles, by whatever definition you choose. WopOnTour (talk) 01:03, 29 November 2008 (UTC)


 * And by the way, your statment "GM's employee's have defined a hybrid as" is not only totally innacurate, but rediculous. If you would bother to read the GM paper, the hybrid definition used is clearly referenced to the J1715 standard. However to satisfy any nit-picking, I have reworded the article to quote the J1715 definition exactly. My intention to include it was only based on the fact that the Volt does not comply with the standard definition, hence the rationale behind the term EREV.WopOnTour (talk) 19:01, 29 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, understandably we've been discussing whether the Volt is a PHEV on the PHEV page, and somebody posted the following: "Per WP:COMMONNAME, we have to use these terms as they are most commonly used in the reliable sources, not WP:NEOLOGISMs created by corporations. Note that GM also uses the term "two-mode hybrid" for the plug-in Saturn VUE SUV." SO, do we delete, or at least reduce the emphasis, on the silly neologism, or do you really weally want to keep it? Greglocock (talk) 12:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree the term EREV is in any way a neologism.EREV is an acronym for "Extended Range Electric Vehicle" which is not only self-explanatory but clearly defined in SAE J1715.In fact,many other automotive manufacturers besides GM, are using the term in various SAE papers and other technical documents, as many profess to their own EREV R&D programs (or lack thereof).The term has clearly gained wide-spread acceptance in automotive based mass-media as well.
 * "Crysler EREV"
 * EREV"
 * EREV"
 * EREV"
 * Just what exactly in your opinion defines suitable common acceptance from verifiable sources as outlined in WP:NEOLOGISM? My point is that EREV, IS NOT some ambiguous term drummed up to create a marketing buzz.Just about ANY technical term could, depending on one's point of reference and life experience, meet some aspect of the definition of neologism.I certainly dont understand your references to the Vue "plug-in" two-mode.That's a totally different powertrain design, and represents merely an enhancement to the existing 2-mode HEV platform.A 2-mode hybrid, blended with the addition of a secondary electrical power source.This secondary source is only utilized from the commencement of the drive-cycle for electric-only propulsion up to a preset speed.This "depletion" battery isn't charged by the vehicle charging system and operates to the point of depletion, when the vehicle reverts back to a conventional 2-mode behavior. The depletion battery is chargeable ONLY via the 120/220VAC station charge.But how is this at all related to the term EREV?
 * So besides senseless wiki-lawyering...what's you point? Is it your position that removal of the term improve the article somehow?Just because the Volt potentially represents the first mass-produced EREV, doesn't preclude the existence or acceptance of the term outside one's realm of expertise or grasp of the spoken/written word. I propose the educational value of keeping the term, far outweighs any possible perception of neologismWopOnTour (talk) 22:06, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey brilliant idea. Why not spend some time reading wp neo, and you will come across this gem, so all you have to do is follow what it says. " To support the use of ... a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term—not books and papers that use the term. " So do that. Easy heh? or not. Greglocock (talk) 23:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Lithium-Ion or Lithium-Ion Polymer
Does the Chevy Volt use Lithium-Ion batteries or Lithium-Ion Polymer batteries? The Li-Po batteries have lower manufacturing costs and higher durability, so I would think that they would be the batteries of choice. Does anyone know for certain? Axeman (talk) 20:45, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't know for certain but I got the very strong impression from their battery partner's website, and a conversation, that Li Poly is the prime candidate. However GM hasn't actually announced that they are going with that manufacturer, which is one reason why I think they are going to be delaying/cancelling the thing (C11 and oil prices are the other ones( I say delay/cancel as they are effectively the same thing, the window of opportunity is very small)). The battery is the main technical difficulty in the program, not because it is a bad technology (I like LiPoly, it is efficient and far more tolerant of abuse than the horror stories imply) it is just a bit hard to commit to making 9000 tons per year that must last for 8 years in the most litigous society on earth, in an industry where production volumes of 100 tons per year are more typical, and a lifespan of three years is acceptable. Having said that Hyundai claim to be using Li Poly in their upcoming PHEV (that dang window of opportunity again). The really interesting question is why they dropped A123 Systems, who they have been working with for a year, in favour of LG Chem.Greglocock (talk) 00:42, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * LG Chem have recently puffed their Li Ion Manganese chemistry in Scientific American . http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=will-chevy-volt-be-road-ready-in-time&page=2 . It is not a very good article, judging by the first page (the major complaint of Prius drivers is the amount of time the engine is ON). Greglocock (talk) 04:29, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Volt only uses half its battery
An anon editor has added a couple of paras pointing this out. To be honest it is a bit misguided, the reason is obvious if you have ever run multicell packs of Lithium batteries through multiple cycles, compared with lead acids. If I can find a WP:RS as to why I'll post it. I must admit Tesla's solution is better, but GM can't afford that. Talking of which, haven't they cancelled this thing yet? Oh no, that'll be in April, and it will be announced in June, when Lutz and Waggonner announce that they are bailing out. Greglocock (talk) 21:58, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I would like to know why Greglocock thinks that the EV1 batteries, specifically the NiMH ones in the later model, are superior to the Li-ion that will be in the Volt. Li-ion batteries have higher performance across the board: higher specific power and energy and higher power and energy densities.  They are also widely considered to have the capacity to become cheaper than NiMH. The reason for the strict limits on depth of discharge (DoD) on the Volt batteries is to avoid damage that occurs from deep discharges, thus extending the life of the battery pack.  Deep discharges will eventually result in diminished capacity for any battery, and NiMH batteries are no different.  So L-A and NiMH batteries do not inherently allow for deeper discharges: the control strategy of the electronic control unit (ECU) determines the extent of the discharge, and it's up to the car designers to decide whether they want extended range in the short-term or lower range short-term with longer battery life.  Jeffwishart (talk) 12:00, 7 January 2009


 * It isn't what I think that matters, it is what GM have published in their technical paper that matters. It quite clearly states that the battery is charged to 85% max and is discharged to 30% before entering charge sustain mode. Now, that is what GM say. not me. Lead Acids that are designed for deep discharge, such as those in the Ev1, are happy to cycle from full to empty. I do not know who put the NiMH statements in originally, but I have removed the opinion from them and left the facts. Stop removing them unless you can find evidence that a NiMH battery pack in an EV has a limited SoC range for lifetime reasons. Greglocock (talk) 02:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * No one is arguing that the SOC isn't maintained between 85% and 30% for the all-electric regime (AER). However, it is completely false to say that lead-acid batteries, even deep-cycle ones, have no problem dealing with complete discharge--they may handle it better than other L-A batteries (that aren't designed for deep cycles), but their lifetime is certainly decreased by constant deep discharges.  Are you seriously asking me to find you evidence that NiMH batteries can handle deep discharges without this affecting their lifetime?  ALL conventional batteries (flow batteries such as Z-Br are excepted) have this limitation.  The EV1 batteries, if they were constantly discharged to near 0%, would not have lasted very long, regardless of their type.  The cars were for short leases, however, so nobody had significant battery lifetime issues (the NiMH batteries were only in the 2nd generation that came out in 1999, and the leases all ended in 2003).  Finally, I would argue that criticizing GM for "not considering" (they no doubt did since they did consider them in the past!) NiMH batteries has no place on an encyclpaedic page.  If the page was on, for example, Happy Meals, would you criticize McDonald's for including Coke with the meal instead of Pepsi?  Sure, there might be reasons that Pepsi would have been the better choice, but a Wikipedia entry is not the place for this discussion.  The proper place for discussion of the relative merits of batteries is in the battery entries themselves. Jeffwishart (talk) 04:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not really all that bothered, what I objected to was removing facts from an article and justifying it by calling them opinions. As it happens I more or less agree with you on NiMH, but there are plenty of lead acid batteries around the world that can handle deep discharge for many cycles. Submarines and milk floats for example (tho i'm not too sure how many deep discharge cycles a sub would have done). So, are you telling me that no EV1 ran enough cycles to damage its battery?Greglocock (talk) 04:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I removed the comparisons between L-A and NiMH and the Li-ion batteries because they were misleading: the former two are not better at handling deep discharges than the latter. Yes, deep-cycle L-A batteries are better than other L-A batteries at handling deep discharges (by thickening the plates), but their capacities still decrease with every discharge and decrease precipitously with deep discharges.  I have no idea about specific data on the EV1 battery lifetimes.  What I am saying is that if an EV1 owner drove the 120 miles that represent the entirety of the battery storage a lot, they would have noticed that their batteries would eventually stop getting them the 120 miles in time.  It's unavoidable, and one of the inherent problems in an EV.  This is why hybrids get so much attention, and will continue to do so until we have a revolutionary advance in energy storage (check out EEStor for a tantalizing possibility): allowing for a charge-sustaining mode allows for the battery lifetimes to last at least as long as the car warranty. Jeffwishart (talk) 06:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Inserting GM corporate images
Any media from GM Media Online is incompatible with GFDL and cc-by-3.0. Please do not use this resource. All such images will be tagged with template:cc-by-nc-nd-3.0 and probably deleted. The alternative is to attempt a fair use rationale, which can be claimed on any image, with any sort of copyright or licensing.

GM media claims a cc-by-3.0 license, but restricts it from remixing, which makes it incompatible with cc-by-3.0. According to GM, the license is actually: Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States.

The overlapping and conflicting licensing on the same domain, gm.com:


 * 1) copyrighted, all rights reserved
 * 2) creative commons Attribution-3.0
 * 3) creative commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0

opens Wikipedia to legal liability. Best simply not to use this image at all.

Finally, I don't believe I have ever clicked the "I agree" button on this page making things even more confusing. In fact, I think I clicked the "I do not agree" button which means this image has now defaulted to copyrighted, all rights reserved license. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cnqtvp (talk • contribs) 20:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The license for the http://www.gm.com website is different than the license for the http://media.gm.com website. GM did not make a mistake with the license they used since they allow cropping of the image and they added on additional restrictions to the license (which is allowed by that license). Unfortunately though the images on the GM Media Online website can't be used since Wikipedia does not accept images with a non-commercial license. --GrandDrake (talk) 07:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * This discussion is moot, but nonetheless here goes. Both sites must be considered identical since their domain: gm.com are identical. However, both sites use the same license. The license at www.gm.com specifically allows for exceptions. These exceptions are listed in the license for media.gm.com. GM did make a mistake in using a CC-BY 3.0 license. CC-BY 3.0 is incompatible with the restrictions GM sets out. CC-BY 3.0 does _not_ allow for the additional restrictions or modifications to the license. CC provides the CC-BY-NC-ND 3.0 license for this very purpose. Regardless of any such discussions, Wikipedia would be best served by avoiding this website, and it's bizarre legal framework.--Cnqtvp (talk) 05:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The battery temperature needs to be at least 0 °C for it be to used
I have replaced this brief description "so long as the external temperature is greater than 50 deg F" since it is wrong for three reasons. The first reason is that stating that it is the external temperature makes it sound like you can't use the battery in cold weather. As long as the battery itself is sufficiently warm it doesn't matter what the external temperature is and the reference states that as long as the Volt is plugged in the battery is kept sufficiently warmed to be used immediately when unplugged. The second reason is that the reference says the lower temperature limit will be between 0-10 °C and stating that it has to be at least 50 °F goes beyond what the reference says. The third reason is because even if the battery is to cold the gasoline engine will run until the battery warms up to the point where it can be used. Because of this I replaced that brief and inaccurate description with this:

"The battery needs a temperature of at least 32°F (0 °C) to run and when the car is plugged in the battery will be kept warm enough so that it can be used immediately when the car is unplugged. If the car is kept unplugged and the temperature of the battery is below this temperature the gasoline engine will run until the battery warms up."

I ask that Greglocock provide an explanation for why he is reverting this edit. --GrandDrake (talk) 02:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Here is what the relevant part of reference says. You have misquoted the figures, and assumed he was talking about batt temp, I assumed he was talking external, either way it is 10C not 0C, since we can safely assume that if it is colder things will get worse. "If the car is parked unplugged in cold weather and the driver starts it up, the range extender may start up immediately even if the battery has a high state of charge. ... If you're not plugged in and the battery is not conditioned and we've got to deal with the elements, right now we're thinking 0-10°C we won't use the battery". He doesn't specify battery temp. Greglocock (talk) 05:15, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I said "at least 32°F" which is accurate since he gave a temperature range of 0-10°C. Also it doesn't mean the external temperature since the article said: "While the vehicle is plugged in to charge, the battery inherently heats up and the cooling system will keep it at optimal temperature. If the ambient temperature is too cold, the battery will be pre-warmed in order to allow the car to operate on electricity as soon as it is unplugged. ... If the car is parked unplugged in cold weather and the driver starts it up, the range extender may start up immediately even if the battery has a high state of charge. Once the pack warms up sufficiently, the range extender can be shut down and electric operation can resume." Greglocock, do you now understand that it refers to the battery temperature and not to the external temperature? --GrandDrake (talk) 06:06, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * "at least 32" does not mean the same as 32-50, it implies that at 49 the car will operate as an EV, which he is saying it won't. Since he gives a specific range I suggest you use that. Greglocock (talk) 06:44, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * That temperature range is what they are trying to determine for the minimum battery temperature and I agree with your edit that added the temperature range. --GrandDrake (talk) 10:16, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Production date and engines again
I see that the engine size has reverted to a 1 litre again in this article. It is not, it is a 1.4 I4 NA engine. Also the June 2009 build is for engineering prototypes, not saleable units. These will be used for development and crash and so on, chances are that most will never be registered or driven on public roads. Well so far two predictions have come true earlier than expected (so long guys), now I'll wait for the third shoe to drop. Greglocock (talk) 01:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Charging the Battery Or Not?
The lead states: "The electrical power from the generator is sent to either the electric motor or the batteries, depending on the state of charge (SOC) of the battery pack and the power demanded at the wheels."

However, a Car and Driver article on their test drive this month states: "The gas engine is never used to charge the battery; the engine turns a generator that directly feeds power to the electric motor."2011 Chevrolet Volt First Drive - Car News

Someone with a bit more car knowledge than me might want to look into it. --Falcorian (talk) 18:42, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Car and Driver is wrong (surprise). GM have already described the Volt's electrical strategy in excruciating detail. In CS mode the battery will receive current from the engine when the engine is producing more power than the car needs to push it along. However, this only happens for a short time. C&D may have meant that the battery is never fully recharged by the engine, that is true. The lede is also confusing, it is not either/or. Greglocock (talk) 02:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Good stuff, thanks for the expertise! --Falcorian (talk) 21:28, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

"In fact, once the batteries are depleted the engine doesn't charge them at all, it powers the motor and nothing more, responding to energy demands by revving up or down to meet the required load. The idea is to arrive home with an empty battery to take advantage of the cheapest possible energy source. Since electricity is so cheap compared to gas, using the generator to charge the batteries is a waste." GM has yet to let anyone ride in the car after the battery is depleted, so maybe they don't know themselves how it'll work. And/or it may hinge on how the EPA measures the Volt's fuel economy! -- Skierpage (talk) 05:31, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Ben Woyjdla at Jalopnik drove the Volt mule 2009-05-19 and says the same thing as Car and Driver:

Is this just a Gimmick
I can understand a hybrid that charges its battery through energy loss (braking). But what's the point of using a gasoline engine to run a generator to power an electric motor. Every time you go from mechanical power to electric power you lose efficiency, so why not just run the car with the gasoline engine, and use energy loss to charge the batteries. Is this just some ploy to make the car sound more advance then a regular hybrid? Like, “The Volt drives only on electrical power”, while a true statement, is misleading. You still have to use a gasoline engine to run a generator to power the electric motor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.238.49.65 (talk) 19:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * This is because the gas engine and generator can simply work on their most efficient RPMs without a complex switching/hybrid drive-train and without worrying about gears, current car speed and required power and so on.
 * It is a simpler solution and due to the efficiency of electric motors turns out to be good enough. 87.247.249.86 (talk) 08:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Don't forget that the Volt is intended to operate as a pure electric vehicle most of the time, so most of the energy will come from your wall socket, not the gas tank. It is simpler to design and implement a series hybrid drivetrain, in which the engine has no mechanical link to the drive shaft, than it is to design a series parallel drive train, in which the engine is coupled to the drive shaft (generally through a transmission).  And, as the above comment mentions, when an engine is used purely as an electrical generator, it can always be run at peak efficiency.  I wrote an article on the pros and cons of both layouts.  You can read it here (if you see a survey screen, just fill out the survey or click "skip survey" and go straight to the article). Fbagatelleblack (talk) 19:51, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Silverado Hybrid
It's relevant to the unusual naming and classification of the vehicle, which should be a PHEV.
 * My apologies, I just questioned being in the lead, I did not pay enough attention and did not realize that you move it in your second edit. I shouldn't have reversed that edit. Sorry.--Mariordo (talk) 03:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It's cool, no need to apologize. 69.65.224.246 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC).


 * "Should" is a word to avoid on Wikipedia. Unless you can quote a source stating it, it comes off as original research.  Second, I fail to see the point of mentioning the Silverado Hybrid in the Volt article, other than to draw a conclusion about General Motors terminology in general.  That's considered "synthesis" that advances a position.  Plus, it steers off the topic of the Volt itself. --Vossanova o&lt; 14:25, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I removed it since it is "synthesis".69.65.224.246 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:39, 19 June 2009 (UTC).

Classification
The vehicle should be classified as an electric vehicle not because it is one (it's definitely a plug-in hybrid or PHEV) but because GM chooses to call it an electric car with extended range as do most journalists reporting on it. Calling it a hybrid is not the general consensus among outside sources and falls under "synthesis".69.65.224.246 (talk)
 * I went ahead and classified it as a plug-in electric vehicle. As already pointed out it's not an editors position to synthesize the classification, certainly not in the heading.69.65.224.246 (talk)
 * If you read all the references in the lead it is called always a hybrid, and the range in EV mode is limited, beyond that the gasoline engine kicks in. GM decided to call it a range extender, but that is actually a series hybrid meaning that the gas engine is used only to recharge the battery and not for propulsion. Did you read the content in the link you deleted? The fact that operates in all electric mode does not make it an electric vehicle. The EV1 was a truly electric vehicle, check it out and you will see it didn't had an auxiliary gas engine. If a car has a gasoline tank and an electric motor, then technically it is an electric hybrid. I do not mind dropping the "series" qualification out of the first sentence, since later that fact is explained and perhaps is too technical for the general public. And please, discuss this kind of changes here before making such bold edits, and also, please use more often the "Preview" feature before saving the final version. Every time you edit the same content in five small saves instead of one you are wasting Wiki storage memory, as each page is kept for the history records.--Mariordo (talk) 13:29, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

How to Charge the Batteries
Perhaps more should be researched/written charging the batteries. Do owners use a "normal household" plug to charge the batteries? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.219.241.10 (talk) 14:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes Themania (talk) 05:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

MPG ratings are not clear
The "Fuel efficiency" section is ambiguous. First, what does "For trips less than about 40 miles (64 km) per recharge cycle, the Volt will not use any on-board gasoline; assigning a fuel consumption value which only refers to on-board fuel is not appropriate." mean? It appears to be suggesting that the MPG should not be based on energy taken from the fuel tank alone, but makes no provision for suggesting how to factor in the energy taken from the battery. How much was taken from the battery and how much from the fuel in the 230 MPG estimate?

If it were running from the fuel alone, what would the MPG estimate be? The quoted "50 - 150" is again misleading when it says "depending on its run-time duty cycles". Or, as I read it, "depending on much much the battery is used". If they could make a car that got 150 MPG on fuel alone, there would be no need for the battery pack in the first place.

Not sure if this information is available, but the way this section is written it suggests a much higher 'FUEL' efficiency than is actually achieved by deliberately under accounting for the battery's energy contribution. 12.7.161.226 (talk) 17:45, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * According to Lyle wossname the way they work out 230 mpg is - start with full battery and fuel tank. Run in city cycle as EV until the engine kicks in. Run one more (11 mile) cycle under charge sustaining mode. measure fuel used. then mpg = (EV miles+11)/fuel used. I'm not saying that's right, or even justifible. I don't know where the 150 number really comes from and to my mind it confuses the article, you won't get 150 once itis in charge sustaining mode. That shows the danger of using the general press as references, they really mangle every statement even if the interviewee is not misleading tham. Greglocock (talk) 05:02, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The "Fuel efficiency" section is necessarily ambiguous today because the EPA has not yet ruled on how it will issue "official" fuel economy ratings for Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles and GM has not published details of their testing either.


 * Chris Nevers', EPA, presentation to the SAE entitled "Calculating PHEV Label FE" shows how Charge Depletion mode (aka using grid electricity) and Charge Sustaining mode (aka using electricity generated by on-board gasoline) can be combined via utility factors (based on American driving patterns). The presentation also suggests (but by no means confirms) that the EPA may follow the SAE J1711 testing procedure.  This 2009 "Argonne Facilitation of PHEV Standard Testing Procedure (SAE J1711)" presentation from Michael Duoba describes the testing procedure with some more detail. (wossname: Dr. Lyle Dennis, publisher of the pro-Chevy Volt web site gm-volt.com). sn‾uǝɹɹɐʍɯ (talk) 20:42, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * To reflect the total "fuel" used, both of the numbers GM reported can be combined. Mr. Nevers' paper gives an example (page 16). Using the DOE conversion factor 33.705 kWh/gal, GM's reported 25kWh/100mi for the Volt is equivalent to 135 mpgge. Then traveling one "average" mile, the Volt would use the energy equivalent of (1/230)gasoline+(1/135)electricity = 0.1176 gallons of gasoline and have an overall, gasoline+electricity fuel economy of 85 mpgge.
 * The DOE regulation also defines another equivalence factor of 12.307 kWh/gal that incorporates more information to account for the efficiencies of the USA electrical generating and delivery system. Using that factor, the GM Volt reported 25kWh/100mi converts to 49 mpgge. Combining 1/((1/230)gasoline+(1/49)electricity) yields an overall gasoline+electricity fuel economy of 41 mpgge. Electrical generation efficiency varies widely and the specific fuel economy for a particular vehicle will be affected by the electricty used to recharge it. sn‾uǝɹɹɐʍɯ (talk) 16:46, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Although I agree with the general thrust of your argument the last mathematical bit is a mess. It looks valid, I don't think it is. The bigger issue is whether the EPA will use the proposed, awful, method, and whether GM will continue to publicise a number that many users will fail to achieve in any shape or form. Greglocock (talk) 10:50, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Here's a sensible approach from someone with no dog in the fight, but of course it doesn't come up with a general single number for a particular car (it can't) http://autoblog.xprize.org/axp/2009/08/calculating-mpge.html. Hopefully Argonne and the EPA will have a rethink over the next year. Greglocock (talk) 00:11, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll try to clean up the mess a bit here. The formula from the Automotive XPrize blog
 * $$MPGe = \frac{miles\ driven}{\left(\frac{Total\ energy\ of\ all\ fuels\ consumed}{energy\ of\ one\ gallon\ of\ gasoline}\right)}$$
 * as well as the formula from the EPA presentation both combine energy usage in the same way. While GM did not report their actual miles driven, the numbers do specify "per mile" energy consumption and suffice for the combination formula. Suppose the Volt were driven one "statistical" mile using 1/230 gallon of gasoline and 250 Wh of electricity; the combined energy use is then:


 * $$MPGe = \frac{1\ mile} {\left( \frac{\left( \frac{1}{230}gal. \times 33700 \frac{W \cdot h}{gal.} \right)\mathrm{_{gasoline}}\, + \, 250\ W \cdot h \mathrm{_{electricity}} } {33700\frac{W \cdot h}{gallon}} \right)} = \frac{1\ mile} {\left( \frac{146.52\, W \cdot h\, + \, 250\, W \cdot h}{33700\frac{W \cdot h}{gallon}} \right)} = 84.99 \mathrm{mpg_{ge}} $$


 * The essential problem I see with GM's announcement is their focus on the gasoline consumption which represents only 37% of the total energy use.


 * Overall, the method that the EPA and XPrize use to combine blended fuels is the same with some differences in the details. For instance, the EPA uses 33,700 Wh/gallon while the XPrize blog stipulates 34,024 Wh/gallon (changing the above to 85.5 mpgge).  The Automotive XPrize competition guidelines dynamometer tests use the EPA's old, criticized UDDS and HWFET driving schedules, but leave out the EPA's newer US06 high-speed and SC03 air-conditioner-on tests. The XPrize and the EPA also use the same 2001 National Household Travel Survey when designing their tests.  Both the EPA and XPrize stipulate measuring power usage from the wall to account for charger inefficiencies. The XPrize does constrain PHEVs more than the EPA with the rule:


 * "Charge-depleting hybrid electric vehicles (e.g. Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles) will need to begin testing at a State of Charge (SOC) that will reach a transition to charge-sustaining operation within pairs of alternating UDDS and HWFET cycles repeated two times (70 miles maximum) due to time constraints."


 * The EPA's proposed testing doesn't so constrain PHEVs but it will take a long time (four or more days) to test a PHEV! sn‾uǝɹɹɐʍɯ (talk) 02:27, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

What is an "Integration Vehicle?"
The term is used a couple times in the beginning of the article but neither explained nor linked. Insider lingo? 151.204.233.138 (talk) 17:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I changed it to "pre-production test vehicle". Really, it's the first running car which looks like the final production Volt, stress testing the body of the car in addition to previous testing of the engine, electric/hybrid system, and chassis.  --Vossanova o&lt; 20:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry that isn't really a good name for it either. It is not 'pre production', in any useful fashion. That is, there will be at least one and probably two or more low volume builds (several hundred cars) before production. So if you like it is probably a pre-pre-pre production car. It is the first time all the major systems have been assembled into a representative body, which will be made from a mixture of production parts, low volume production intent parts, and bridging parts. You might have some luck finding a better definition if you research GM's GVDP, which should define the expectations of each protoype build phase. The reason the phrase got into the article is that the fanboyim were wetting themselves when they heard there was a build, and started claiming it was somehow related to a production build. IV isn't a bad name for it incidentally, it refers to system integration. Greglocock (talk) 05:33, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * And you assume everyone knows what system integration is? Do a google search for "pre-production volt", and you'll find many media sources using that term.  Not sure they're all "fanboys".  --Vossanova o&lt; 14:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. All of this is based on Systems Engineering terminology (or jargon),mostly developed by NASA, which at least Toyota and Ford regard as the correct approach for developing cars. If people have been told to call them pre-production prototypes then that is fine by me, it's just that IV is a better description. Greglocock (talk) 12:23, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Changed my mind the bloke from GM in the second ref says "builds of the first Volt integration vehicles will BEGIN on June 1 and be completed soon afterward.". He uses IV as the term exclusively. Greglocock (talk) 02:10, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Does the gasoline engine turn on when the car is parked?
The section about the battery and temperature needs to be clarified. Does the battery need to be kept above 0 degrees celcius at all times? Or just when the car is running? Does the engine turn on to keep the battery warm even when the car is parked outside in the cold and the driver is away? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.180.13.246 (talk) 23:40, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Existence of the section "Battery charging emissions"
why does this section exist? this has nothing to do with the chevy volt and just shows a point of view of how "carbon neutral" electric cars are. It isnt a controversy of the chevy volt but a "thought" of plug-in cars as a whole. The only reason its in this article is because its the only available plug-in in the near future, but it doesnt make it ok to be in this article. it doesnt belong. LightSpeed (talk) 06:24, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I totally agree. A lot of that discussion as been archived, but at the time there were editors that felt it was pertinent and the "controversies" section was deleted and restored repeatedly. The discussion seemed to be more related to a certain documentary, and opposition to this type of plug-in EV, than the Volt itself.If there isn't any real WP rationale for that data to be included, it should go. WopOnTour (talk) 06:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I participated in editing the section, but agree that it could be moved somewhere else or maybe get another article. The reason for the section is that GM (like all the other car makers) make claims about EV's being "emission free", and this just starts the controversy. It probably needs a brief mention that the emissions are usually not zero, then reference somewhere else for more detail. All EV's could reference the same article. GrahamP (talk) 12:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The Electric car article's Carbon dioxide emissions section already has an extensive discussion on CO2 emissions from electrical generation. The Tesla Roadster article encountered the same problem with peripheral discussion about electrical generation un-related to the vehicle itself.  The solution there was the one-liner "See also: Electric car: Comparison with internal combustion vehicles (ICEVs)".  For this article, the link "See also: Electric car" might suffice.  The information from the "Battery charging emissions" discussion in this article could be merged there too. sn‾uǝɹɹɐʍɯ (talk) 05:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

What can we do about this section? It uses two different measuring standards to give you incomparable information. If it used the same standard it really would need to be more like a table or something. I'd help but I don't understand the section well enough as written. Reboot (talk) 00:32, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Chevrolet Voltage Website
I added a link to Chevrolet Voltage, which is the OFFICIAL web 2.0 site for the Volt. Someone deleted it. I think this link should be added, it contains useful information such as blog posts and inside information on the development of the Volt. What do you guys think? --Zhackwyatt (talk) 15:51, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * That link, to use a James Mayism, is a load of cock. Greglocock (talk) 02:57, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your insightful thoughts. (BTW, just because YOU don't like the link doesn't mean its not allowed to be in the article.  Wikipedia is not a dictatorship. Zhackwyatt (talk) 15:53, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Battery peak output?
The article states the motor peak output (120 kW) and the battery charge level but does not state the battery peak output. Is it significantly less than 120 kW? Emmanuelm (talk) 06:40, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Corrected misleading statement

 * Changed: However, under most conditions CO2 output is less than other low emission vehicles even with electricity derived from "dirty coal"


 * To: However, under most conditions CO2 output is less than other low emission vehicles, except for electricity derived from "dirty coal"

If you read the IEEE article cited, it says: "But if you run that plug-in with electricity from a typical coal-fired power plant, it now releases from 4 to 11­ percent more greenhouse gases than a conventional hybrid would."

The article doesn't support the original statement at all, so I changed it to be more accurate, but I didn't add the 4 to 11 percent figures. --173.13.177.205 (talk) 00:12, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Battery section
GM opened its battery assembly plant today (7 January 2010). This article says that the battery packs weigh 400 pounds: http://www.wired.com/autopia/2010/01/chevrolet-volt-battery-production/#Replay -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

News aggregator/blog/forum sites as external links
WP:EL is reasonably specific about these, in general they are not welcome. The current waste of time with gm volt is doubly inappropriate since it is already referenced many times in the article, as such it has already been incorporated. In an ideal article there would be no ELs, since all the important content will have been added into the article and referenced. Greglocock (talk) 23:45, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Your point is taken, but this link should serve as a beacon to those who find this page, it is more than just information it has played a role in allowing the car to be built, and significantly contributed new information to this topic.

Furthermore it has been on this page as an external link for 99% of the time since this page was actually created. It was only removed by a spammer who was trying to insert a nonsensically agggreagtor/splog page there in its stead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.125.130.209 (talk) 11:40, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Normally, I would easily revert any external links to blog or forum sites, but gm-volt.com does have significantly more information than a typical unofficial/car-fan site. What turns me off is that there is advertising. Don't get me wrong, I know ad revenue is a necessity for sites like this, but the external link can be interpreted as a conflict of interest, to drive up page hits and ad revenue for the site. This is pointed out in WP:ELNO (links to normally be avoided) #5. Greglocock was hinting more at WP:ELNO #11 (fansites/blogs), although this site may in fact be an exception as a written by a "recognized authority". Sorry I don't have a definitive keep it/delete it answer, but these are at least a couple points to consider. --Vossanova o&lt; 20:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

A Medical Doctor (or whatever he is) is not a recognised authority on cars. Sorry, that argument is no good either. The point is, you either put it in as an EL, or don't use it as an in-line ref. Also wiki is not a link repository WP:ISNOT or a directory. Greglocock (talk) 23:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd have to agree with Mr. Locock and Vossonova on this.It's really no different when we wanted to dump the repeated links to various "Who Killed The Electric Car" blog sites over on the EV1 page.Just because WHATEVER statement is made on-line by WHOMEVER, doesnt make it comply with a verifiable source.Subjecting users to additional exposure to site advertising within the link to gm-volt.com is an additional negative consideration user:WopOnTour

Electric motor wattage
According to Jay Leno's Garage of the Chevy Volt, the engineer in the video (Andrew Fara) states that the Kilowatt rating for the electric motor is 110KW, not 120KW. 120KW is in the aritcle right now. Link to video: http://www.jaylenosgarage.com/video/clips/green-garage-2011-chevy-volt/1188266/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.193.144.170 (talk) 07:48, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * what's 1kw between friends? LOL Actually you will "hear" many GM people "say" 110 kw only because it's a nice round number and easier to pronounce. The OE specification for the traction motor used on the Volt is 111kW WopOnTour (talk) 21:04, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

SAAB technology
I made a change as to where they really got the design from. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.74.157.155 (talk) 00:49, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * And I removed it. Besides the fact that you didn't source it, GM owns Saab; you can't really steal from yourself. Mr.Z-man 02:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

dimensions
The figure in the models (length, wheelbase,weigth...) are still the same as before the presentation of the production model unless i'm mistaken. These must correspond to the differetly looking 2008 prototype. I can't find the figures for the production model, which must be slightly different. --Raminagrobis fr (talk) 22:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The outer dimensions show on the page are actually correct and are identical to other all-new "Global Delta" platform cars such as the 2011 Chevrolet Cruze. However, the displayed EPA classification as a compact car is clearly INCORRECT. Despite being only 4-passenger this has no bearing on the EPA clasification which uses interior passenger volume+ cargo volume to make that determination (and in accordance to SAE J1100).The Volt shares the same interior passenger volume as the Cruze (95 cubic feet) HOWEVER it has MORE cargo/storage space than the Cruze at 19 cubic feet due to the fact it is a hatch-back. MOST of the VOLT luggage pace specs floating around cyberspace are incorrect because they were derived from the Volt Prototype (11.2cuft) or from the Cruze Sedan (13.8cuft). So the Cruze sedan is "just" below the EPA's mid-size cutoff point of 109.1 cu ft (95+13.8 = 108.8cu ft) BUT because the VOLT is A) a different carline not a Cruze and A) it's a hatchback / liftback design and as such the area immediately behind the rear seats and up to the rear glass in much larger than a sedan.The Volt has a cargo volume of just over 19cu.ft, combined with a slightly less interior volume of 94cu ft (due to the center console intruding into the rear seating area) it "rings in" at 113 cubic feet. Well witin the 109.1-119 EPA mid-size class. So in the end the Volt is almost identical with respect to it's interior and cargo volumes as the latest Prius it's primary PHEV competition . WopOnTour (talk) 20:42, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Hybrid?
Whether or not GregLocock (and a myriad of other haters) want to classify this as a PHEV or not, is irrelevant. The manufacturer of this car DOES NOT use that term and as such is how it should be represented here. WopOnTour (talk) 17:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not a hater. As I have said before I think that so far as efficiency goes then a series/parallel hybrid is likely to be better, but a series hybrid is an interesting experiment, and if you have the right infrastructure, a PHEV even make sense. A such I am keen to see this thing on the road, after all the combined brains in GM must be smarter than me and Toyota, so I'd like them to point out the errors in my thinking, and building 10000 taxpayer subsidised toys for rich people is one hell of a lesson. As to whether we should call things by what they are, as opposed to what giant corporations want to call them, I don't really give a monkeys. So long as the article is consistent then call it The Salvation of Mankind for all I care. It obeys every significant characteristic of a PHEV and will be tested as such, and marketed to compete with other PHEVs. However to be consistent if you want to call it an EV we should remove mentions of it and links to it from the PHEV and all hybrid vehicle articles, of course. Your call. Greglocock (talk) 21:33, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * There's no use disputing your GM hatred Greg, it's been visibly apparent repeatedly in this wiki (and others) as only the "lost" talk archives could prove. I still don't see why you think YOUR Kool-Aid tastes any better. But I'm willing to compromise, for now. Once the SAE J1715 document that outlines hybrid and electric vehicle terminology (officially N/A as its currently in revision) is officially published, we can certainly revisit this. WopOnTour (talk) 23:47, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, you are half right. I do hate some things. Hypocrisy, spin and fanbois. The hypocrisy in claiming this car is environmentally friendly, the spin that claims that it will get 40 miles on a charge (it will, if you drive according to the widely discredited city cycle, it won't in the real world), and the fanbois, well, QED. I don't hate inanimate objects like cars. Greglocock (talk) 10:53, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * LOL, well we're ALL fanbois of something!- and IMO you're certainly no different or exempt. As far as the Volt's being environmentally unfriendly, as compared to WHAT exactly? Other cars?, Other plug-in electrics?? With respect to the Volt's AER I can tell you that not only will it meet it's 40 mile AER design target under ALL conditions, it does so with ease. That's under ALL definable anticipated road-load conditions including a -30C cold start (WITH a suitable ICE driven preconditioning period of course)In fact the Volt will actually easily exceed that 40 mile AER on BOTH the EPA city and highway loops. So I'm not sure exactly what "real world" you're living, and I really don't care if you don't believe me but I've SEEN IT with my own eyes so... maybe someday the car will make it "down-under" and you can have a go at it yourself. Be well  --WopOnTour (talk) 00:50, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well the great thing about the range is that we'll get to see, in real world conditions. That's why I want 10000 of them built. And I wasn't calling /you/ a fanboi, even though it reads like it. Greglocock (talk) 01:18, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * BTW I think you will get your "10,000 built" for the first year:) WopOnTour (talk) 23:36, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

"the real or effective cost to consumers is easily less than $30,000.”
I think you'll find he's factoring in the lower fuel costs, which is a tad misleading. We'll see. Greglocock (talk) 04:41, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I dont think so but it IS after any rebate. (Pretty hard to factor in fuel costs unless you used some "average" trip/drive cycle calculations) But I'll see if I can find the followup article from the Canadian journalist that kept pushing "give us a number" during the interview. In the end the fianl pricing is scheduled to be released in the very near future as the dealers now have ordering info.This would merely be the "most recent" statement from someone within the Volt development team. Whiteacre himself said as such at the Detroit Auto Show but then retracted and said "No price is official yet" Yea, too many headgames... WopOnTour (talk) 23:33, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Fuel Efficiency
There is a much better explanation and discussion of electric/hybrid fuel efficiency in the Tesla Roadster article. The description here is still about at as clear as mud. Reboot (talk) 23:30, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That may be Tesla's take on MPG calculations, (easy for them since they produce a BEV) but until the EPA comes to a decision and releases the Volt's fuel economy "officially" it's senseless to post anything in the wiki other than what the OE is claiming.WopOnTour (talk) 18:36, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Who Killed The Electric Car
Can we keep links to that film out of here? It's a bash-GM kind of film, and that would violate the neutral guidelines, no? --Ferrarimanf355 (talk) 02:16, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Depends more on whether it is an RS, than if it is NPOV. There is NO requirement that sources be neutral. Not having seen it I don't know whether it is an RS, not that ignorance prevents many editors from having an opinion. Greglocock (talk) 02:44, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Doesnt matter if you've seen the documentary or not, since the Volt is not the EV1 there is no relevance to WKTEC in this wiki WopOnTour (talk) 18:32, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Range Extender Efficiency
Much has been made about the Volt's range extender ICE as it provides peace of mind for those anxious about the relatively limited charge of the battery. I wonder how efficient the Volt would be if/when owners use it only in range extender mode and never plug it in to re-charge the batteries. GM seems to anticipate this on their dedicated Chevy Volt website, explaining that owners who run it this way will not enjoy the full efficiency of the Volt's design. I think of all the many people who do not have the luxury of a dry, safe parking place with access to an electrical outlet for overnight charging. Does anyone have any information (or any thoughts) as to what kind of mileage one might anticipate if the Volt is essentially operated much like a modern locomotive, i.e., the ICE runs as a genset providing electricity to run the car's electric motors? In theory, the ICE would be operating as efficiently as it could without regard to stop-and-go traffic, idling, acceleration, etc. I am wondering if running the Volt this way without ever utilizing its 40-mile battery charge range, would still make for a comparatively efficient vehicle. Any thoughts on this? Mhrogers (talk) 15:32, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Article says 50 mpg City Cycle,. That implies a thermodynamic efficiency for the engine that I find unlikely, but then I am told I am a hater and so you can ignore my comments. My reasoning is that 50mpg is the same as Prius (51 mpg), yet the Volt, in CS mode, is lugging around 200 kg of extra ballast (unused battery capacity, and heavier vehicle http://www.autocar.co.uk/News/NewsArticle/Chevrolet-Concepts/234534/). Also I doubt that its engine is as efficient as Prius, since it doesn't sound anything special -the Prius engine is the most efficient SI engine ever in production for a car, and has a lot of features that explain that. The offset is that the transmission efficiency could be better than the Prius, we'll have to wait and see on that. It is possible for an electric transmission to exceed 96% efficiency, but that costs $$$. Studies on the various architectures have never identified this one as being especially efficient, it just uses less oil and more coal than the more usual arrangements. Used as intended, if the performance lives up to the hype, I think it is quite a good technical solution, given that I regard AGW hysteria as, well, hysteria. But it will not pay for itself, for most people, unless you can persuade someone else to buy it for you. Which they have done. Greglocock (talk) 21:30, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Mr. Locock, FYI the article you quote is years old and represents details (such as the weight of the Volt and fuel volume) that were based on the concept vehicle not the current production-intent model. While the Prius ICE is as you stated very efficient, the power-split arrangement used in it's transaxle is less than so. (I suspect the 1.5L powerplant used in the Prius would actually be even MORE fuel efficient in a vehicle with a maunaul transmission) What efficiency numbers the Volt will get in CS (Charge Sustain) mode will likely not be divulged publically for at least a couple more months (after the EPA completes it's testing on the actual production models) PS> I'll officially retract my "hater" comment, it was rash ;) comment added by WopOnTour (talk • contribs) 00:14, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No worries. Ballpark estimate-baseline= Holden Cruze 1.8M 1380kg-36l fuel=1350kg+170kg battery=1520-(clutch and manual box) unknown+(generator and motor/generator and motor controllers)unknown minus any weight savings, plus any extra equipment.  I suppose another approach would be to compare the kerb weights for standard 2.4M and hybrid camry, say 200kg, and then add the extra battery 95 kg, and then knock off the fuel again . So 1600 doesn't seem unreasonable. Engine weight won't be much different 1.4 v 1.8. As I have occasionally remarked, this is all moot, in six months or less we'll know (a) what the real numbers are, and (b) whether the fuss is justified. I can wait six months. Greglocock (talk) 02:35, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I think starting with the curb weight of the Cruze was a good idea as it could potentially provide a more accurate estimate. I have the curb weight of a base Cruze with the 1.8 litre (RPO:LXT) naturally aspirated 4cyl (fairly close to the Volt RE-ICE)and manual transaxle listed as 1310kg and the upscale "full-load" model with automatic trans at 1350kg(including all fluids and a full 60litre/15.8US gallon fuel tank)So using the full load car and subtracting the difference in prepped fuel weight (~25kg?) and adding the battery pack weight of 170kg comes out to 1495kg. So even if you wish to add some additional weight for the motors (over and above a traditional automatic transaxle) and other EREV system hardware (charger, cabling, HVAC, extra mnagment ECUs etc) those weights will likely be near-compensated for by weight reduction efforts that GM has already alluded to on their Volt websites (i.e. numerous alloy components used in the suspension, space-frame and the interior,as well as Global-A electrical architecture)So I think a number closer to 1500kg will be more accurate than 1600kg and in the end they just might surprise everyone with their final number (for better or worse) But I'd certainly be interested in seeing your calculations for both! WopOnTour (talk) 18:34, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

4 questions and a thought
I have four potentially "article-improving" suggestions and one random thought that occurred to me while reading.

1. No mention is made of the transmission. Is it directly coupled (with a reduction gear) like the Tesla?

2. Battery voltage and operating voltage(s). No mention.

3. Does it use regenerative braking?

4. No mention is made of other operating drains on the battery, such as heating and lighting. Cold starts are addressed, but, for instance, here in New England in the depths of winter, both legs of a commute are often undertaken in darkness and at very cold ambient temperatures. I presume this car uses electrical resistance heating? Other similar questions apply to windshield wipers, window defrosting, which may be running along with the first two. I assume things like the radio are factored in already. On a related note, what about AC (cooling)?

E. While reading, it occurred to me that someone is bound to try to set one of these up so it can be used as an emergency backup genset for their house. It has the advantage of not requiring messy gasoline cans, it can drive itself to the filling station...

Oh, I also got a little tired of every other section saying it will go 40 miles on a charge, but maybe that makes sense for readers only reading one or two sections that interest them. Huw Powell (talk) 23:07, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * 2 probably around 200V
 * 3 yes
 * 4 Dunno. It's be nice if they used electrically powered reverse cycle air conditioning, although of course that gets less effective as the heat source gets cooler.
 * E someone's already done this for a Prius. Using a $30000 machine with a defined lifespan to replace a $1000 machine designed for the job strikes me as absurd, except in an emergency. Greglocock (talk) 02:12, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Most of these items are not mentioned in the wiki due to the fact that GM has not released the data into the public domain and as such making it difficult/impossible to attach RS. There's more than enough speculation out there (and I'll even provide my own below) so if people wish to entertain speculation they will find it but without reliable sourcing the wiki is best left with some unanswered questions at this time IMO.
 * 1. No complete data released, speculation is the trans housing looks similar on the exterior to the 2MT70 2-mode hybid trans that WAS slated for the Saturn Vue hybrid. But GM representatives have denied that the "internals" are in anyway the same. But have conceded it DOES have a final drive ratio and of course a differential mechanism.
 * 2. ~375V
 * 3. Of course!
 * 4. Recent cold-weather testing in Kapuskasing Canada is documented on the official Volt websites. Apparently a minimum preconditioning period (where the battery and vehicle interior is warmed up)is absolutely neccessary at colder ambients. This allegedly can be completed using electrical energy (if plugged in) or using the ICE (and depleting a small amount of on-board fuel and therfore CS range)So in NE you would want to plug-in your Volt at colder ambients whenever possible.
 * 5./E Not from factory but certainly someone will attempt it JMO WopOnTour (talk) 18:50, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you both for taking the time to answer me! And, Greg, when one needs a backup genset by definition it is an emergency ;) Huw Powell (talk) 03:56, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Charge Time?
How long does it take to charge the battery when it's completely empty? That should be added to the article. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 21:55, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Bill, this information is already in the wiki actually, under the "powertrain" heading. Perhaps this information needs to move into the lede? WopOnTour (talk) 20:12, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. We should just cut and paste the charge time language straight into the second paragraph of the lede, perhaps immediately after the second sentence.  Ebikeguy (talk) 20:37, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Oops! I didn't see it.  I agree with moving it to the lead.  Also, in parentheses (?), it should also list how many kilo-watt hours the battery requires.  That way, a person can check how much their power company is charging them and how much it costs to charge the battery so that a comparison can be made against gasoline.  Thanks.  Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 00:56, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

The on board motor generator doesn’t let the battery get below 30%. Charging the battery from no charge at all is unrealistic and should never happen. Dsmith7707 (talk) 15:08, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * For most people the term "completely empty" refers to the point where the Voltec platform switches from pure electric mode (aka charge depletion) to extended range (charge sustaining mode)i.e. the point in which they start burning fuel to create the electrical energy for propulsion. The battery management system will directly control the initiation of this event and using numbers such as a 30% SOC to define this point is somewhat confusing to many people.(to most people the fact that the battery can no longer sustain powr on it's own conicides with it being "dead")

Besides it's not ALWAYS going to be exactly 30% anyways as it's techncially a moving target depending on a myriad of pyhsical and ambient variables. (eg what if "mountan mode" has been engaged? or the battery SOC is ~35% BUT battery cell temperature is -20F) In my opinion the wiki doesnt need to "spell out" the intricate details of the operating system software, after all, this is an encyclopedia NOT an engineering manual. JMO WopOnTour (talk) 20:02, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

"No extra emissions in Ontario" paragraph makes no sense.
I've added a "citation needed" and some contrary information, but IMO the paragraph should be entirely discarded. The paragraph argues that, because the total hydro+nuclear capacity of Ontario exceeds the baseload power, extra power is "wasted." The only way to "waste" gigawatts of power is to spill water over a dam without running it through turbines; once the power is generated, it must be used or the grid will develop too high a voltage.

The paragraph further states that hydro power can't be switched rapidly; this is false. Hydro power is dispatchable and rapidly switchable, as documented by Base_load_power_plant and by the |USGS site on hydropower. The only limits on the range of power generated are 1) the average flow; 2) the size of the reservoir; 3) the capacity of the turbines; 4) the desirability of fluctuating downstream flow. The first three do not affect the ability to switch on a daily or hourly basis; the last is a matter of policy, not engineering.

So, while it's theoretically possible that Ontario runs its nuke plants at full blast, and spills water half the day in order to keep the rivers at *exactly* the same flow rate round the clock, this would not make much sense. A lot more sensible would be to vary the turbine draw so as to generate only baseload power when needed and contribute to peak when needed.

Without a citation for the fact that Ontario wastes power, the paragraph's conclusion is completely unsupported and probably false.

Cphoenix (talk) 08:39, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Totally agree that not only is these statements irrelevant, there seems to be no supporting refeence. It has been deleted WopOnTour (talk) 20:11, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

gm-volt fan site used as reference
External links section mentions gm-volt.com as a 'fan site'. It's a blog. And it's used extensively as a reference for much of this article, which is not the WP way. Some effort needs to be made to replace the cites with the primary sources cited by that blog. Cookiehead (talk) 19:20, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * There's hundreds of automotive based websites used throughout Wikipedia as reliable sources. Most all of these sites include "blogging" features to permit readers of published articles to merely comment and contribute their own opinions.From what I can see no author of the Volt wiki has used references to Volt information attributed directly to "blog" content or opinion pieces, only to primary news worthy articles that clearly meet NPOV and are well referenced by various General Motors sources to which the site's owner has created exclusive access. I see no problem with that from a "Wiki-Way" perspective. To exclude gm-volt.com due to its "blog" features in this case would be necessitating removal of almost all RS being used in many thousands of automotive-based wikis!WopOnTour (talk) 06:34, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

The Volt's Gasoline system / cabin heat
In the marketing video at www.chevroletvoltage.com they say the engine uses Premium-grade gasoline because it's slightly more cost-effective and the fuel in the tank lasts longer.

Please report the fuel tank capacity when it is available; I haven't found an authoritative statement about fuel capacity.

What information is available regarding the use of the liquid-cooled generator engine (and perhaps the liquid-cooled battery pack) to provide heat for windshield defrosting and cabin/cockpit heat? How do people stay warm on a cold day? What are the system's characteristics? This may be unimportant in moderate climates, but what happens when a Volt encounters 10 or 20 degrees below freezing? //Don K. (talk) 02:02, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * At low temperatures the gas engine starts to heat up the batteries then turns off when the batteries are up to temperature. The car can be plugged in like a diesel engine in cold weather to heat the batteries perverting the gas engine from starting.

Dsmith7707 (talk) 20:19, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Operating ICE for interior and/or battery "preconditoning" is unnecessary poviding the VOLT is plugged in to 120/240V. This preconditioning is automatic depending on customer preset schedules, as well as ambient and observed cell temperatures. The owner will alos be able to manually initiate a precondition period using their personalized myVolt.com or via their smartphone. HTH WopOnTour (talk) 20:08, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Latest info
Any of the regulars might be interested to include some of the new development details provided by GM here. Now I am working in something else and for several days I will not have much time available to do it myself.--Mariordo (talk) 03:07, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * There was very little new information in the recent "update" from CHQ.Basically just that they have completed hundreds of thousands more labaratory test cycles on the Volt's battery packs, and that cold weather calibrations changes were made up in Kapuskasing Canada to improve cold weather charging and drivability.A handful of pre-production cars have been assembled in Hamtramck and everything is still on-track for prouduction job#1 in the fall. Nothing IMO that really affects the wiki from an encyclopedic viewpoint, or did I miss something?WopOnTour (talk) 15:27, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

The electric power steering for GM is a half horsepower three phase electric motor. I know because I worked on it for a gas powered car. I would assume the same one would be used in the volt. The 160 horsepower electric motor is it a brushless motor also? Brushes wear out quickly so I hope it’s brushless. Dsmith7707 (talk) 20:23, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


 * From the GM volt website the 160 horsepower electric motor is A/C 3 phase brushless. The ICE does not charge the battery above about 30%. The only exception is regenerative braking or the ICE is in one of several modes with a little extra power than what the car needs to run down the road. The 71 horsepower ICE only generates about half the 160 horsepower so the battery 30% reserve is needed for full acceleration. The battery is not changed above 85% in the garage to leave room for regenerative braking and to extend the life of the battery. The 30% reserve also extends the life of the battery. The 30% and 85% are approximant because hysteresis must be used to make the software program practical.Dsmith7707 (talk) 13:45, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * What you are stateing all in the wiki and has been for a number of years. FYI the power steering syste IS electrically assisted however operates on the 12-Volt rail. (not a 42VAC system as used in the 2-Mode hybrids)WopOnTour (talk) 19:46, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

In the article one place is 111 kW for the electric motor size and in another 120-kilowatt is used. The units should be kW and this value is the average that can be sustaned not the peak value. The peak value can be many times higher but only for a short time like a starter electic motor. Dsmith7707 (talk) 18:04, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The motor power specification has been a debate for a while now. GM traditionally uses (as you have indicated) a "continous" power rating for their electric motor specs. However other hybrid producing OEs (such as Toyota) only publish "peak" power numbers for their motors. What is yet to be 100% established is if the GM spec is continous or peak. GM however has stated on their website that the motor is ~160HP. Horsepower traditionally utilizes a maximum/peak specification which would be 118kW. So the current speculation is the 111kW stated in some GM produced specs IS in fact the continous rating. GM has also used 120kW in other press releases.Until this is clarified by GM I think we can feel free to use either 111kW, 118kW, or 120kW. To this point we have chosen to use the most conservative value. WopOnTour (talk) 18:01, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Classification as a "hybrid" is pointless
This section does not need to exist especially where it is. If you want to debate the classification of the vehicle do it on another site, not Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rukaribe (talk • contribs) 00:31, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Based on the most recent developments (SAE1711) I tend to agree somewhat.However SAE1711 (and the EPA apparently) clearly recognizes that there are "differences" in plug-in hybrids. So this isnt really a "debate" just a method to clarify that a "charge depleting" series EREV is quite technically different from a "blended" PHEV like the plug-in Prius. J1711 seems to bear this out WopOnTour (talk) 18:07, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

PHEV stuff, post launch
GM now have revealed that the the Volt is a series/parallel PHEV http://gm-volt.com/2010/10/11/motor-trend-explains-the-volts-powertrain/, not to anyone's great surprise. I would appreciate it if mariordo would allow this to be entered into this article. Greglocock (talk) 23:19, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The previous edits simply delete it w/o a reliable source. Please correct the article but with a RS (not gm-volt which is a blog site), such as MotorTrend or GM itself.-Mariordo (talk)
 * NO probs, just add cns where needed. I've mostly been removing stuff, since it was fairy dust and special pleading. Greglocock (talk) 23:45, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * If I am reading correctly, the Volt operates most of the time as a serial hybrid, and sometimes, only under special conditions (speed > 70 mph), as a parallel hybrid (the engine drives the wheels for efficiency purposes). But please, go ahead and fix the article. And this is the RS .-Mariordo (talk) 23:49, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I do not think you are fixing the article in a very constructive way, just deleting, leaving behind refs, etc. This new fact demonstrates that it was not just a range extender as GM claims, but it continues to be a hybrid, and it should explain when it works as a serial and when as a parallel.-Mariordo (talk) 23:53, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry if i messed the formatting up. There is no controversy about the technical side, a GM engineer has confirmed the transmission architecture. -"The Volt’s Vehicle Line Engineer Doug Park confirmed that there is, on occasion, a direct mechanical connection between the internal combustion engine and drive wheels in an interview with Norman Mayersohn of The New York Times. " Now, if you think about it if the engine is coupled when the battery is depleted then it must be providing all the motive power, and it uses the MGs to provide the correct gear ratio via the trans. That is exactly how the Prius works when it is running on engine power. When the Prius runs in EV mode then it is also the same as a Volt. The difference in engagement points is largely controlled by the battery size, as you know Prius has a tiny battery, about equivalent to half a pint of fuel, Volt a relatively large one, roughly the equivalent of a gallon. I don't think you'll get much traction in worrying about a controversy with GM misleading everybody, it is a storm in a teacup, 99% of the populace merely need to know it is a PHEV. Greglocock (talk) 02:25, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Good that we agree. As you can see I restored the section you deleted as "Terminology", please feel free to improved or extend it.-Mariordo (talk) 02:28, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * PS: By the way, I do believe the content in the "Design" section you changed needs to be improved and corrected --> the operation is not parallel but rather series-parallel just like the Prius. The new three references I provided have more details, so there is room to even expand the previous content in order to explain how the planetary element works, considering that according to Motor Trend is such unique design. Today I do not have more time to do it myself, so please feel free to do it, or anyone else interested. Also, one of the MT articles has enough info to complete the infobox, any volunteers?.-Mariordo (talk) 02:34, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The term "like the Prius" describing series-parallel architecture, is pointless. There are numerous potential S-P configurations, the Prius HSD being only one of them. The Volt's architecture is unique, and significantly different from the Prius.
 * Such as?
 * While GM admits there are rare conditons where the ICE is operating in corroboration with MG2,(i.e. during Charge Sustaining mode at high road speeds) IMO callig it "just" a series-parallel hybrid does not sufficently recognize that it operates as a "full-range" (any speed any load) pure electric vehicle for the intial 25-50 miles (charge depletion depending on conditions)and essentially pure serial for all but seemingly rare occurances after that in CS (charge sustaining) WopOnTour (talk) 06:01, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Please identify any significant operating mode that the Volt transmission has that the Prius doesn't, using a transmission powerflow diagram as seen in their patents. EPA says it is a PHEV, and the patent describes a series parallel architecture. Greglocock (talk) 23:13, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to hold your hand and explain it to you. Why dont YOU tell ME when it is operating identically to the Prius? The fact that it's been sucessfully granted a patent should tell you its different "enough" WopOnTour (talk) 01:41, 21 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The patent doesn't tell us that it is not a series parallel hybrid. The mechanical configuration and powerflow is different enough in the details to be considered patentable by GM, and even that proves little (patents mean very little until tested in court). So far as I can see the epicyclic is used in a very similar fashion, but with different gears attached to each power source/sink. /You/ are the one making the extraordinary claim that it is not just another sp hybrid, hence /you/ need to provide the RS backing you up. Good luck finding that, since it is an sp hybrid. So, which mode does it offer that is not available in Prius?  Greglocock (talk) 03:46, 21 October 2010 (UTC)


 * WopOnTour, clearly you are knowledgeable on this subject, but editing without RS or trimming content properly sourced with RS is blatant OR on your part. Please adhere to wiki policies and support your edits with RS as everybody else, and controversies can be dealt with in the corresponding section.-Mariordo (talk) 02:32, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Your latest edit about a 50 miles range and the other non NPOV content you edited is an example of what I meant below, please provide reliable sources, otherwise that content is just OR, and so, I reverted it. Could you be more constructive? Bring new facts adding the proper references and removing any outdated refs, I would be nice if you refrain from editing the article as if it was a blog.-Mariordo (talk) 04:12, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Mariordo, if I trimmed your reference it was accidental. I will restore, but someone in the blogoshpere dubbing the Volt a Prius clearly doesnt understand how it works. That's all I intended to delete. Greg, how is operating directly in EV mode at all loads and speeds in any way similar to ANY S-P hybrid? Nothing else can accomplish this feat, not can they operate in pure serial to legal speeds. So unless you have something downunder that nobody is aware of... —Preceding unsigned comment added by WopOnTour (talk • contribs) 06:06, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry that doesn't cut it. A Prius can do that if you make the battery bigger, as Calcars do with their plug-in conversion. Since they don't modify the trans I really think that puts it to bed, adding more batteries is not a change in architecture, and Prius is commonly accepted as being a sp hybrid. Formally I would descrivbe the Volt as a PHEV using a series parallel hybrid transmission. Incidentally at leats one GM engineer said something that makes me think that the supposed 'high speed' for transition to parallel may in fact be as low as 30 mph. Which from an engienering and efficiency perspective is sensible. I'll see if i can find it again. Greglocock (talk) 22:59, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You're wrong Greg. A bigger battery alone wont help the PHEV prius to become a true EV liek the Volt. It's traction motor is just too small to power the car alone electrically (only 60kw where the Volt is about double that) Thus it will ALWAYS need the ICE to operate whenever road loads axceed a relatively low threshhold.Data from Toyota indicates ANYTIME speeds are above 61,ph and/or throttle is greater than 40% it will always command ICE to start during acceleration because of this.The Volt only permits the ICE to contribute AFTER the SOC charge has dropped to the lower limit (~25% in normal mode 40% in Mountain mode)And the article now currently reads incorrrectly as the ICe DOES NOT couple directly to teh output as you have indicated. It connects to teh ring gear of a planetary which at ANY given speed (mostt typically 70mph but is load depenadant) results in the ability to reduce the speed of the traction motor driving the sun. OUTPUT is the carrier so ICE does NOT directly couple to that as you've indicated. WopOnTour (talk) 00:16, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

deindent - I agree that the article's phrasing is/was poor. In mode 3 there is a direct connection from the crankshaft to the wheels via mechanical means, therefore it is operating in parallel mode. You are in no position to judge whether I know how it works, you have yet to identify any operating mode on a powerflow diagram that is not common between the Prius and the Volt, I can't prove a negative. System sizing has no effect on the architectural nomenclature, a standard prius is an EV sometimes, it's just that nobody wanks on about it, as it is a bit of a detail. I agree it is a strength of the Volt's architecture, but that still leaves the nomenclature as PHEV SP hybrid. If you remember this started because you don't like the term SP hybrid. Greglocock (talk) 00:48, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Compilation of Auto-Journalistic Real World Roadtest Data
Since new real world test data is coming in rapidly from recognized Automotive Journalists, I suggest we start a compilation of results (with references) in order to eventually create a table that can be inserted into the article. I suggest we attempt to record at least: Total Miles, Worst/Best AER(CD) Miles,CS Miles, CS Economy in MPG, MPGe (if provided) and noted conditions of test (city, highway, combined, speeds etc)

For instance:
 * Greencar Reports
 * http://www.greencarreports.com/blog/1050295_2011-chevrolet-volt-full-driving-impressions
 * Total Miles - 200+, Worst/Best AER Miles - x/45.9, CS Miles - 86.8, CS Economy - 40.3mpg, MPGe - 73.9 eMPG (combined driving)


 * Motortrend
 * http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/alternative/1010_2011_chevrolet_volt_test/index.html
 * http://blogs.motortrend.com/6719595/green/127-mpg-this-volt-story-must-be-told/index.html
 * Total Miles - 299, Worst/Best AER Miles - x/X, CS Miles - x, CS Economy - high 30s-low 40s, MPGe - 74.6/126.7 eMPG (a best 126.7 eMPG achieved with frequent opportunity charging 74.7eMPG was based on mountainous driving at very high speeds, A/C ON) —Preceding unsigned comment added by WopOnTour (talk • contribs) 07:35, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Car & Driver
 * http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/car/10q4/2011_chevrolet_volt_full_test-road_test
 * Total Miles - 365, Worst/Best AER Miles - 26/39, CS Miles - 86.8, CS Economy - 34-35mpg, MPGe - 74 eMPG (worst AER and CS MPG measured at 80mph )


 * Edmunds
 * http://www.autoobserver.com/2010/10/latest-controversy-aside-chevy-volt-a-shockingly-satisfying-drive.html
 * Total Miles - x, Worst/Best AER Miles - x/47, CS Miles - x, CS Economy - xmpg, MPGe - x eMPG (AER Only )


 * MSNBC
 * http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/electric-road-trip

Total Miles - 800, Worst/Best AER Miles - 9/44, CS Miles - x, CS Economy - 40 mpg, MPGe - x eMPG (9* miles AER was apparently due to a charging problem at a hotel) —Preceding unsigned comment added by WopOnTour (talk • contribs) 20:42, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


 * LA_TIMES
 * http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fie5tIq0eHw




 * Autoblog
 * http://www.autoblog.com/2010/10/20/2011-chevrolet-volt-first-drive-review/
 * Total Miles - 147.5, Worst/Best AER Miles - x/47.5, CS Miles- 100, CS Economy - 36mpg, MPGe - x eMPG (Hypermiling in CD, still 10 miles range showing on gages )

WopOnTour (talk) 06:35, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Consumer Reports
 * http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/alternative-fuel/electric/chevy-volt-range-tests




 * I think that there is already enough content to create the table. What do you think? Do you want to go ahead? I can do it too. It is your call.-Mariordo (talk) 02:34, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I already began the table. First I took the two main reviews that were in prose and transfer the key info to the table. I will strike the refs above as they are included in the table. Feel free to collaborate.-Mariordo (talk) 15:25, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

EV range

 * Mariordo, nice work on the table. However please UNDO you reversionary edits of my values of "up to 50 miles" as these were a group edit I did referencing the recent GM pres release officially recognizing as such.I only referenced the FIRST edit to 50 miles and adjusted the remaining 40 mile values accordingly. However all of htat is now gone thanks to you.

http://media.gm.com/content/media/us/en/news/news_detail.brand_gm.html/content/Pages/news/us/en/2010/Oct/1010_volt_launch WopOnTour (talk) 20:32, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I am glad you decided we discuss this issue here instead of beginning an edit war. The problem with the "up to 50 mi" is lack of NPOV. As many of the most recent refs added and the article already says (see All-electric range sub-section) "the Volt's all-electric range will vary from 25 to 50 miles." Therefore, substituting the 40 mi figure (which is the expected, average, .... range - I will fix "up to" as I did not realized it said "up to") for 50 mph is misleading, 50 is the highest value that can be achieved only by hypermiling (as the info in the table demonstrates). The same would be the case in any automobile article regarding fuel economy, the average is reported, not the maximum. As a similar case, the Nissan Leaf range is 100 mi, and varies between 47 and 138 miles, like the Volt, depending on several factors, but the Wiki article says is 100 mi and explain the variability range, just as I think we should do here. Your edit will be like saying the Nissan has a range of up to 138 mi. I will give it a try to making that more clear in the article (and fix up to 40), adding recent RS if the ones already there do not cover it, and I will wait to your response here to see if I was able to produce a NPOV content that satisfies your concern.-Mariordo (talk) 22:42, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Mariordo, 50 miles does NOT require hypermiling. I myself was able to garner 47 miles of pure EV while driving the bag off it. GM has "opened up" the depth of discharge and charge ceiling to ~65% to permit 10.4kWh of available energy from the pack (as opposed to 50%/8kwh previosuly stated. Under moderate conditions this will mean the car will generally exceeed 40 miles AER. 25 miles is the absolute worst case scenario where extreme ambient and geographical conditions will mean the Volts electrical system will be drawing near maximum current.Plus these AER specifications are for "end-of-life" in 10 years or after 150,000 miles (the design specification for the battery)WopOnTour (talk) 15:15, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Saab involvement
In modern automotive manufacturing resources are called on from all over the world during the development of a new vehicle. For example it would obviously be a good idea to get saab guys involved on the ESC cal for snow and ice, etc. When push comes to shove I have worked on several programs where there are design teams in 3 continents, all working on the same subsystem. Therefore he news that many different parts of the GM octopus worked on this program intended for near global distribution is so banal as to merit little interest, never mind an edit war. Greglocock (talk) 22:21, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Here is the English translation of the Swedish paper SVD reference supporting the claim that "many Saab engineers have a key role in GM’s new high-profile projects, electric hybrid Chevrolet Volt." Since this article was wrote in the context of a controversy about GM closing Saab (the article's title is "How GM had planned to close Saab") I do not think it stands by itself as a reliable source, so I reverted Liftarn because this claim needs to be supported by independent source to stand the way he proposes.-Mariordo (talk) 01:33, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It certainly fulfils the requirements as a reliable source per WP:RS. Svenska Dagbladet is a major daily newspaper. The claim is in no way spectacular. It is well known that GM used Saab for development of their own models. // Liftarn (talk) 08:56, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * GM leverages their resources on a global basis and certainly would have taken advantage of precise expertise in Europe and elsewhere world-wide.But stating "Saab engineers developed the Volt" just isnt true, as the vast majority of the engineering papers regarding it's development name primarily GM Powertrain employees in the USA.I have yet to read a single GM document (internal or otherwise) where Trollhatten is even mentioned.I have no problem mentioning the possibility of a Saab angle, it certainly doesnt belong in the lede IMO.WopOnTour (talk) 14:46, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Additionally, I don't think mentioning that the only reference is a Swedish newspaper could be misconstrued "nationaity bias". Sure it's a well known newspaper in Sweden and probably a RS but this article is potentially NPOV it's clearly an opinion piece and NOT EVEN AVAILABLE IN ENGLISH! Of course at the time of it's writing GM was in the process of spinning off Saab and to say there was a fair amount of anti-GM sentiment taking place in Sweden is an understatement. But in the end, Saab was GM at the time so ANY engineering development by ANYONE, ANYWHERE under the employ of GM was ultimately GM property. (Hence the recent patent approvals)When we see a patent application on any of the Volt's systems from someone in Saab we can discuss further.WopOnTour (talk) 15:08, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, would you accept that we mention the nationality of every other source in the article? I think that would be very tedious and unnecessary. As mentioned above a translation is available for those who are interested. As it is now it's not in the lede, but under Design and production timeline. As for anti.GM sentiment in Sweden, SvD was actually more anti-Saab so that angle don't work. Since Saab was a separate company with it's own budget it does matter. // Liftarn (talk) 15:15, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I can see contextual significance to referencing the article as from a Swedish source, but not much. If it is important to Liftarn to leave that out, I'll support him/her in that request.  After all, anyone who follows the link will see where it goes.  Personally, I think the Saab connection is kinda cool.  Ebikeguy (talk) 19:52, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Umm Liftarn, you are missing the point. We can find literally DOZENS of verifiable sources (including direct from GM) that "no external charging station is required". However, when only a single source of unverifiable, potentially controversial data (even if a known RS opinion piece) is available (in a second language no less) it is not unusual to state "According to..." and that is how I believe the article should read, with absolutely NO "ethnic" connotation. Brammo, (Ebikeguy) it's much like our old discussion over in EV-1. When WKTEC was/is the sole available resource for a statement, then said statement should be preceded with "According to the 2006 documentary WKTEC..." That way it can be left up to the reader to interpret as to whether they wish to believe the statement or not based on reading the source. But in this cae the source is in another language with no ON-SITE English translation available (and Liftarn's own translation is the equivalent of Original Research) Don't you agree? WopOnTour (talk) 20:53, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yup. I agree.  But I'm not going to lose sleep over it.  It seems like a fairly minor point to me, and I am willing to compromise in the search for peace and harmony.  Ebikeguy (talk) 21:16, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Please see Reliable sources/Noticeboard. We have a translation of the article (not by me) and there is no ban on using non-English sources when English sources aren't available. // Liftarn (talk)
 * To me, it's not the language of the reference source, it's the off-hand manner in which the Volt comment was made in an article that was primarily about an entirely different subject. Still, the source is reliable, and I'll go with whatever consensus is reached by other editors.  Ebikeguy (talk) 22:45, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Liftarn, please don't be childish, this has nothing to do with nationalities, if that info would have been publish in England, the wording would be the same. When there is a dubious or controversial claim, it is customary to request additional RS (just check the history of any of the controversial global warming related articles), and that is what me and WopOnTour are requesting. If there is none, then the disclaimer text is valid. Requesting the same all over the article is just childish because one ref is enough when there is not a controversy or a questionable claim.-Mariordo (talk) 23:41, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The claim is far from controversial, actually just above Greglocock even says it is "so banal as to merit little interest". Anyway, I have now added a second ref so unless you happen to find a reliable source saying that Saab engineers had nothing to do with the development of the Volt I suggest you let it stand. This is also supported by the discussion at Reliable sources/Noticeboard. // Liftarn (talk)

Revised Motor Generator Unit Power Specificatons
Will propose now that the power specs be updated to the most recently released specifcations as per GM Service Information. (link below) These documents list the MG1 (generator-starter) as 58kW and MG2 (traction motor) as 116kW While minor these values are closer to the orignal power values stated in the concent car http://gmglobalconnect.com > http://gsi.xw.gm.com/si/showDoc.do?laborOpCode=&docSyskey=2424317&cellId=204810&pubObjSyskey=2424317&from=sm&pubCellSyskey=204810 WopOnTour (talk) 03:43, 2 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I think is great. Can you update the other older/guessing specs? If so, please try to remove old/outdated references as much as possible to leave the article properly referenced. You can use "ref name= " and I can do some complementary cleaning and referencing after you are done. The way is going the article might in the near future be nominated for GA.- Mariordo (talk) 04:54, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well since the actual links are behind a secure firewall, my intention is to create a list of GM document IDs and PDFs that support the revised specifications before I actually edit the article. Stay tuned ;)WopOnTour (talk) 14:49, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds great, we can collaborate to update all the specs, I will provide formatting support.-Mariordo (talk) 23:27, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Technobabble
In the "Battery charging emissions" section, I'm having a hard time understanding whether or not the Volt saves any emissions at all, and if so, how much. Statements like this don't help much: "the greenhouse emission factors vary between states, and is 1.22 kg-CO2e/kW·h [141] in Victoria, 0.890 kg-CO2e/kW·h in New South Wales, and 0.120 kg-CO2e/kW·h in Tasmania. Assuming a charge requires 8.8 kW·h,[142] allowing 40 miles (64 km) of travel without petrol, the greenhouse intensities are 167 g-CO2e/km for Victoria, 122 g-CO2e/km for NSW, and 16 g-CO2e/km for Tasmania." Isn't there a way to make this whole section a bit more understandable? And another point - doesn't this section really belong in the Electric car article anyway? I'm assuming the numbers are not for the Chevy Volt only.BuboTitan (talk) 14:16, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * BuboTitan. I totally agree with you. I feel we need to draw the line with respect to detailed powerstation emissions in vehicle specific wikis.Since the Volt is one of the first retail plug-ins to market it might as well start here.Most everyone knows the level of electrical production emissions is based on the original source of energy be it coal-fired, hydro, nuclear etc. I mean how can it really be quantified fairly, when in some states the root source may actually vary with the time of day!
 * So here we have totally unneccesary facts about charging emissions in TASMANIA! (where the Volt is currently not even inended to be marketed).So should it then be the intention of providing similar calculations for every single country,state, and province in the entire world?? Then have that repeated that for every plug-in electric vehicle. Sorry it's gotta GO imo. WopOnTour (talk) 21:09, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually GM is claiming it will sell a localised version of the Volt in Oz, and even Tasmanians will be allowed to buy them. I agree that the emissions problem is complex, but it is an inconvenient truth for the EV fanbois that in the real world an EV has an insignificant effect on CO2 emissions compared with a conventional car. As such the greenie drivel that is used to promote them is misleading. So, if GM stop promoting the Volt as a planet saving tech, I suppose  the section can be removed. Greglocock (talk) 22:50, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * So you re suggesting that a section devoted to charging emmisions, including the various root-source variables and variables in each city,state and country become an essential part of every single plug-in vehicle wiki then?WopOnTour (talk) 21:05, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The specific car articles shouldn't deal with emissions at large but only to direct tailpipe emissions at the point of operations. I think that info about specific emissions at any location should be removed. Also, there are already sections within articles dealing with well-to-wheel assessment at least here, here here and extensively here. It should be enough to link to the more suitable section.- Mariordo (talk) 00:40, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes that seems like the right place for the main discussion. If this article quotes the GM claim then a brief summary of the real situation is still necessary, and a link to the fuller article. Greglocock (talk) 23:41, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * What exactly is this "claim" that GM has supposedly made are you referring to? WopOnTour (talk) 01:48, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * "The Volt drives up to 60 kilometers on electricity stored in its cutting-edge 16-kWh lithium-ion battery and emits zero CO2".


 * http://media.gm.com/content/media/intl/en/news/news_detail.brand_chevrolet.html/content/Pages/news/intl/en/2010/CHEVROLET/09-30_chevrolet_volt_countdown


 * That's literally true, but totally misleading. German studies have shown that EVs produce almost as much CO2 as ICVs, once you take generation into account. Greglocock (talk) 02:14, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That claim is truth only for direct tailpipe or onboard emissions. The PHEV article here presents a summary for PHEVs in the US. The W2W emissions depend on the regional power generation grids, some regions are truly cleaner, and several are worst than ICEs, and for most, conventional electric-hybrids are cleaner. See also this study here. Nevertheless, no such a claim is made in the article, and I already delete the content mentioned above and included the wiki links to the above mentioned section and other wiki articles. Or am I missing something? -Mariordo (talk) 02:53, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


 * This is what I wrote a week ago "If this article quotes the GM claim then a brief summary of the real situation is still necessary, and a link to the fuller article. " I was also suggesting that if this article doesn't quote the GM claims about CO2 then no mention of CO2 is required. I'd have thought that was bleeding obvious from the previous statement in context, but apparently not.Greglocock (talk) 05:28, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * People that pound their chests over EV charging emissions created at the power plant conveniently "forget" about the negative impact emissions (not JUST CO2)that are produced to refine and then truck transport the fuel usually numerous times before it can be delivered into the vehicle.I would think THAT would be just as obvious. My point was there are other wikis for posing the pros and cons of EVs and plug-ins. To suggest that this debate become an obligatory aspect of every single OE produced EV or plug-in vehicle is rediculous IMHO. WopOnTour (talk) 06:39, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Do they? Oddly enough many studies of well to wheel efficiencies try to quantify those very numbers, something like 15-20% of the calorific energy of oil at the tank is used to get it there, for example. I'd have thought someone interested in the field would be aware of that. Anyway since the point has been resolved to everyone's satisfaction I think this is over. Greglocock (talk) 00:46, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Destination charge
Can someone explain what a destination charge is? 74.243.180.62 (talk) 06:04, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * A destination charge is a fixed cost that a dealer pays for transportation of a vehicle from factory to the dealer site. Traditionally this cost is directly added to the vehicle invoice at the time of sale, although dealers do have the option to absorb them.While destination charges vary,in most cases these costs which include combinations of ship, rail, and trucking will range from $500-$2000. Manufactured Suggested Retail Pricing (MSRP) typically does NOT include these extra costs (and as usually stated within the "fine print" of marketing and advertising) In the case of the Volt, GM made the unconventional decision to INCLUDE the destination charges in the suggested list prce for the Volt. This is important only when comparing to other potential vehicle purchases as in order to determine TOTAL price paid, the inclusion or exclusion of destination charges is significant. HTH WopOnTour (talk) 19:57, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Emissions During Battery Charging
I know that we have been through this before, and I know that the Volt article is not the place to address battery charging emissions in great detail. However, it is important to recognize that charging EV batteries does not necessarily produce greenhouse gas emissions at the source. As an example, there are many homes with photovoltaic arrays on their homes which are sized adequately to produce enough power and deliver enough energy to fully charge the Volt while producing no greenhouse emissions. Yes, we can discuss the ERoEI for the PV arrays and debate as to whether greenhouse gasses must be produced during the manufacturing of such, but that question is separate from the question of localized emissions during charging. Ebikeguy (talk) 18:24, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree, and I have no problem with charging emissions being mentioned/addressed in the Volt wiki. But preferably in it's own section, with links to more comprehensive articles on the subject. WopOnTour (talk) 19:47, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Ebikeguy, you know of many homes that have enough pv to supply all their household needs PLUS 12 kWh for the Volt per day? That'd be about a $100000 installation. I think that there may be a few houses like that. Greglocock (talk) 22:51, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I do know of many such homes, but I admit that I run with a crowd that is significantly outside the norm. Still, such arrays have been installed by a significant number of people, at a cost that is significantly less than what you suggest.  It is not rocket science, and many companies are working hard to bring the cost per kWh down to a level that is competitive with coal (and, "No," they ain't there yet).  Note also that the average commute in the USA is 8 miles each way, so the total miles driven on a Volt on an average day would be roughly half its total possible all-electric range, resulting in a daily requirement of ~6kWh, not 12.  The bottom line is that EVs can be charged without emitting greenhouse gasses, and articles such as this should be updated to reflect that state of affairs.  Ebikeguy (talk) 05:12, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Chevrolet Volt recycling Gulf of Mexico oil spill components
This article may be of use to the regular contributors to this page. OSX (talk • contributions) 01:51, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

US$7,500 U.S. federal tax credit for the first 200,000 units sold
UM. From what I can tell the car is only being sold in the US.. So lets get rid of the US and there are no plans what so ever to make 200,000 units. From what I understand they are making 10k a year for a few years then moving on to a new car. SO lets get rid of that. "$7,500 Federal Tax Credit". This credit is mentioned a few times below, to be honest just take it out of the lead all together. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mantion (talk • contribs) 10:20, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You are in error on numourous fronts. First the Volt will eventually be sold in countries other than USA.But USa slated production numbers is expected to reach 15,000 units. Year 2 has a planned potential of 45-60K units and more of an increase being planned for year 3 (once the LG/CPI cell manufacturing plant in MI becomes fully operational). Since the US tax credit applies to all of these years they could reach the maximim cap in 3 full production years. So I think the data should stay, whereever the pricing information is to be loacted (lede or otherwise) WopOnTour (talk) 08:15, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

When the original price for the Volt was announced we debated here regarding the tax cerdits (in or out?) and the fact that it included various destination charges not traditionally lumped into MSRP. (for more info see posts in thread #1 in this talk) However since that time GM has changed their stance on that, and have began to list the price of the Volt in the more conventional fashion EXCLUDING shipping/transportation (as do all other cars from all other OEMs). So I have changed the pricing information in the lede based on the actual advertised numbers (and qualifiers) from www.chevrolet.com/volt and added a link as reference. WopOnTour (talk) 23:08, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I found your explanation satisfactory enough to keep the $40,280 as the more accurate price. Nevertheless, the lead is already very long, so I will give it a shot to summarize your edit, and move the detail to the main body, just as it was done with the detail regarding the federal tax credit.--Mariordo (talk) 20:30, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

The Lede
The lede continues to be a sore spot in this wiki. I realize it is an attempt to squeeze as much information about the Volt into as few words/sentences as possible, but with editors frequently feeling the need to add "buts" "ands" and "howevers" it has essentially become a hodge-podge of defunct verbiage and a source of much confusion. IMO the reason why there are sub-sections in a wiki is to provide expanded detail and clarification. It doesn't need to ALL be in the lede. Sentences like "After the Volt battery is depleted, a small 4-cylinder internal combustion engine burns premium gasoline to power a 55 kW (74 hp) generator to extend the Volt's range; in addition, at highway speed with the battery depleted the engine can engage mechanically to assist propulsion directly" Might make some sense to someone that already has a handle on the Volt's propulsion system, but as I've noted it continues to be confused by lay persons and EV neophytes that then continue to post incorrect data (in forums and blogs) regarding the Volt while quoting the Volt wiki as "the" definitive reference. Can we come to an agreement on how to best deal with this?? WopOnTour (talk) 00:09, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Good point.

The Chevrolet Volt is a plug-in hybrid electric vehicle manufactured by the Chevrolet division of General Motors and has been on sale since mid-December 2010.

The car's 16 kW·h (10.4 kW·h usable) lithium-ion battery pack can be charged by plugging the car into a 120-240VAC residential electrical outlet. No external charging station is required. After the Volt battery is depleted, a small 4-cylinder internal combustion engine burns premium gasoline to power a 55 kW (74 hp) generator to extend the Volt's range; in addition, at highway speed with the battery depleted the engine can engage mechanically to assist propulsion directly. The electrical power from the generator is sent primarily to the electric motor, with the excess going to the batteries, depending on the state of charge (SoC) of the battery pack and the power demanded at the wheels. The distribution is controlled by the electronic control unit (ECU) of the vehicle.[9][10] GM states the Volt can travel 25 to 50 miles (40 to 80 km) on batteries alone,[8][11]; the EPA found in tests using varying driving conditions and climate controls, the all-electric range averaged 35 miles (56 km), and the total range (electricity and gasoline) is 379 miles (610 km).[12] EPA rated the Volt's combined city/highway fuel economy at 93 miles per gallon gasoline equivalent in all-electric mode, and at 37 mpg-US (6.4 L/100 km; 44 mpg-imp) in gasoline-only mode, for an overall fuel economy rating of 60 mpg-US (3.9 L/100 km; 72 mpg-imp) combined. That means the Volt displaces the Toyota Prius as the most fuel-efficient car sold in the United States.[13][14] The suggested retail price for the 2011 Chevrolet Volt starts at US$40,280 excluding any charges, taxes or any incentives.[15][16] Qualified buyers are eligible for a US$7,500 U.S. federal tax credit and additional incentives are available in some locations. It can also be leased (do we really need that?). The Volt was initially sold in seven American regions, while nationwide availability in the U.S. and Canada is scheduled to begin in late summer 2011.

seems to me to cut most of the anorak details. A total rewrite might be better, Greglocock (talk) 00:54, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I fully support a re-write of the lead along the lines you propose in the draft above.--Mariordo (talk) 16:02, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I put in this to aid understadning at the very begining. Someone took it out:


 * The car is propelled entirely by an electric motor.
 * The internal combustion engine is merely a part of an on-board electricity generator set.
 * A sizable battery pack may provide electrical energy to propel the car between 25 to 50 miles (40 to 80 km).
 * The battery pack may be charged by the on-board generator.
 * The battery pack may be optionally charged by plugging the car into an external electricity mains socket.
 * The on-board generator may provide electricity directly to the driving motor.


 * The lead is confusing. The basic techical functions that make the car stand out are not clear, in a simple bullet, form at the beginning where it should be.  A lay person reading wants to know what is different about this car right at the begining, not go into an immediate confusing blow-by-blow explanation of how it works. I  am putting it back in.  The explanation of the working of the functionality should be in a separate heading.81.137.227.185 (talk) 11:55, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I have shortened the lead, added simpe bullet points to aid laymans understanding and added a new section. This new section, Operational overview, needs an explanation of the clutch coming in after 790 mph.  The simplicity of Volt has been errosed and now rersembles a Toyota Prius using a planitary gear.


 * I think you have latched on to a good point. The lede should identify /why/ the volt is notable, ie what makes it different from a normal car. OTOH I have a feeling bullet point lists are not acceptable in ledes. And I really can't see why price and especially leasing rates are in there. Greglocock (talk) 22:41, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that as per WP:STYLE there can't be bullets in the lead, so it should be converted to prose. On the other hand, all references were removed. Also as per STYLE there would be no need for references in the lead if the content is properly referenced in the main body of the article, but in this case just take a look a the article's history; how the Volt actually works has been several times in the limit of edit wars, so at least until the article content is most stable I think it justifies keeping the sources. Regarding pricing and other sales info, we have to remember at Wik iwe should always present information in the best possible way for the readers, so at least until the hype evaporates it is important that the lead shows key info about this novelty car (and remember that plug-in electric vehicles have quite a premium but there are government incentives, and at least until 2012, they will be available in limited quantities and regional markets). Once again, when the article is more stable and the hype gone, the lead might look more like a regular automobile article.--Mariordo (talk) 01:15, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * We have to get the bullet points out of the lead. Nothing wrong with the content of the points, but leads need to be prose.  I might have a go a at it if no one else fixes it in the next couple of days. --Leivick (talk) 01:21, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * As per the discussion below I removed the bullet points and restored the lead more or less along the lines of the proposal above. I believe it still needs more trimming so additional suggestions for improvement are welcome.--Mariordo (talk) 17:31, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

So after all that we're essentially back where we started. I've swapped paragraph 2 and 3 in the lede as it seems to make better sense to describe the Volt's primary power modes first, then discuss charging. I've also reworded it slightly to try to eleiminate the confusion I originally stated above. I suggest the goal in the leade should be to state that the Volt primarily operates in 2 modes (electric then extended range) and we can then expand upon various intermediary modes of operationin the main body (powertrain) section of the article.
 * I really like the way the lead has been improved after WopOnTour last edit. My only suggestion is that the last two sentences in the third paragraph offer a bit too much technical detail for the lead (regarding SoC and ECU). The last or both could be moved to the main body.--Mariordo (talk) 21:09, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well I went ahead and removed those last 2 sentences as tehy were already word for word in teh Operational Overview section. I also moved the EPA fuel economy tetst numbers down to the EPA section. I think the lede reads a lot better now. Any objections? WopOnTour (talk) 08:00, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry but yes I object. You went quite beyond what we were discussing, so I reverted most of your edits for the following reasons:
 * 1 EPA range is official, but you took it out the lead and leave GM marketing range, if one of the two has to go is GM's not EPA. To avoid controversy I rather leave both for the time being. This is clearly not NPOV.
 * 2 You moved content in such a way that leaves the lead emphasizing the Volt operation as an electric car. This is clearly not NPOV.
 * 3 You moved the EPA info to a location that repeats the exact content in the previous section. --Mariordo (talk) 05:05, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Mechanical Assist Question
The article introduction states that under certain conditions the engine "can engage mechanically to assist propulsion directly." This is based on a reference to a New York Times article, "Sorting Myth From Fact as Volt Makes Its Debut", that states under certain conditions the engine "does provide some assist to the drive wheels". It does not use the word "mechanically". Following the external links to the official Chevy Volt site, in the "Fast Facts" section, GM categorically states that "An electric drive unit (electric motor) powers the car at all times and at all speeds. The Volt’s engine serves only to create electricity to power the vehicle when the battery runs low." My question is which is correct? Does the Volt's gas engine ever provide mechanical energy directly to the wheels? I suspect that what was intended is that the gas engine always drives an electric generator, which usually provides electricity to the battery, but sometimes provides electricity (not mechanical energy) directly to the wheels under some conditions. Hence the direct assist. Perhaps someone who knows more about this could check on this and clarify it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.42.229.193 (talk) 04:00, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * There is a mechanical engagement, above a certain speed. I believe this is done through a planetary or ring gear.  Chevy does not broadcast this information very enthusiastically.  Ebikeguy (talk) 04:15, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed there is a mechanical engagement, but only after the usable battery power has been depleted in pure EV mode AND then under very defined and relatively uncommon conditions. (load and speed variable) BUT this ICE torque is in a combined power split with the main traction motor. ICE is driving the ring gear, and MG2 is simultaneously driving the sun gear and the combined speed/gear solution is used to drive the wheels via the carrier and final drive. So unlike some "other" power split hybrids like the Prius and Fords, ICE simply cannot provide propulsion on it's own on the Volt. (this is the "straw" being grasped by the GM Powertrain people when discusing the Volt's modes of power) Personally I dont have any problem including the details of these, and other modes in the article- but they belong in the poweretrain section NOT the lede WopOnTour (talk) 01:43, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

JUST economy results
Am I the only one who would like to see Just economy results, not just Fuel economy results?

I'm pretty happy that I will be saving so much fuel with a plug-in hybrid, but for some reason I've never seen any estimates at what price I will be saving, i.e. how much my electricity bill will grow in USD per mile.

From articles like this one I'm always failing to understand how much would it cost me (in terms of plain electricity bills) to charge a plug-in hybrid for a 100km (ml) ride.

So if someone could add another column to that results table with USD economy results, or at least point me to some research sites on this matter - it would be really helpful! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bornmw (talk • contribs) 21:17, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

First you would have to get the editors of the article to agree on a price for electricity. Then you'd have to get them to agree on a price for gas. Then you'd have to get them agree on a typical day's travel. Then you'd have to defend the resulting calculation against accusations of WP:OR. Good luck with that. otherwise just multiply your rate per kWh by 1.2 by the usable capacity of the battery, multiply it by 100, divide by the all electric range of your car. Greglocock (talk) 21:27, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes I understand all of that, but still the purpose of Fuel economy results is to let readers estimate their savings based on the gas price at the gas station around the corner.


 * With hybrids that estimation is more complex indeed. It is worth mentioning in the article the guidelines to economy estimation. Or, maybe create a separate article about that if it's not there already - will have to search for it.


 * Anyway my point is - customers are estimating their savings when they consider plug-in hybrids, and there must be some guideline for their calculations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bornmw (talk • contribs) 22:06, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

OK I've found it! The Operating costs section of Plug-in hybrid electric vehicle article discusses the estimates I was taking about. It also gives some numbers for Prius plug-in. It would be great to find the same info for Volt and to put it somewhere, maybe a subsection of fuel economy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.37.179.100 (talk) 21:08, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Tail Pipe emissions
Is there a typo in one of the tailpipe emissions figures? How is it possible that the EPA rates CO2 emissions at 84g/mi but the CARB rates it at 1.3g/mi. That is a huge difference. It even says that the CARB test does not account for the volt's electric range, so if there is a discrepancy, it seems like the CARB rating should be higher. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.22.61.124 (talk) 09:05, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You are confusing two completely different emissions. EPA is concerned with greenhouse gases and rates carbon dioxide (CO2). CART rating refers to the good old pollution, such as NOx, hydrocarbons, and carbon monoxide (CO). I will adjust the wording a bit to avoid this confusion among readers not familiar with the chemical symbols.--Mariordo (talk) 01:27, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

car box data not showing up
Infobox automobile Wilee (talk) 01:17, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but do you have a question? If you do, ask it below and add the helpme template.  CharlieEchoTango ]] 02:03, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, right, sorry. I see the question in the section header. These are not valid parameters for the infobox : Infobox automobile.  CharlieEchoTango ]] 02:05, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

The infobox for automobile Says it is in the info box for automobile but it does not work :( As the widget says it is there just not showing up I think this maybe a bug? Help:Designing_infoboxes Wilee (talk) 05:57, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Valid questions, but don't belong on this talk page. Please post them on the infobox talk page, (without using the helpme template though). Thanks.  CharlieEchoTango ]] 06:57, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your time I linked back into the info talk discussion and will clean this up a bit, if this pointer could stay here a bit maybe others might file a bug on this would not, and see the progress being made on the issue. Where as the discussion will be moved off to the info box page. Wilee (talk) 17:10, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I cleaned up the formatting of the preceding messages, that way it is more readable.  CharlieEchoTango ]] 18:50, 11 February 2011 (UTC)