2016 Chevrolet Volt Rated At 53 Miles Electric Range, 106 MPGe, 42 MPG On Gas


2016 Chevrolet Volt From Chicago Auto Show (Image: Mike Anthony/InsideEVs)

2016 Chevrolet Volt From Chicago Auto Show (Image: Mike Anthony/InsideEVs)

According to an Automobile Magazine story, the 2016 Chevrolet Volt has received its finalized EPA ratings.

The 2016 edition which is expected to start arriving next month in California now has a 53 mile rating – moving up from a previously estimated 50 miles, a figure which Chevy says will enable a lot more all-electric driving than the previous model.

The old mantra of Volt owners being able to drive on just battery power for about 80% of their trips has now been moved up to 90%.

As for mpg, the old estimate of 41 has slightly increased to 42 MPG, while the recently revised 106 combined MPGe figure stays the same.

2016 Volt LTZ Silver Ice Metallic - Click To Enlarge

2016 Volt LTZ Silver Ice Metallic – Click To Enlarge

Those figures represent a significant improvement over the outgoing 2015 Chevy Volt, which is rated at 38 miles of electric-only range, 98 MPGe and 37 MPG.

Pricing for the 2016 Chevrolet Volt starts at $33,995, excluding incentives.

2016 Chevy Volt Launch Timeline.  When Can You Get Yours?

2016 Chevy Volt Launch Timeline. When Can You Get Yours?

Orders for the 2016 Volt opened a couple of months ago in select markers.  First deliveries are expected in late September or early October.

Update (Aug 3rd 11:50am) : The Automobile article has now been removed/wiped, we assume at GM’s request pending an upcoming release from themselves shortly on updated 2016 Chevrolet Volt specs.

Categories: Chevrolet

Tags: ,

Leave a Reply

119 Comments on "2016 Chevrolet Volt Rated At 53 Miles Electric Range, 106 MPGe, 42 MPG On Gas"

newest oldest most voted

Nice little bump from the initial numbers. 2016 owners should be easily be able to hit 60 EV miles routinely. Who will be the first to hit 100 miles on a single charge??

I just want to know how many kWh are available for the range. Hopefully it is closer to 12.5 to 13. Many of us see 40-45 mile summer range in our 2011 Volts and so we’d see nearly 60 easy in a 2016.

The usable window should be 78% of 18.4kWh’s or 14.3kWh’s usable.

So, with 14 kWh “obtainable range” for the likes of ari_c will be 100+ miles and for us Gen-1 guys, at least 62 miles. Still hard to justify trading in a Gen-1 and “getting” $14K or less from a dealer to start over again with a $33K payment structure. Those who leased may be better shape than those of us who bought and will be paying another year or two from now for a Gen-1.

I also think the Bolt will put a hurt on Volt sales the following year because in many ways, I think many will wait it out for a Bolt than jump into a Volt Gen-2 unless the Bolt has less utility (space, seating, etc.)

Having an engine is fine and range extending is a great thing – love it in the Gen-1 Volt. But for complexity sake – an engine subsystem does introduce more failure points. All the money I spent in repairs on my Volt were due to failures in the gas tank pressure system which is very ironic (and it’s not part of Voltec warranty coverage, only bumper to bumper).

i am not at all convinced of that because stuff isn’t free and the Bolt will be a more expensive car. unless you are talking about EV enthusiasts, i am not convinced that most people will be willing to pay more for the Bolt than they would for the Volt.

Pure BEV is not practical. More than 99% of the time, I would be carrying around a dead weight because most of my trips are under 100 miles. And if I exceed 100 miles, it would be traveling 400 miles or more. So I’d rather have a small engine as a dead weight than the extra battery that I will seldom use. Plus with the range extender, I wouldn’t need to worry where to charge or limit my freedom of movement around the charging stations which I am not sure would be available or operational by the time I get there. The Volt concept is perfect for me. So the Bolt or even the Tesla are not perfect for my driving at this time and for the next 5 years or so.

Marion Meads said:

“Pure BEV is not practical. More than 99% of the time, I would be carrying around a dead weight… I’d rather have a small engine as a dead weight than the extra battery that I will seldom use.”

Well, let’s consider the benefits of what you’re calling the “dead weight” of a larger batter pack:

1. Fewer charge/discharge cycles, which means longer batter life and probably higher resale value

2. The ability to make side trips on your way home without worrying about range

3. The ability to go out for a second trip in the evening without having to wait for the car to recharge

4. The ability to use a heater in winter or an A/C in summer, without worrying about range

5. The ability to charge faster (more miles added per minute), especially when you charge en route

That’s a lot of functionality for what you’re calling “dead weight”!

Now, that’s not to say that you should get a BEV. Clearly in your case, a PHEV with comparatively good range (in other words, the Volt) is a better fit to your needs. But a bigger battery pack isn’t “dead weight” even if you seldom or never use all its capacity.

53 miles, cool. 🙂

Are they gonna advertise it and try to sell it too?

This is my question too. The outgoing Volt was already a great car, and now it’s even better. But in order to make a difference, they need to actually advertise/sell the thing!

My other question is: when will they give us the production version of the Voltec MPV5?

Excellent question. We’re still seeing a pretty big disconnect within GM between the design and build of the Volt, on one hand, and the carry through in the form of advertising, dealer “enthusiasm”, etc.

While it’s pretty easy to explain the dealer shortcomings (old guy thinking/resistance to change, (supposed) cost of training and equipment to sell and service Volts), the lack of a big advertising push from GM is bizarre, IMO. I would guess that a very small percentage of mainstream car buyers in the US know what the Volt is, how it differs from a plain old ICE car, and what the real world benefits are of driving one. The blame for that knowledge gap lies squarely on GM and, to a lesser extent, their dealers.

Lou – try to place yourself in the place of a legacy automaker whose business plan is to provide the public with trucks, SUVs and CUVs that are high profit margin, lost cost to build. Suddenly, you have developed a niche product that is better than other companíes’ niche efficient/gas mileage products. The result? Aliens in a suburban garage flirting with a Volt owner’s wife ( Super Bowl Volt commercial ) and various, “It’s more car than electric” ads that resonated with absolutely nobody. The, “what are you doing at a gas station?” ads were attempts at being cute while advertising that Volt runs on electricity and gas. They flopped. The job GM is giving their ad agency is a tough one indeed. How to you highlight what Volt does without conflicting with the vast majority of your products that don’t do what Volt does?!!! This is a dilemma Tesla does not have because they do not base their entire existence upon high margin gas burners. Just don’t expect this to change anytime soon. 2016 sees a Duramax diesel in the Colorado/Canyon pickup truck and a $3700 price bump over their standard engine trucks for a 3 MPG increase. We… Read more »

*first paragraph: “…high profit margin, LOW cost to build”….

– when do we get an edit button?

According to former Volt and now ELR owner, Patrick Wang, on his blog- he stated those Volt owner testimonial ads were a surprise to the very people who were on them. They were not told they were making an advertisement! They just stuck a boom mic in their face, standing in front of a Volt and asked them why they loved their Volts. As from what I have heard, they were not even paid for their appearances!

Contrast that with the expensive, ridiculous CGI-infused ad garbage they spend millions on to try to convey how Volt works!

Consider that most Prius owners don’t care how their Prius works. They’re happy to know that the word, “hybrid” means it uses electric motors with it’s gas engine somehow. Contrary to many early EV adopter’s opinions – most don’t care how the efficiency happens…They do care if say, their smartphone is obsolete because there is a new one that is way better.

Thusly – say, “your Prius is obsolete, there is a new efficiency Sheriff in town”!

With margins increasing on Volt and the sharing of Voltec components into their hybrids – I’m sure GM would be thrilled to sell 100,000 Volts/yr.

I think this is realistic if they make the right decisions in advertising the car. Also – people need to experience Volt. I think social media campaigns and, “Have you ever driven a Volt?” events at high profile places like the Super Bowl, All Star Games and other large events where people can test drive the cars would reap big rewards.

Yeah really, where is that Gen 1 battery pack retrofit?!? 😉 I’d love to cruise around with 50+ miles AER instead of the 35 miles I get now.

I’m stuck buying a car for the wife next, so I cant turn around and trade in my Gen 1 for a Gen 2 (I bought my Gen 1 as a single guy with lots of discretionary income, now I am a married man with no free cash flow to speak of).

Do like me and become a two volt family… It’s all the rage, 😉

I love this car more today than I did yesterday (53 miles electric range).

Just some comparisons to understand how much improved AER effects not only short distance economy but long distance economy as well. This is the break even.
Auto Per Trip Per Year
Toyota Mirai 134 33,500
Toyota PiP 160 40,000
Toyota Prius 270 67,500

Asking a dumb question, what is AER?

All electric range

i don’t understand this breakeven analysis.

If you compare the 2016 Volt to the original 2011 Volt, the all-electric range has increased 50%, the gasoline MPG increased 13% and the MSRP has dropped by $7000.

not bad, not bad…

Accounting for inflation, the MSRP has dropped more like $10k than the raw $7k figure.

Dude, can you show your math?
I’d like to learn something today.

Inflation has been very low for the past 5 years. According to the calculator below, $7000 in 2010 is only $7,660.76 in 2015.


Thanks for doing the math.

I was told there would be no math.

…we will just go ahead and assume you wanted to attach the following picture to your comment but forgot

Run away rising House rents and mortgages right now are the thing that will bring back hyper inflation. In that there was story about a 85 year old woman in NYC who had her $800 dollar a month rent go up to $3700 over the last half a year.

Also as much as people whine about the minimum wage going up to $15.00 dollars a hour. If you look closely you will see that the minimum wage needing to go up to these levels is mostly driven by the massive pressure on rising rents and mortgages.

Yeah, I’m very suspect of the typical inflation calculators, they usually leave out a few aspects that appear to be the main cost drivers in a person’s budget. Politics, gotta love it.

A interesting thing is that personally I have seen the average price of a new DVD movie drop to were they are even cheaper then a late 1990’s new VHS Tape Movie. Such as I remember buying a used VHS tape for $5.00 was a good deal but now you can buy a new DVD movie for $5.00 at the store.

It’s those other lying things like food and rent that no one is talking about.

Where’s your Gf’s Red Volt?

I almost bought a Red ELR with the $3500 seats at Valley Cadillac in Rochester. Buy $20000 off (at least) was too had to pass up, hence my Silver one.

UH, But obviously…

Won’t be any volts around until the 2016’s come out, unless people want a good used one.

I just keep thinking all the people who said a 50 mile volt was impossible. Yeah it is, the new one is 53. I could probably get 70 out of it.

Hi Bill! Hers is black red with spice red interior. I’ll have to show it to you sometime! She certainly likes the way it looks.

i’m not chomping at the bit to unload my 2012 Volt but these are nice numbers. i have gotten 50 miles on a full charge in my Volt, so i can easily see getting 70 miles on a full charge in the Gen2 Volt.

my thinking has been that an EREV with 100 miles of AER substantially vitiates BEVs for all but the most hardcore EV enthusiast. a big problem that GM will still face is the distribution network; sales people tend to sell what is familiar to them and shy away from product that is unfamiliar.

unfortunately, many car buyers are swayed by what sales persons recommend. tesla doesn’t have this problem but, then again, tesla doesn’t have a distribution channel at present that scales beyond selling cars at benz s-class sales volumes in the U.S.

New York has rent control I believe. That would be normal.

Unlike mortgage bubbles (which are a real concern), you can’t really have “run-away rents” because you can’t finance rent; in other words, you can only charge rent that people can actually afford to pay.

That’s not inflation. That happens in New York when you lose rent control. The market rate has not changed anywhere near that much.

Nope, you need to calculate the present price of the 2011 MSRP of $40,000. That turns out to be $42,500 – $43,750 in 2015 dollars depending on which months you choose as the start and end date.

So, $43,500 – $33,500 is roughly a $10,000 reduction in MSRP in today’s dollars.

Many if not most of the (early) 2011 Volts were sent out pretty much fully loaded with the window sticker a bit north of $44,000. I had VIN #679 Volt, and in California I had a terrible time finding one that was not requiring OVER sticker pricing. On my second Volt, a 2014, I was able to SELECT a limited option set, and that reduced the cost of that car down to an MSRP of around $36,000, BUT through the Costco Buying Program, I got it for around $34K and then also got a $500 Costco debit card.

I suspect the new 2016 Volts will go out the door with at least some “dealer/buying program” discounts” BELOW MSRP, and thus end up even more than $10,000 less than those (early) 2011 models cost.

price comparisons are misleading between 2011/2012 Volts and the upcoming 2016 Volt. you would have to purchase options in a 2016 Volt to achieve the level of trim that you got in the early Gen1 Volt. so if you really want to evaluate price trends in the Volt you would need to compare comparably equipped Gen1 vs. Gen2 Volt models. i suspect that you would find that comparably equipped models are much closer in price.

The new model will come with more standard features, the original didn’t even have remote door unlock much less something like paddle shifters for regen, and the options will be things, like blind spot warning, which you simply couldn’t get on the original.

This makes the idea that the original came fully equipped less meaningful when discussing the new model.

dropped closer to $10,000 with inflation

Why someone would pick the Mirai over this is beyond me….

Considering the price difference, you could buy TWO of these new Volts for the price of one Mirai.

You could give one of those Volts away and you would still get a better deal.


I guess there _isn’t_ one born every minute.

Well, in the case of the Gen 2 Volt, they certainly have under-promised and over-delivered with respect to the specifications.

This is good news, and as others point out, are all big improvements on an already very impressive vehicle.

Hopefully the dealers are educated, GM advertises it, and we get to gauge true demand.

With people using the engine so little for their commutes, a much larger percentage of engine use will be due to running in cold temperatures. I still hope they figure out a way to make that “feature” less intrusive, and able to be disabled for short trips.

As of last inquiry they have no plans to do so, however.

Good point. It must be really frustrating to watch your car burn gas when you know it has a fully charged battery. Although I really do wonder how much gas the Volt fleet burns due to this mode. My gut tells me it’s way down in the weeds; the fleet likely would save more gas by all driving 5MPH slower on the highway.

It can still be set to 15 deg F right? There are fewer 15 deg days than 28 ones.

i find the fixation over ERDTT to be kind of stupid, really. the Volt was not designed for hot rodding, or “drag racing”; it was designed around well thought-out princples of energy efficient operation.

People that want ERDTT fixed don’t care about hot rodding or drag racing… They just want to not use gas when they have a full battery and it’s cold out. Doesn’t seem like too much to ask! 😉

Kind of bummed this story didn’t get more of a write-up/attention that it seemingly deserves. 😉

I have a feeling you will see a “ton” of press, and a lot more details at or around 12:00 am tonight (or tomorrow if that is the way you look at it), (=

That will make Cote’s day!

Definitely hoping it’s picked up for sure. I trust your ESP Jay! 🙂

What’s the city/hwy mpg split?

I was wondering the same thing. If hwy is higher than 42 then that is getting awfully close to the current Prius hwy rating of 48. Of course the next model Prius will probably improve hwy mpg by a few points.

The hwy number for the Volt is the most important number for cs mode since I hardly have ever needed to use cs mode driving on surface streets. If I know I’m not going to have enough charge to make it to where I’m going I’ll simply drive in EV mode on streets and some on the freeway and then switch to cs mode at cruising speeds and then use what’s left at the end back on surface streets.

I am jealous because my 2012 does not have the charge sustain /hold mode. Why Gm does not offer a software upgrade is beyond me. You can see how the mind set of Detroit and Silicon Valley differ. Tesla just pushs software updates out and the legacy car companies leave you hanging.

Hold mode requires additional hardware. This has been common knowledge for years.

But, but… “It’s just software!”

Okay, then please go install Windows XP on an old 386 IBM-PC with 4MB RAM. I mean, it’s just software after all…


Hmmm, this doesn’t sound right to me. If this is common knowledge what is the hardware difference. It makes no sense as to why this would require different hardware to implement.

Yeah, doesn’t sound right to me either…To shut the traction control off requires either a button, but it could just require a ‘soft button’ (touch screen), or just repurpose one of the 20000 buttons they have on the console. I’d think the same with the hold mode, the ‘size’ of the battery window, the temperature the engine starts, etc.

I think there are 2 reasons why GM (almost) never updates the old cars (mine included).

1). GM contracts out the software, and getting the other parties to write bug-free updates out of them are an expense GM just avoids. They don’t want to do any more completed testing on a finished product.

2). GM has too many “TITLES” walking around and no-one is doing any meaningful troubleshooting work on the car. So you can forget about any non-government mandated updates.

It’s due to the fact that modules were moved from the radio unit to the OnStar unit, and even if unrelated, translate to a second branch of software code to execute/maintain.

Because of that, they’d have to go back in and invest time and dollars to update and test a change in the 2011-2012, which they will not do. It adds risk, and they’re especially risk averse after all their recent bruising from the ignition recall.

Right, so it’s a laziness, profit protection motive, not a hardware issue.

Having to write new code because hardware is changed isn’t not the same as being hardware dependent on a feature.

No, but it does explain why it’s harder than one might think otherwise. You shouldn’t underestimate the sensitivity of software changes in this litigious society. Just use mountain mode, it’s not a perfect solution, but it’ll at least let you keep a solid 10-15 mile reserve.

It’s not laziness, it is risk that need not be undertaken. Perhaps if people didn’t sue GM when they forget to turn off their cars, you’d get the software update.

It doesn’t sound right because it is not right. the earliest European Volts and Amperas had hold mode. Hold mode is a slight software modification from Mountain Mode. GM has not gotten software upgrades into their mindset yet. That will change soon enough, though.

i join those who are skeptical of claims that “hold mode” requires a hardware upgrade. hold mode was developed for use in the Ampera to meet European regulations. that’s why it wasn’t originally offered in the U.S., because there was no particular reason to offer it. when people in the U.S. saw that “hold mode” was offered in the Ampera, they wanted the same feature in the Volt.

the only difference between “hold mode” and “mountain mode” is that the set point for triggering CS mode operation is different. hold mode makes the current SOC the set point. that’s it. clearly, you would need no “hardware upgrade” to change a purely software feature.

As mentioned above, you’d have to update and fully regression test a pm entirely different code branch. I can assure you that regression testing is not cheap.

Additionally, there were talks about hold mode not being allowed by the EPA in the early years when people asked about it, which may also be a factor.

I work with writing and testing software as part of my job, I do understand the resources necessary to fully test and implement these sort of code changes. I don’t dispute the costs are non-trivial, but I still maintain that if it’s not laziness then it is short sighted thinking for them not explore providing software updates where possible. And even explore providing hardware upgrades where economical for them. As the automotive market transitions from ICE to electric vehicles the traditional sources of revenue will not be the same. Replacement parts and maintenance will not be the drivers they are now. Also with the fact that EVs longer lifespans will mean people will be buying cars more because they just want something new rather than because increasing maintenance costs force them to. GM needs to be creative in finding new ways to bring in revenue, OnStar is one good example of what they have already been able to do, but they need to think bigger.

Providing paid for upgrades could provide a nice new revenue stream that isn’t nearly as capital intensive as producing whole new models of vehicles.

They are in business to sell cars. If you recognize the expense is not trivial, and adding more functionality at higher cost reduces profitability while also reducing future sales, why again are they foolish not to do updates?

I know, people say they will be loyal to GM, but frankly that’s not true as soon as something better or lower cost comes along. It’s a utopian view that isn’t reality.

The good news is, GM is working to have an architecture that allows future functionality updates on their upcoming vehicles, so it is on the roadmap. It just won’t be retroactive to older vehicle models, which is not hard to believe.

Well said, ClarksonCote.

Auto makers (other than Tesla) don’t make money by providing free upgrades for cars they’ve already sold. They make money by selling new cars, and replacement parts for old cars.

If gasmobile auto makers made a habit of providing free upgrades, they’d have to raise the price of their new cars to cover the added expense.

“hold mode” was not a new feature; it was something that had already been developed for the Ampera. i very much doubt that GM set up two completely separate software load lines for the Volt and the Ampera, so i’ve got to believe that the Ampera load was built off a Volt load. at most, it would have been a minor bit of software porting. yes, i appreciate that you regression test any load changes but it is not the case that regression testing is regression testing; some regression testing is simpler or more complex than other regression testing.

as i stated, the objective for the Volt was to optimize energy efficient performance and not to necessarily appease various individuals’ obsessions about the potential use of gasoline. in that context, “hold mode” only made sense in Europe.

Not only the bump from 37-42 MPG, but the move from premium gas to regular. Nice job GM.
I just wish they would offer a version with more like 83 miles AER alongside the 53 mile version (apparently, Tesla is the only company that gets this), and offer this drive train in more than just the Volt and ELR.
As it is, we’ll see how serious GM is about selling this new Volt. At the rate they’re going, lithium sulfur or solid state batteries will be here before they get serious. Hmmm, maybe I just answered my own question…

I agree, I love the increased range. (My old I-MiEV got only 62 miles electric range). Almost equally, I am amazed at the highway MPG. I just took my 2012 Volt on a 900 mile round trip vacation and averaged exactly 40 mpg. That’s with 4 adults, full a/c usage, and the car packed to the limit and travelling 65 mph on average. EV range was 35 miles.


ItoldU ItoldU ItoldU…. all along the numbers indicated an AER clearly above 50 miles.

Now it’s GM’s task to properly market this baby, as simply the best midsize/compact in their entire lineup. Which it clearly is.

Good luck!

GM market? Surely you jest.

+13% efficiency plus regular gas instead of premium means ~30% cheaper gas mileage.

GM!! Please bring this car in Europe!!! 🙂 (Opel is without EV or PHEV in this moment,what a shame and disadvantage against some compatitor,like VW…)

GM!! Please bring this car in Europe!!!


+1 I will buy one too.

While an new Ampera is not coming I have a strong feeling this technology will show up in a near future Opel product.

Well I certainly won’t be buying one. No right hand drive version 🙁

Why not?
Oh, they may not build one in the first year, but all signs point to it as a mass market car. They may have not marketed the gen-1 very strongly, probably just being cautious with a new drivetrain type; however, since it has a good rep, it’ll be very odd if they don’t market it.
Assuming they do, it’s very likely a RHD Vauxhall / Holden version could be in your future (don’t know where you’re posting from).

If Gen 1 Volt owners have reached and pass 50 miles of EV range as an average (a 31% increase over the EPA rating), then Gen 2 Volt owners can reach and pass 70 miles. That will reduce gas consumption even more. And the gas engine range extender will have a longer life.

Lately, in the warmer months(but not in the 95 degree heat) I have been seeing 56-57 miles AER. That’s driving 35-40 mph, and maximizing regenerative breaking on downhill runs. Without doubt, if I had this car I’d be seeing 75-80 AER the way I drive. As a comparison, when I drove an I-MiEV I was getting 92-95 AER in the summer(and that car had an AER of 62 miles, officially).

It’s a bad day to be a OPEC Member when GM announces something like this.

Now let’s see if this car can hit the roads for around $30,000 on the dealerlots to get the people coming in to buy it.

I think this shows that GM is getting serious about evs. Great deals on 2015 Volts, because people are waiting for the 2016. You don’t see that with most models. It’s much more than just a refresh.

Automobile magazine article link is dead. Methinks someone pulled the trigger a little early. 😛

GM spent a ton of money in completely redesigning the Voltec power train. This redesign was not the usual evolutionary changes, it was revolutionary with a complete change in architecture. These numbers appear to validate this expensive gamble.

It doesn’t make sense to use this power train in such a limited production model like the Volt. Indeed, the Voltec power train is used as a hybrid in the new Malibu and probably in the CT6 plug-in. I expect we will see many GM cars and trucks using the Voltec propulsion in the near future.

Absolutely, Larry.

I expect to see a Cruze Hybrid along with the diesel variant. This has proven to be an effective plan with the Golf, and would be a hit with Cruze also. One caveat would be how many Volt sales a Cruze Hybrid would cost. I imagine it would be significant. Sadly the Volt’s back seat will cost sales.

If Volt2 had at a minimum, comparable back seat room and rear headroom to Prius – it would result in a bump in Volts sold, no doubt.

+1 James


Chevy knocked it out of the park. Well done! This car deserves big sales.

But more importantly . . . PUT THAT VOLTEC DRIVETRAIN INTO OTHER CAR BODIES! It needs to be in an SUV, a minivan, a CUV, and a pick-up.

I agree. It does deserve to be in those other platforms, although, GM doesn’t have a mini-van. Many Traverse/Acadia/Enclave buyers probably need a mini-van and use it like one, but they are worried about their perceived image in their new role in life and that model helps them along with that.

when it comes to electric vehicles, Chevrolet has been “knocking it out of the park” since the introduction of the Volt. the Volt is THE best designed, best thought-out and most practical electric vehicle in the market.

I think we will find GM has understated the gas efficiency of the new Volt. 42 mpg is an 11% improvement. This seems small when you consider the car is 200 pounds lighter. The transmission, according to GM, is 12% more efficient, right in-line with a switch in architecture from mostly serial to mostly parallel. The new ICE is full of new technology to improve efficiency. Direct Injection, higher compression, valves that are capable of operating in either Otto or Atkinson modes, and externally cooled EGR to reduce pumping losses and support higher compression.

I’m thinking 50 mpg is entirely possible, high 40’s very conservative. The bigger Malibu running essentially the same transmission with a smaller battery will get 48 mpg highway. The smaller Volt with more efficiency items should do better.

I get 42 mpg on the highway now in my Gen-1 2011 Volt. I have to hope I would see 45 in Gen-2.

I think they should have skipped Volt Gen-2 and went with a Voltec Equinox or Orlando and then brought out the Bolt soon after. I think there will be a limited Volt take-rate that be written up in the press and that puts pressure on future sales for people who would consider buying one but see negative press on it, and it’s a downward spiral.

I think that your analysis is missing that the car went from 38mpg using 91 octane to 42mpg using 87 octane. It would seem that the additional efficiency increase is hidden in the octane change.

the Volt is a 3800 lbs car, if they got an 11% fuel efficiency increase with a 200 lb weight reduction, they’ve done a pretty good job of increasing the fuel economy.

Nice, now let us put that powertrain in the new upcoming Equinox and it will do 35mpg in CS mode and have probably 25-30 miles in EV range. That would be a big hit since it will be the most affordable PHEV SUV out there.

I would pay $35K to $40K for it.

As would many, I suspect. Myself included.

Everyone is still missing the most amazing statistic for the Gen 2 Volt.

According to to-date GM’s statistics of all US Gen 1 Volts for all-electric driving mile % and projections for Gen 2 Volt with similar driving habits (SAE article “Chevrolet Volt Electric Utilization” #2015-01-1164, presented last spring), the new Gen 2 Volt fleet will average about 80% of its miles electric (CD mode) and 20% of its miles on gas (CS mode).

Superimpose the 53 mile AER in CD mode and 42 mpg in CS mode. 20% gas means 200 miles of CS mode per 1,000 miles driving. At 42 mpg, that is 4.76 gallons of regular gas burned per 1000 miles total driving. 1000 miles divided by 4.76 gallons is an amazing 210 mpg of net gasoline consumption!!!! Talk about high mpg!

And remember, this is based on actual US fleet average data as gathered by Onstar on every US Chevy Volt driven between 2011 and 2014, not cherry-picked Voltstats data of a small Volt owner sub-set.

Remember when GM was lambasted for a wild claim of “230 mpg” for the Gen 1 Volt? Well, they are actually close to it with Gen 2, without cooking the books.

edit – GM’s data in the SAE article was for one full year of 60,000 Volts driving, model years 2011 through 2014 not four years of statistics.

“Remember when GM was lambasted for a wild claim of “230 mpg” for the Gen 1 Volt? Well, they are actually close to it with Gen 2, without cooking the books”

It’s also important to remember the 230mpg number was simply based on EPAs proposed testing method at the time, which wasn’t yet finalized because GM beat everyone else to the market with an EREV

HVACman said:

“At 42 mpg, that is 4.76 gallons of regular gas burned per 1000 miles total driving. 1000 miles divided by 4.76 gallons is an amazing 210 mpg of net gasoline consumption!!!! Talk about high mpg!

“Remember when GM was lambasted for a wild claim of ‘230 mpg’ for the Gen 1 Volt? Well, they are actually close to it with Gen 2, without cooking the books.”

This is exactly the same fallacy as the ridiculous “230 MPG” claim, and it most certainly is “cooking the books”.

It’s not “210 miles per gallon”. It’s “210 miles of range from an indeterminate number of battery pack charges, plus an indeterminate number of gallons of gasoline”.

In other words: It’s a completely useless number, having no real-world relevance, just like the original “230 MPG” claim.

It interesting to compare the 2016 Volt to other PHEVs: MSRP (minus tax credit) 2016 Volt: $26,495 2015 BMW i3 Rex: $39,700 2015 Ford C-Max Energi: $28,200 AER (miles) 2016 Volt: 53 2015 BMW i3 Rex: 72 2015 Ford C-Max Energi: 20 MPG (gasoline) 2016 Volt: 42 2015 BMW i3 Rex: 39 2015 Ford C-Max Energi: 38 MPGe 2016 Volt: 106 2015 BMW i3 Rex: 117 2015 Ford C-Max Energi: 88

JimSeko wrote:

“AER (miles)
2016 Volt: 53
2015 BMW i3 Rex: 72”

That’s hardly an apples-to-apples comparison. The Volt offers equally good performance in either all-electric or gasmobile mode. Contrariwise, in gasmobile mode the BMW i3 REx is crippled, having only a scooter motor grafted on, which means it is seriously underpowered when accelerating or attempting to climb long hills.

this is why there is value in GM promoting the EREV label to differentiate the Volt from PHEVs like the BMW i3 ReX in the minds of consumers. that said, i would hesitate the say that the BMW i3 ReX is “crippled” in range extender mode, though.

Yeah I don’t bother with the GM EREV term. I call it a PHEV the same way I call an EVSE a car charger, even though purists don’t like it.

Supposedly, the caddy ct6 with plug-in option will be GM’s first actual PHEV. Maybe it means if you floor it the engine will help, or if you need the heater at all the engine will start since there’s no heat pump nor resistance heat. But that’s just my conjecture.

Congratulations to GM for exceeding estimates on the AER (All Electric Range) of the Volt 2.0!

I’ll second Rick Danger’s suggestion that GM should offer an optional larger battery pack. The fleet average for all Volts is only 71% AER, according to volt-stats.net. To get to 90% they’d need something between 60-70 miles of AER.

an actual AER of 71% is pretty good given that AER is strongly affected by temperature. what GM stated was that 80% of drivers drive under 40 miles/day. likewise, i would expect the 90% figure to mean that 90% of drivers drive less than 50 miles/day. during the winter in cold weather areas, however, the AER for the Volt can drop to the low 20s. that’s why you can’t always just look at numbers and automatically draw conclusions.

i don’t know whether the AER figure is affected by ERDTT operation but if the Volt is getting an actual AER of 71% as a nationwide/yearlong average, then there is no basis to complain. i mean, contrary to the sham claims by bjorn nylund, you wouldn’t get anywhere near 250 miles AER in a tesla if you operated it in the upper midwestern US with its continental climate.