LOGO: Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines. A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion. Editor, Robert Scheer. Publisher, Zuade Kaufman. Winner 2013 Webby Awards for Best Political Website
May 20, 2013

 Choose a size
Text Size

Trending:     chris hedges     economy     elizabeth warren     politics     robert scheer
Most Read

Rise Up or Die

The Lotto Symbolizes the False Promises of Barracuda Capitalism

Obama Unscathed by Scandals, Mayor Denies Smoking Crack, and More

Truthdigger of the Week: Sen. Angus King

'SNL': Stefon's Farewell Features Anderson Cooper

Most Comments
Most Emailed

Reports
 * NEW! * Rise Up or Die

Ear to the Ground

A/V Booth

Arts & Culture
Act of Congress
Daily Rituals
The Girls of Atomic City

Digs

Truthdig Bazaar

Peace Be Upon You

By Zachary Karabell
17.79

Backroom Politics

Backroom Politics

By Bill and Nancy Boyarsky
$101.88

more items

 
Ear to the Ground

GM Claims Volt Gets 230 MPG

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Aug 11, 2009
autoblog.com

GM claims its new wonder car, the Volt, gets mileage that makes the Prius look as if it belongs in the cash-for-clunkers program—230 MPG in the city. Pick up your jaw, the rating is based on a new EPA methodology and hasn’t been confirmed by the agency. The car may also be delayed indefinitely in reaching the market.

(h/t Engadget)

Christian Science Monitor:

Today, GM officially unveiled the Volt, which reps said can travel up to 40 miles on a single battery charge. The car [...] will likely start production later this year. According to GM, the Volt will get city fuel economy of at least 230 miles-per-gallon, and come packaged with a flex fuel-powered engine-generator. The range of the Volt will be 300 miles, GM said.

Read more

AP via Google:

EPA said in a statement Tuesday that it has not tested a Volt “and therefore cannot confirm the fuel economy values claimed by GM.” The agency said it applauded “GM’s commitment to designing and building the car of the future — an American made car that will save families money, significantly reduce our dependence on foreign oil and create good-paying American jobs.”

Read more

Autocar:

General Motors has cast doubt over the long-term future of the Chevrolet Volt by claiming it may not be commercially viable and other rivals may overtake it with superior and more advanced technology.

Read more

More Below the Ad

Advertisement


New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

By Nico Patterno, August 17, 2011 at 10:43 pm Link to this comment

Being the number one manufacturer in the automotive world, GM is proud to launched the volt series which is under the brand name chevrolet. Well, speaking of the performance, there’s no question Volt has the effieciency and safety many drivers are looking for. According to the press being stated by CEO of GM, this car has been crafted for the sake that people would lessen the consumption of gas as part of the energy conservation campaign although there are several competitors that truly downgrade this model due to public exposure. Only then, people are the ones who will decide. Speaking of the mileage well, it’s not true that it could produce upt to 23MPG. it has lesser then. on the other hand, what’s good in this model is the presence of Chevrolet parts out there where customers could have just in case they are planning for replacement….

Report this

By artie, August 12, 2009 at 8:15 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Population reduction is the only long-term solution; all others are short-term, and puny, such as the electric car. It saves little fossil fuel; even polution is mainly moved elsewhere but reduced slightly. Value is low.

Report this
knobcreekfarmer's avatar

By knobcreekfarmer, August 12, 2009 at 4:17 am Link to this comment

We all believe what we want to believe. That much I know. I also know that the undeniable unavoidable reality is that fossil fuels have millions of years of stored energy. All the bio-mass in the entire world, if converted to fuel (we wont consider the cost, in energy, to convert all that mass into fuel), would not even make a blip on the radar of our needs - or should I say our current usage.

Fossil fuel energy is a once in a planetary lifetime gift and that gift, as a usable/extractable/burnable product is running into geologic / production limitations.

Wind power. Solar power. Electric cars, bio-mass algae infused wonder fuel. Rock on! I love the ideas personally. But please, please realize that none -rather all- alternatives added up can not and will not equal what we get, in EROEI, of fossil fuels.

I am not an advocate of the oil and gas lobby. I am a realist. You all believe what you want and denied the realities we face. Good luck filling your Prius’ gas tank with cabbage and sauerkraut juice.

Report this

By CaptRon, August 12, 2009 at 1:34 am Link to this comment

OK then, if electric doesn’t do it for you, we need alternative energy to move these vehicles of the future. Something that will not leave us energy dependent from outside the U.S yet reduce pollution. Brussel sprouts, cabbage or sauerkraut, and peanut butter are things that give me “combustion”. Bio-diesel for our planes,trains, & automobiles has to be a consideration. It can be produced from garbage that we have abundantly in this country and help to clean the world by efficient elimination of garbage that will not have to be buried or dumped in our oceans. Sounds better than this electric car idea if we can also eliminate the smells, I mean from the vehicle exhaust.

Report this
knobcreekfarmer's avatar

By knobcreekfarmer, August 11, 2009 at 5:33 pm Link to this comment

oh this is to good to pass up on…

http://www.whokilledtheelectriccar.com/

GM had a great electric car in the mid 90’s. Toyota too. California’s environmental regulations mandated that 10% of the cars on the road by 2010 be electric. GM, Toyota even Ford and some others developed prototypes and they tested them in California. With fabulous success! But the oil and gas lobby worked the government to change the mandate and the cars, all leased, had to be returned. What happened to them? Crushed. Forgotten. Buried.

dihey is correct. Thermodynamics are hard to beat. “Energy return on energy invested,” and “net energy” are two things everyone who thinks the electric car is going to save the world needs to Google. Like hydrogen fuel cells they actually are wasting energy in order to show a car that uses no gas and has no pollution. If fact the pollution is always there. The fossil fuel is just behind the curtain waiting for Toto to pull it back.

Look,  I’m not generally a pessimist, okay perhaps I am, but the electric car isn’t going to save us. Nothing is. Modern civilization is due for a major leap backward in the next decade and the quicker we all get on the same page the better life will be after.

After what? After the end of cheap oil. After our economy is toast and we have to learn to live with far far less. After the rich and greedy have sucked the last few pennies from our pocket. After whatever you can possibly imagine.

I say it’s time for to reboot America.

Report this

By coloradokarl, August 11, 2009 at 5:18 pm Link to this comment

I say it is about a 50/50 bet that this thing works as promised. With GM stock in the tank it might be a good bet/it might be a disaster. A rack of solar panels and free transportation. A perfect World…..

Report this

By Tech, August 11, 2009 at 4:24 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

After the bankruptcy GM had to come out with a game changer.

Report this

By dihey, August 11, 2009 at 4:04 pm Link to this comment

Anyone who has studied thermodynamics knows that using fuel A to produce, transport electricity, and load a battery to drive a car instead of using fuel A directly to drive the car may be counterproductive. The efficiency of a two-step process is always the product of the efficiencies of each, hence may be lower than the efficiencies of each step. I have yet to see believable numbers for my one-step vs. two-step dilemma.

Report this

By CaptRon, August 11, 2009 at 3:38 pm Link to this comment

But have they fixed the problem of them catching fire, which they so nicely downplayed as not having happened “enough” to warrant halting production-hmm-m-m-m..

Report this
Newsletter

sign up to get updates


 
 
 
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion. Editor, Robert Scheer. Publisher, Zuade Kaufman.
© 2013 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.