EPA numbers are out for the Volt.

A General Discussion forum for cars and other topics, and a great place to introduce yourself if you are new to NICO!
User avatar
Jesda
Posts: 39644
Joined: Mon May 05, 2003 1:50 pm
Location: STL, DTW
Contact:

Post



User avatar
Razi
Posts: 28373
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2006 9:52 am
Car: Moo

Post

Do they all come with a male masseuse in the back?

User avatar
PEZi
Posts: 20441
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2008 8:21 am
Car: Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution IX Mitsubishi Racing Edition
Location: Pikes Peak, CO
Contact:

Post

Jesda wrote:

I'm not crazy about the EPA's choice to label electric range as MPGe.
i actually like it... lets the treehuggers know they are still consuming non-renewable resources (unless they live somewhere with nuclear power)

keeps them from saying "my car doesn't use any gas"................... although i know the idiots still will

User avatar
themadscientist
Posts: 26254
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2002 3:30 pm
Car: R32 GTR, DR30 RS Turbo, BRZ, Lunchbox, NSR50 Sportster 883 Iron
Location: Staring down at you with disdain from the spooky mountaintop castle.

Post

I see no d-bag quotient listed, this must be factored in.

User avatar
MinisterofDOOM
Moderator
Posts: 30928
Joined: Wed May 19, 2004 5:51 pm
Car: 1962 Corvair Monza
1961 Corvair Lakewood
1974 Unimog 404
1997 Pathfinder XE
2005 Lincoln LS8
Former:
1995 Q45t
1993 Maxima GXE
1995 Ranger XL 2.3
1984 Coupe DeVille
Location: The middle of nowhere.

Post

All that engineering and hype and it only returns 37mpg?!?! FAIL GM. Fail. This is a bigger fail than the Aztek.

I called it years ago when it was announced. It's a joke. 37 effing miles per gallon.
I hope the engineers go back to their basic physics books after this one. Energy conversion is NEVER EFFICIENT. Adding more steps IS NOT THE ANSWER.

User avatar
Jesda
Posts: 39644
Joined: Mon May 05, 2003 1:50 pm
Location: STL, DTW
Contact:

Post

The great thing about the Volt is that you aren't chained down to one source of energy. As gas prices rise, you can keep charging. If electricity goes up (say, the whole country goes electric), you still have gasoline to burn.

User avatar
nissangirl74
Moderator
Posts: 13910
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 1:15 pm
Car: 2014 Xterra Pro4X, '12 Titan 4x4, '98 240sx, '89 Pao, '77 620, '72 240Z w/RB25, '68 510, '67 WRL411, '67.5 SPL 311, '63 Bluebird, '63 NL320

Post

MinisterofDOOM wrote:All that engineering and hype and it only returns 37mpg?!?! FAIL GM. Fail.
:werd: My 1979 Datsun 210 got 45 mpg with 189,000 miles on the odometer AND it passed emissions.
Go back to the drawing board, you idiots. :facepalm:

User avatar
Jesda
Posts: 39644
Joined: Mon May 05, 2003 1:50 pm
Location: STL, DTW
Contact:

Post

nissangirl74 wrote:
MinisterofDOOM wrote:All that engineering and hype and it only returns 37mpg?!?! FAIL GM. Fail.
:werd: My 1979 Datsun 210 got 45 mpg with 189,000 miles on the odometer AND it passed emissions.
Go back to the drawing board, you idiots. :facepalm:
Indeed, but if I hit you with my Cadillac, you'd be toast.

I'm eager to see lighter and stronger materials in mainstream cars. This trend of fattening can't just keep going.

User avatar
elwesso
Posts: 30810
Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2003 4:52 pm
Car: 94 Infiniti Q45t 5 spd
2007 BMW M Coupe
2007 Infiniti G35 S 6MT
Location: Indiana
Contact:

Post

I am not impressed by 35 miles on electric power! There is a startup in my hometown, www.brightautomotive.com that is making a 3500lb van that gets 100 miles on a charge... It would also be programmed to charge itself over night when electricity is cheaper! However, a 4 hour charge time is pretty nice.. It would be cool to drive to work, plug your car in and charge it while you work.. then you're commuting expenses are on the company!

I think electric vehicles are definitely the future, because an electric motor is more efficient than a gasoline engine.. However, CURRENTLY in order to charge the batteries in one of these vehicles you're most likely getting the electricity from burning coal or natural gas, which coal related emissions are far more harmful than petroleum emissions. Also, don't get me wrong i am not against coal-fired power plants, but all those hippies that think they're saving the environment by driving electric cars are retarded!

User avatar
s0m3th1ngAZ
Posts: 3856
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 10:11 am
Car: 96' Miata
2014 Focus ST

Post

nissangirl74 wrote:
MinisterofDOOM wrote:All that engineering and hype and it only returns 37mpg?!?! FAIL GM. Fail.
:werd: My 1979 Datsun 210 got 45 mpg with 189,000 miles on the odometer AND it passed emissions.
Go back to the drawing board, you idiots. :facepalm:
It's unfair to compare manufacturers with 30 years worth of safety crap glued onto the sides of the car. Add 800 pounds of batteries...Something's not right here.

If you had the choice, would you purchase a car with only a driver airbag, little sound deadening, and none of the safety features the feds mandate? (Not a question to you. to people in general)

User avatar
Dattebayo
Posts: 33288
Joined: Sun Aug 25, 2002 10:04 am
Car: 2004 Nissan Frontier Desert Runner
Location: NE DC

Post

Further proof that we need to mine the moon. TONS of titanium ready to take, only three days away by rocket. Lets get on this stat!

User avatar
MinisterofDOOM
Moderator
Posts: 30928
Joined: Wed May 19, 2004 5:51 pm
Car: 1962 Corvair Monza
1961 Corvair Lakewood
1974 Unimog 404
1997 Pathfinder XE
2005 Lincoln LS8
Former:
1995 Q45t
1993 Maxima GXE
1995 Ranger XL 2.3
1984 Coupe DeVille
Location: The middle of nowhere.

Post

ScorchedNX2K wrote:It's unfair to compare manufacturers with 30 years worth of safety crap glued onto the sides of the car. Add 800 pounds of batteries...Something's not right here.
Not really fair to compare a carbureted, pushrod, mechanical ignition engine with 30 years of technology advancement and modern fuel injection, variable timing, OHC, and electronic ignition. Yet the 210 still wins.

Still fail.

User avatar
PoorManQ45
Posts: 16676
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2004 5:13 pm

Post

Dattebayo wrote:Further proof that we need to mine the moon. TONS of titanium ready to take, only three days away by rocket. Lets get on this stat!
I <3 Dave!

User avatar
PoorManQ45
Posts: 16676
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2004 5:13 pm

Post

MinisterofDOOM wrote:
ScorchedNX2K wrote:It's unfair to compare manufacturers with 30 years worth of safety crap glued onto the sides of the car. Add 800 pounds of batteries...Something's not right here.
Not really fair to compare a carbureted, pushrod, mechanical ignition engine with 30 years of technology advancement and modern fuel injection, variable timing, OHC, and electronic ignition. Yet the 210 still wins.

Still fail.
I always found that really funny! We talk about all the advancements, but we end up behind where we were!

User avatar
AZ89two4Tsx
Posts: 13634
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2008 8:02 am

Post

This is just the beginning guys. As the years go on, there will be more available infrastructure in the way of "plug in" stations. That's what is holding electric vehicles back. Full electrics aren't practical yet as a primary/only car as they take something like 12hours to fully charge on a 110 volt outlet. But, on a 440 volt charging station, the Nissan Leaf could get around an 80% charge in 30mins. It's pocket change if you calculate the cost of electricity, and for most that's plenty of range to get you where you need to go within the city.

Any electric vehicle out right now needs some kind of gasoline assistance to make it practical for everyday use. Full electrics just don't have the support they need to make them usable, yet.

And remember guys, on the Volt, that 37mpg is on GAS ONLY.

User avatar
PoorManQ45
Posts: 16676
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2004 5:13 pm

Post

With that charge rate on the Leaf I sure hope they're using LiPo batteries!

Otherwise there are going to be a lot of cars burning down...

User avatar
Jesda
Posts: 39644
Joined: Mon May 05, 2003 1:50 pm
Location: STL, DTW
Contact:

Post

A road trip in the Leaf would take weeks due to charging time. The solution is faster recharging. Until then, its useless to me. The Volt is something I'd consider leasing if they put the technology into something nicer, like a Cadillac.

10 more years...

User avatar
Mr1der
Posts: 36020
Joined: Tue Sep 02, 2003 8:35 am
Car: It's still not a Nissan...
Location: Lebanon TN

Post

I think we're totally missing the point.

LEXUS PRIUS!

Image

f*** li-ion batteries. gimme sweet sweet corn juice cars.

driverdriver
Posts: 3397
Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2003 10:36 am
Car: NICO's longtime resident Canuck!!!
Contact:

Post

Jesda wrote:The great thing about the Volt is that you aren't chained down to one source of energy. As gas prices rise, you can keep charging. If electricity goes up (say, the whole country goes electric), you still have gasoline to burn.
I like options.

User avatar
nissangirl74
Moderator
Posts: 13910
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 1:15 pm
Car: 2014 Xterra Pro4X, '12 Titan 4x4, '98 240sx, '89 Pao, '77 620, '72 240Z w/RB25, '68 510, '67 WRL411, '67.5 SPL 311, '63 Bluebird, '63 NL320

Post

ScorchedNX2K wrote:
nissangirl74 wrote: :werd: My 1979 Datsun 210 got 45 mpg with 189,000 miles on the odometer AND it passed emissions.
Go back to the drawing board, you idiots. :facepalm:
It's unfair to compare manufacturers with 30 years worth of safety crap glued onto the sides of the car. Add 800 pounds of batteries...Something's not right here.

If you had the choice, would you purchase a car with only a driver airbag, little sound deadening, and none of the safety features the feds mandate? (Not a question to you. to people in general)
Good thing that wasn't for me. Only 3 of our 9 have airbags, 4 only have lap belts. Included safety features in the classics: a keen awareness of the dipshits driving around you and good reflexes. :dblthumb:

User avatar
nissangirl74
Moderator
Posts: 13910
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 1:15 pm
Car: 2014 Xterra Pro4X, '12 Titan 4x4, '98 240sx, '89 Pao, '77 620, '72 240Z w/RB25, '68 510, '67 WRL411, '67.5 SPL 311, '63 Bluebird, '63 NL320

Post

Jesda wrote:A road trip in the Leaf would take weeks due to charging time. The solution is faster recharging.
Solar panel mounted to the roof? Continuous charging?

User avatar
PoorManQ45
Posts: 16676
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2004 5:13 pm

Post

nissangirl74 wrote:
Jesda wrote:A road trip in the Leaf would take weeks due to charging time. The solution is faster recharging.
Solar panel mounted to the roof? Continuous charging?
It's a good suggestion, but it would take a ridiculous amount of time to even charge the battery without the vehicle being in use. You're looking at ~175~250w from a panel about the size of the roof.

User avatar
AZhitman
Administrator
Posts: 54542
Joined: Mon Apr 29, 2002 2:04 am
Car: 58 L210, 63 Bluebird RHD, 64 NL320, 65 SPL310, 66 411 RHD, 67 WRL411, 68 510 SR20, 75 280Z RB25, 77 620 SR20, 79 B310, 90 Z32, 91 GTi-R, 92 Silvia Qs, 98 S14, 23 Z.
Location: Surprise, Arizona
Contact:

Post

PoorManQ45 wrote:It's a good suggestion, but it would take a ridiculous amount of time to even charge the battery without the vehicle being in use. You're looking at ~175~250w from a panel about the size of the roof.
Correct. Even less than that, realistically.

We ran into that when we were working on the X-prize car... external solar cells, even maxed-out, are insufficient thus far (they're also heavy and add drag). Net gain = zilch.

We're getting there, though.

User avatar
Jesda
Posts: 39644
Joined: Mon May 05, 2003 1:50 pm
Location: STL, DTW
Contact:

Post

nissangirl74 wrote:
Jesda wrote:A road trip in the Leaf would take weeks due to charging time. The solution is faster recharging.
Solar panel mounted to the roof? Continuous charging?
Maybe we'll use diet coke to run our cars in 2020. I'm looking forward either way.

User avatar
nissangirl74
Moderator
Posts: 13910
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 1:15 pm
Car: 2014 Xterra Pro4X, '12 Titan 4x4, '98 240sx, '89 Pao, '77 620, '72 240Z w/RB25, '68 510, '67 WRL411, '67.5 SPL 311, '63 Bluebird, '63 NL320

Post

Jesda wrote:Maybe we'll use diet coke to run our cars in 2020.
Would that mean coffee would be "Boost"?

User avatar
OriginalWheelman
Posts: 5668
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 3:38 am
Car: '15 Ford Focus Electric
Location: Portland, OR (or what?)

Post

And Espresso for NOS!

User avatar
Dattebayo
Posts: 33288
Joined: Sun Aug 25, 2002 10:04 am
Car: 2004 Nissan Frontier Desert Runner
Location: NE DC

Post

Jesda wrote:Maybe we'll use diet coke to run our cars in 2020.
So we can't use corn or water, but Diet Coke is fine? :nono:

User avatar
Red coupe
Posts: 12216
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2004 6:51 pm
Car: 92 Nissan 240sx Coupe

Post

MinisterofDOOM wrote:All that engineering and hype and it only returns 37mpg?!?! FAIL GM. Fail. This is a bigger fail than the Aztek.

I called it years ago when it was announced. It's a joke. 37 effing miles per gallon.
I hope the engineers go back to their basic physics books after this one. Energy conversion is NEVER EFFICIENT. Adding more steps IS NOT THE ANSWER.
nissangirl74 wrote:
MinisterofDOOM wrote:All that engineering and hype and it only returns 37mpg?!?! FAIL GM. Fail.
:werd: My 1979 Datsun 210 got 45 mpg with 189,000 miles on the odometer AND it passed emissions.
Go back to the drawing board, you idiots. :facepalm:
Ummmm, aren't you all completely missing the point by focusing on the 37mpg?
37 mpg has absolutely nothing to do with the electric drive part of the car.

The car, when ran as a purely gas standard car with no electric drive, but still carrying a ton of equipment achieves 37mpg, perfectly acceptable if not decent mileage for a heavy four seater.

Any time you are not making a road trip, it gets significantly better...
I don't want a volt, but you both either do not understand how this car works, or are more likely twisting things to make the car fit your opinion.


What numbers exactly were you guys expecting to put up when running in gasoline only mode, and why on earth would you expect them to be better then any other car?

User avatar
Jesda
Posts: 39644
Joined: Mon May 05, 2003 1:50 pm
Location: STL, DTW
Contact:

Post

Dattebayo wrote:
Jesda wrote:Maybe we'll use diet coke to run our cars in 2020.
So we can't use corn or water, but Diet Coke is fine? :nono:
I'm 98% sure diet coke comes from the urine of squirrels with kidney problems, and I believe in recycling.

User avatar
Jesda
Posts: 39644
Joined: Mon May 05, 2003 1:50 pm
Location: STL, DTW
Contact:

Post

nissangirl74 wrote:
Jesda wrote:Maybe we'll use diet coke to run our cars in 2020.
Would that mean coffee would be "Boost"?
I like the cut of your jib, Mrs C.


Return to “General Chat”