Wednesday, December 22, 2010

Hyped hybrid: The Chevy Volt gets average mileage, for a hybrid

With the Chevrolet Volt collecting awards at a dizzying pace, this extended-range electric car or hybrid plus warrants a closer look to see if it truly lives up to the hype. We have spent significant time behind the wheel, including last month in a Volt borrowed from General Motors. This loan provided first-hand experience living with it—driving, charging, and fueling. We’ll be buying our own as soon as they go on sale here in Connecticut. Meanwhile, here are our initial findings.


The most commonly asked questions we get about the Volt are what is it like compared with a hybrid; how far can it go before needing a recharge; and what sort of energy use or fuel economy do you actually get. I’ll address the range question first.


Since the Volt runs on battery power for the first 30 to 40 miles, any mpg figure is meaningless without knowing the length of your trip and whether you recharge the battery along the way. Any cost associated with running a Volt will depend on the price of electric power in your area. The EPA has recently announced the mpg estimates it has calculated and that will be affixed to Volt’s window stickers. We lay out our experience below.


MORE AT CONSUMER REPORTS
Consumer Reports has no relationship with any advertisers on Yahoo!.

To get a sense of the Volt’s energy consumption in typical real-world use, we had several staffers pilot the car on their daily commutes and then we logged both the fuel they used, if any, and the electricity it took to recharge the batteries, using one of the commercial-grade chargers we have at our Auto Test Center.


On the whole, we found that in electric mode the Volt uses energy more sparingly than any other hybrid or diesel car. We also found that its fuel consumption when it’s operating on the gasoline-fueled engine is not that great. Bear in mind that these findings are anecdotal and are not the official ones that we’ll publish after testing our own Volt thoroughly.


Our Volt experience:

The Volt uses its battery power upfront, running all-electric until the battery is substantially depleted, and then using the gasoline engine to generate power to run it further. GM initially claimed a 40-mile all-electric range but recently moderated that to “between 25 and 50 miles.” We typically got between 29 and 34 miles when running on electricity alone.


2011 Chevrolet Volt
2011 Chevrolet Volt

We kept the car’s climate control in Auto mode during our trials, and the outdoor temperatures averaged about 50 degrees F during our stint with the Volt. As in all EV cars, running the heater cuts down the electric range significantly. We used our Coulomb Technologies charging stations, which at 220-volt level took about four hours and 20 minutes per session and consumed about 12.5 kWh of electricity each time.


Here’s an example of how mpg is a function of the trip mileage: During one 72-mile mostly highway commute, the car ate up its electric range in 29 miles and posted an overall fuel consumption of 60 mpg. The energy consumed came from a full electric charge and 1.1 gallons of gasoline. Piling on 130 more miles without charging resulted in 48 mpg. (For comparison, our Toyota Prius gets 47 mpg on that particular 200-mile route. Read our impressions of the upcoming Toyota Prius Plug-In Hybrid.)


Over numerous trips, our collective average for electric-only range was 33 miles. Once the battery is depleted and the car is essentially using only gasoline as its fuel, we averaged 30 mpg overall in mixed driving. While 30 mpg is good in general, it is no better than a conventional small sedan or subcompact.


Cost parity:

Clearly, reaping the benefits of electric-car use means keeping the Volt’s battery charged up as much as possible. When we did that, and the Volt only used its gas engine occasionally, the car’s on-board computer indicated we were getting six-figure mpg display of 120 mpg or so. But such a fantastic number is misleading since it ignores the cost of the 12 kWh of electricity we were “pumping” into the car every 33 miles or so. Here in the Northeast, or in California, that ends up being about $2.38 (With the national average of 11cents per kWh, it would be $1.38.)


That raises the question of which other cars give you 33 miles for $2.38. With today’s national average for regular at $2.96, that equates to 41 mpg. That’s comparable to, say, a Honda Civic Hybrid (37 mpg) or Honda Insight (38 mpg). Calculating price parity with the diesel world, using diesel prices at $3.20/gallon, it works out to be 44 mpg. That brings to mind the manual-transmission Volkswagen Golf TDI or Jetta TDI, which deliver 38 and 36 mpg overall, respectively. So in these conditions, the Volt comes out ahead of virtually all fuel sippers except for the Toyota Prius on cost per mile. The Prius yields 44 mpg overall consistently. The Volt, which will set you back something like $33,500 even after federal tax credits, is considerably more expensive to buy than any of these cars. And, it’s only a four-seater.


Cost parity for initial 33 miles EV range

In NY/CT at 19c/kwh
National average 11c/kwh
Cost
$2.38
$1.38
mpg for equivalent cost
41 mpg
71 mpg

Volt energy consumption: Since the cost of gasoline and electricity are variables that tend to be in constant flux, and often apply a specific geographical factor to the Volt’s merits, it would be appropriate to look at the Volt in a purely scientific way. In electric mode, we averaged 38 kWh/100 miles. For comparison, according to the window sticker, the EPA estimates 36 kWh/100 miles. Given that 33.7 kWh has been established as the energy equivalent of one mpg by the EPA, our average use worked out to 89 mpg-equivalent (MPGe) in electric mode. But before we jump with joy, remember, this applies only to the initial 33 miles of electric-only range.


Miles/kWh
kWh/100 miles
MPGe in EV mode
MPG gasoline only
2.64
38 kWh
89 MPGe
30 mpg

What about the driving experience?

We’ve commented previously on the Volt’s quick, smooth, powerful acceleration in EV mode. The transition to gasoline mode is smooth and the car continues to feel responsive. There is some muted engine hum in the background, and sometimes during coasting the revs are kept up instead of dropping to idle, which garnered comments ranging from “odd” to “annoying.” When I described this to Micky Bly, GM’s executive director for electrical systems, at the LA Auto Show, he said that backing off on the revs during coasting is in the works. Even when the electric power is gone, the Volt saves some of its battery capacity (GM calls it “buffer”) to be able to power the car electrically at low speeds, while in reverse, and for maintaining accessories while it shuts off at idle, as with other hybrids. For that purpose, the battery management system keeps it at about 20-percent charged. The buffer is also used to provide extra oomph while climbing a long hill.


Interim conclusion:

The Volt works, but depending on how it is used and where, it may not save you money, especially in the Northeast or California. In those regions especially, the Prius remains a proven, more cost-effective choice for green motoring.


Of course, money-saving is not the Volt’s only raison-de-d’ĂȘtre. This is an electric-drive car that conserves energy in electric mode and does not come with range anxiety. As such, it advances the cause of reducing greenhouse gases and reducing our reliance on foreign oil. According to our recent green-car survey, saving money is not the number one goal for EV intenders, anyway.


It goes without saying that if gasoline prices go up significantly, or if you live in a region where electricity is cheap, then any cost-based energy-use calculation will tip the scales more in the Volt’s favor—but there is no getting around the high purchase price and modest fuel economy if straying beyond the EV range.


We’ll dig into the Volt deeper once we purchase one and run it through our extensive test program.



Copyright © 2006-2010 Consumers Union of U.S., Inc. No reproduction, in whole or in part, without written permission.

Wednesday, December 8, 2010

http://www.toyotarav4ev.com


Toyota Rav4 EV - H8E5971.jpg

The second generation Toyota RAV4 EV is the result of the Toyota and Tesla Motors collaboration. Based on the popular RAV4 compact SUV and powered by a Tesla electric powertrain, the RAV4 EV project adopts a new development model that incorporates Tesla’s streamline, fast and flexible approach with Toyota’s engineering and manufacturing leadership.

A total of 35 RAV4 EV’s will be built for a demonstration and evaluation program running through 2011. These demonstration vehicles utilize the current RAV4 vehicle built in Canada and integrate the Tesla battery and additional components built in Palo Alto, California. A fully-engineered vehicle is targeted to launch in 2012. The fully-engineered vehicle will target a range of 100 miles in a wide range of climates and conditions.

Tuesday, March 9, 2010

U.S. News and World Report Offers Five Reasons to Buy a Toyota

It's hard to think of another company that nose-dived as fast as Toyota has. A few months ago, millions of drivers considered Toyota the gold standard for automobiles, with quality and reliability you could practically take for granted. Then came mysterious gas-pedal problems, claims of deadly "sudden acceleration" incidents, the global recall of more than 8 million vehicles, and vacillating assurances from shellshocked executives. The recalls could end up costing $2 billion or more. Toyota's sales have plunged, and its U.S. market share has fallen from 17 percent to 13 percent in just two months. The collapse rivals Enron or Lehman Brothers.

[See what Toyota could learn from Detroit.]

What's different about Toyota, though, is that it will recover. The automaker has deep pockets and tons of talent. Diffident CEO Akio Toyoda may not be the right man to lead Toyota through the worst crisis in its history, but sooner or later the company will regain control and get back on the pavement. It may even end up a better company than before. Meanwhile, Toyota automobiles could be a smart buy, with dealers forced to offer discounts and other incentives to move merchandise sullied by the scandal. Shoppers should research prices at sites like Edmunds.com or kbb.com to make sure that the price paid today is commensurate with the likely resale value down the road. If the price seems right, there are several other good reasons to buy a Toyota:

Safety concerns are exaggerated. The problems are serious, but political posturing in Washington and media hype have created the impression that every Toyota is dangerous. That's ridiculous. The sudden-acceleration incidents at the center of the controversy have been "linked" to 52 deaths over the past decade or so. Toyota has sold more than 20 million vehicles in the United States during that time. By those numbers, rough math suggests the odds of a sudden-acceleration fatality in a Toyota vehicle are on the order of 1 in 400,000—not exactly a death wish for somebody buying a Toyota. And those odds could end up much lower. Deaths now considered linked to sudden acceleration could later be proved to have been caused by something else—including drivers who were pressing the gas pedal instead of the brake. No driver wants to admit doing that, but the fact is, it happens.

[See 6 myths about car recalls.]

None of that is meant to disparage people who have been killed or hurt in a Toyota, and recent revelations depict a company that seemed unsympathetic to genuine complaints from customers. But the acceleration problem could turn out to be far less widespread than current hysteria suggests. It's worth recalling that the Audi sudden-acceleration incidents in the 1980s—at first thought to be related to vehicle flaws—were later proved to be entirely the fault of drivers. Meanwhile, by virtue of its woes, Toyota is probably paying more attention to safety right now than any other automaker, to include the extraordinary step of shutting down factories to retool the gas-pedal assembly in many popular models. Toyotas coming off the assembly line these days are probably subject to more quality control than most other cars on the market.

Recalls aren't the whole story. Being forced to recall millions of vehicles is a big deal, but Toyota still seems to perform better than other automakers when it comes to the kinds of complaints that lead to recalls. Data analyzed by Edmunds.com, for example, show that there have been many more complaints lodged against Toyota for sudden acceleration since 2005 than for any other automaker. But overall, Toyota has drawn far fewer complaints than most competitors, which is consistent with its once sterling reputation. Edmunds found that over the past 10 years, Toyota accounted for just 9.1 percent of all complaints filed with the government, even though it racked up 13.5 percent of all car sales. So despite the acceleration issue, Toyota still performs better than most in terms of complaints.

[See 10 fire-sale cars to avoid.]

Toyota's not alone. Internal documents showing that Toyota boasted of saving $100 million by avoiding a series of recalls make the Japanese automaker seem singularly sinister. But all automakers try to avoid recalls. Toyota just happens to be the one that got caught boasting about it, since it's the company under investigation right now—and subject to subpoena. And all carmakers know that the Obama administration is "not industry friendly," as another embarrassing Toyota document put it. Obama, like Bush, is requiring steep improvement in fuel economy, which will force all automakers to invest heavily in new engine technologies. That arguably hurts the Detroit automakers most, since their fleets get the worst gas mileage and they have the farthest to go. And anybody who still has doubts should ask Rick Wagoner or Fritz Henderson if the Obama administration is industry friendly; they were both forced to resign as CEO of General Motors, in the midst of the company's bankruptcy and federal bailout.

The cars are still good. Of 18 Toyota vehicles, seven rank in the top three in their category in the U.S. News Best Car and Truck rankings, including the Avalon sedan, Sienna minivan, Sequoia SUV, and Venza crossover. Five of 12 Lexus vehicles rank in the top three. In itslatest quality ratings, J. D. Power & Associates ranks Lexus first and Toyota seventh, out of 37 automotive brands. Consumer Reports named the Toyota Prius one of its 10 "Best Picks"for 2010, despite a recall involving brakes. And CR is poised to restore its coveted "recommended" status to eight vehicles it suspended from its ranking in the midst of the mushrooming recall controversy: the Avalon, Camry, Corolla, Highlander, Matrix, RAV4, Sequoia, and Tundra. Toyota's overall quality has slipped from the stratospheric highs of a few years ago, but there are still few automakers that can match its record across their entire fleet.

[See how Toyota stumbled in the first place.]

White-glove treatment. To win back customers and alleviate safety concerns, Toyota will pick up and return some recalled cars, so worried owners don't have to drive to the dealership. Toyota is also offering rental cars or rides to work to some owners getting their cars fixed. And CEO Toyoda has said that the company must start paying more attention to customers. Toyota certainly has room to rise: It ranks 17th out of 23 on J. D. Power's customer-service index. If Toyota is serious about rebuilding its business, it has to start by wooing skeptical consumers. That's a boon for buyers.

Comprehensive Analysis Raises Concerns About Gilbert Congressional Testimony, ABC News Segment


2010 Toyota Electronic Throttle Control 004
Sequence and Nature of Artificially Manipulated Faults Unrealistic,
Televised "Unintended Acceleration" Staged With Virtual Remote Throttle Control
TORRANCE, Calif., March 8, 2010 -- Today, during a live webcast, Toyota raised serious concerns about the validity, methodology and credibility of a demonstration of alleged “unintended acceleration” in a Toyota Avalon by Professor David Gilbert of Southern Illinois University and depicted in ABC News broadcasts and on-line segments.
A comprehensive analysis conducted by a world renowned engineering group, as well as testing by Toyota, has concluded the following about Professor Gilbert’s demonstration:
• The vehicle’s electronics were rewired and reengineered in multiple ways, in a specific sequence, and under conditions that are virtually impossible to occur in real-world conditions without visible evidence
• Toyota vehicle electronic systems were actively manipulated to mimic a valid full-throttle condition
• Substantially similar results were successfully created in vehicles made by other manufacturers.
In the demonstration dramatized by ABC on February 22, Professor Gilbert, assisted by segment reporter Brian Ross, asserted that he had detected a “dangerous” flaw in the Toyota electronic control system that he alleged could lead to unintended acceleration.
The following day, Professor Gilbert offered a preliminary report of his findings in testimony to the U.S. House of Representatives Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations.
Engineers at Exponent, one of the country's leading engineering and scientific consulting firms, as well as Toyota engineers, have reviewed and recreated Gilbert’s demonstration with substantially similar results in representative vehicles of other makes.
Separately, at Toyota’s request, Dr. J. Christian Gerdes, associate professor of mechanical engineering at Stanford University and the director of the Center for Automotive Research at Stanford (CARS), conducted an independent review of Professor Gilbert’s testimony and the preliminary report presented to Congress.
Their findings were demonstrated today at a news conference during which the accelerator circuitry of a Toyota Avalon, as well as a sampling of well-regarded and popular competitive makes, was rewired and manipulated as Gilbert did in his demonstration.
Kristen Tabar, general manager of electronics systems, Toyota Technical Center, summarizes three of the major concerns with the artificial nature of Professor Gilbert’s demonstration.
“First, an electrical circuit that has been reengineered and rewired will not behave as it was originally designed and engineered,” said Tabar.
“Second, no automaker can or should be expected to design detection strategies for artificially created events in the absence of any evidence that such an event can occur in the real world.
“Third, if the artificial condition created by Professor Gilbert had occurred in the real world, it would have left readily detectable fingerprints.”
Exponent and Toyota engineers have found no evidence to suggest that any of the steps of Professor Gilbert’s demonstration exists in the real world. Thus, the fact that the Toyota Avalon used by Professor Gilbert did not show a Diagnostic Trouble Code after his demonstration does not indicate an undetectable safety defect. The same is true of the representative vehicles of other manufacturers tested by Exponent and Toyota.
Professor Gilbert’s reengineering and rewiring of the vehicle’s electrical system involves the following manipulations in a specific sequence. First, the protective insulation on two separate wires that carry the accelerator pedal position signals to the Engine Control Module must be individually cut or breached. Next, these wires are connected to each other through a 200 Ohm resistor.
This contrivance, by itself, did not cause an increase in engine speed. To cause an increase in engine speed, it is necessary to cut the insulation on a third wire, the 5-volt power supply to the accelerator pedal, and force a low resistance connection between the power supply and the secondary signal wire.
The resulting increase in engine speed is a result of the subsequent artificial and sudden application of the 5-volt power supply to this signal line with the rewired circuit. When subjected to similar unrealistic reengineering and rewiring, the competitive vehicles evaluated by Exponent and Toyota achieved substantially similar results with varying levels of resistances.
This manipulation of electrical components and a power source created artificial voltages that the engine control module, or ECM, would interpret as valid accelerator pedal signals. In essence, this test created a virtual, remote control accelerator pedal that replicated the vehicle’s own normally functioning accelerator pedal.
Also contrary to statements made in the ABC News story, had short circuits of the kind artificially created by Professor Gilbert occurred in real-world driving conditions, they would have left visible evidence such as damage or deterioration of the wiring and components.
As revealed in their testimony before Congress, Professor Gilbert’s Preliminary Report was commissioned by Sean Kane, a paid advocate for trial lawyers involved in litigation against Toyota and other automakers. Mr. Kane also appeared on the ABC News broadcast in support of the claim that Professor Gilbert’s demonstration revealed a flaw in the electronic throttle control system that could lead to “runaway” Toyota and Lexus vehicles. The relationship between Mr. Kane, Professor Gilbert and the trial lawyers who support Mr. Kane’s advocacy was not revealed by ABC News during the newscast, nor was Toyota offered an opportunity to view the demonstration or given time to respond.
Toyota believes that the public and Congressional committees have been misled by Professor Gilbert’s demonstration and the dramatization of it by ABC News. This has cast unwarranted doubt on the safety of Toyota and Lexus vehicles. Toyota remains confident in the integrity of the electronic throttle control system in its vehicles and there has been no reliable evidence of any kind to the contrary presented to the media or to Congress. Toyota’s electronic systems have multiple fail-safe mechanisms to shut off or reduce engine power in the event of a system failure. Extensive testing of this system by Toyota has not found any sign of a malfunction that could lead to unintended acceleration.
Toyota has commissioned Exponent to conduct a comprehensive analysis of the electronic throttle control systems in Toyota and Lexus vehicles. No limitations of any kind were imposed on Exponent by Toyota. This evaluation is ongoing. An interim report of Exponent’s findings has been provided to Congress and establishes the functionality of the electronic throttle control fail-safe systems. The final results of Exponent’s exhaustive analysis will be made public when completed. As with all such reliable engineering analyses, Exponent’s final results will provide the data and information necessary for others to validate Exponent’s conclusions.
# # #
Exponent, Inc. is a leading engineering and scientific consulting firm with expertise in over 90 technical disciplines. Exponent has a full-time staff of over 900 located in 23 international offices. Exponent’s multidisciplinary organization of engineers, scientists, physicians and business consultants, addresses complicated issues facing industry and government today. The firm’s consultants provide product design analysis, development, and testing; analyze failures and accidents to determine their cause and prevent their recurrence; and evaluate environmental and human health concerns to find cost-effective solutions. Exponent is certified to ISO 9001 and is authorized by the General Services Administration (GSA) to provide professional engineering services.
For information about Exponent capabilities and credentials visit www.exponent.com
MEDIA CONTACTS:
Toyota Motor Sales, Corporate Communications
310 468-5297
310 468-7359
Biographies:
Related Links:

Friday, February 19, 2010

Washington's Toyota U-Turn

By KIMBERLEY A. STRASSEL

That vague screeching noise you hear in D.C., the slight odor of burning rubber? That's the government trying to brake its anti-Toyota campaign. It may be a little late.

The Toyota spectacle has become slightly surreal, as a few uncertain questions about "sudden acceleration" morphed into a media and political firestorm over the safety of its entire fleet. It is also proving an interesting case study in the treacherous politics that accompany government ownership of U.S. industry. Washington's initial enthusiasm in bashing Toyota is beginning to backfire.

There's no question that in the first, heady days of recall, at least some in the Obama administration and Congress saw advantage in undermining Toyota. The majority owner of Government Motors felt it couldn't hurt to fan the image of a "foreign" auto maker disregarding the safety of American drivers. Shoppers might just buy a Chevy instead, propping up government investment and bolstering United Auto Worker union jobs. And of course the trial bar would be thrilled by a fat new class-action target.

Vehicle recalls (there were 16.9 million in 2009 alone) are usually handled by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration—but the Toyota case was commandeered by Obama Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood. He skewered the firm for being "a little safety deaf," complained it hadn't been responsive, and bragged it was the government that forced a recall.

"This is a big deal, this is a big safety issue," he exclaimed as part of the LaHood Vs. Toyota Media Tour. It was, in fact, the "most serious safety issue" of his tenure. It was, to repeat, such a huge, scary, safety deal that his "advice is, if anybody owns one of these vehicles, stop driving it." Mr. LaHood later claimed he'd misspoke.

Over in Congress, a geographically notable contingent of representatives piled on. Rep. Bart Stupak (D., Mich.) announced an investigation into "dangerous" malfunctions. Toyota was ordered to report to his Oversight subcommittee hearing next week. Rep. John Dingell (D., Mich.) berated the company for taking "two years" to step up and ripped them for not recalling more models.

UAW lobbyist Alan Reuther demanded Toyota make amends by keeping open a unionized factory in California, currently scheduled for closure. Chrysler, GM and Ford started offering cash incentives for car buyers to trade in recalled Toyotas for domestic wares.

The results of this campaign are now making pols queasy. It was inevitable that such a loud attack would lead to questions as to whether the administration was carrying water for the domestic industry. The White House is today fielding as many queries about its role as owner and regulator as Toyota is fielding about recalls.

This thinking also inspired reporters to dig into Congress's Toyota ties and to question, conversely, whether it can be tough enough. The press dredged up Senate Toyota investigator Jay Rockefeller's role in landing his state of West Virginia a Toyota plant. Did you know, the head of NHTSA, David Strickland, worked eight years for Mr. Rockefeller? Or that California Democrat Jane Harman, who sits on the House investigating committee, once made money selling stereo systems to Toyota? You do now.

It is also occurring to some Democrats that, while Toyotas are mainly assembled in red states, they are, uh, sold in blue ones. In addition to idled Toyota factory workers, Toyota dealerships and suppliers are getting hit by the company's sharp drop in sales. Some of these folks even live in Michigan.

The angry phone calls to Washington only increased last week when four governors—three Republicans and Kentucky Democrat Steve Beshear—sent a sharp letter to Congress, accusing the administration of a "conflict of interest." They unsubtly noted that many recent recalls were "as serious as or more serious" than Toyota's.

This sent the media digging into the recall record of U.S. auto makers, which may have to revisit their own safety issues. Some politicians are worried about Japanese retaliation against U.S. auto makers.

All of which accounts for Washington's recent piping down. Mr. LaHood devoted a lot of this week to touting stimulus grants. Quite a few Democrats have gone mute, leaving the issue to NHTSA and wishing it would go away. Some lawmakers are even stepping up to defend Toyota.

Yet having revved up the drama, the administration is now all but obliged to take action against Toyota, say with civil penalties. Mr. Rockefeller and other Democrats with ties to the carmaker are under pressure to get rough. And if Toyota bungles Washington as badly as it did the initial recall PR, this could go on a long time.

Toyota has not yet laid off a single one of its 34,000 U.S. workers, but that may change. Only a year ago, Democrats were wailing about economic damage if GM or Chrysler went bust. They forestalled that with government ownership. They, and Toyota, are now dealing with the all-too-easy-to-predict political behavior that followed such meddling in the private economy.

Write to kim@wsj.com

Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page A13