Talk:Chevrolet Volt/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Gibberish

I know it is a direct quote from a source, but "towards the upper quintile" is an ambiguous statement that by the most obvious reading to my eye means between 20 and 50%ile, probably not the peacockism intended. If it is in the top 20% the source should read "IN the upper quintile", which it does not. Greglocock (talk) 02:29, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you, I was trying to be constructive, there is no need to quote that.--Mariordo (talk) 05:54, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Misleading fuel economy claims

I made an edit to correct part of this, but it was reverted. The Reuters source used is misleading in multiple respects. First of all, the Volt got a 60 MPGe rating, not a 60 MPG rating. That is a big difference there. Secondly, the "displacing" of the Prius seems to be pure conjecture by the Reuters reporters. The EPA still lists the Prius as the most fuel efficient in its "Fuel Economy Leaders: 2011 Model Year" report. Besides, if we are evaluating based on MPGe, then the Leaf wins, as the article inadvertently notes. I recommend ignoring that flawed source.

Krelborne (talk) 20:51, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The article seemed clear and conclusive to me, not misleading at all. The Prius was displaced, by definition, when the Volt was given a higher fuel economy rating. The source is certainly considered reliable by Wikipedia terms. Ebikeguy (talk) 01:03, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Which is why I pretty much gave up attempting to edit this page. Which vehicle has the highest mpg rating? The Prius. Which vehicle has the highest mpge rating? The Leaf. Yet somehow the lede obfuscates this and the Volt "wins". Anyway all it needs is a RS pointing out a "less nuanced" position. Greglocock (talk) 01:38, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but you didn't seem to address anything I said. Greglocock seems to get it. The Reuters source incorrectly states that the Volt got a 60 MPG rating and then draws conclusions based upon that false assumption. In actuality, it got 60 MPGe, which is different, and loses to the Leaf. The people who wrote the Reuters article may not have fully understood the new MPGe metric, plus they were getting their info from GM, who may not have explained all of the nuances of the rating. Reuters is generally reliable, but the article was written in the early days of MPGe and is clearly not right. Krelborne (talk) 01:56, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree the Routers article was in error. 60mpg is quite a bit different than 60mpge. But what is the wiki policy on something like that? As far as I'm concerend its no more in error than the "Auto Express" CO2 article we debated a couple of years ago.So I guess if an author wants to "directly quote" the Routers story (or any of the numerous other erroneous reports from that week) we really couldnt do much about, other than correctly place it into the body of the article.But I actually prefer Greg's most recent edit.(believe it ot not) But obviously we'll have to revisit this again when more plug-ins are released (such as the long anticipated plug-in Prius) then we can compare apples to apples- mpge to mpge.WopOnTour (talk) 03:04, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Reuters is wrong, just check the Monroney label shown in the article. In the lower left corner you will see EPA's 60 mpge rating and clearly states best of its class. As Greglocock correctly edited yesterday, it is the best among car with an ICE, and the whole purpose of MPGe is precisely to allow consumers to directly compare with gasoline-powered vehicles. So, in terms of mpge the Volt indeed surpassed the Prius. Of course this does not apply to the Leaf, but the comparison is not made against EVs.--Mariordo (talk) 03:28, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Volt causes fire?

This is just a flag for those interested to follow up this story and to avoid speculation and non NPOV edits, since there is a lot of buzz in the blog sphere but not in the main media. Begins here and here, and this new development is what might be worth to follow up (see here and here).--Mariordo (talk) 03:55, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

plug-in hybrid electric vehicle

I would have to disagree with that. The vehicle is propelled by electric motor only. The internal combustion engine it has is only there to drive a generator which charges the battery. As compared to the Toyota Prius, which uses both electric motor and internal conbustion engine to propel the vehicle. Thus the vehicle would be a plug-in electric vehicle. Trentc (talk) 09:27, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

who's the climate change denialist that wrote this article "controversy" please.

there seems to be alot of bias brewing on wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.87.146.169 (talk) 04:46, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia not a blog. Please read WP:NPOV. We are bound to presents all points of view in a fair and balance way, even if personally we don't share that view.--Mariordo (talk) 20:49, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
I have no idea what 75.87.146.169 is complaining about. Nowhere in the article is there even a hint of a suggestion that climate change is not a serious problem. (This despite Bob Lutz's famous remark that global warming is a "total crock of s**t".) If anything the opposite is the case: one controversy is about whether the Volt reduces carbon emissions significantly when recharged from coal-fired electric power stations. --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 05:09, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Article improvement

I will attempt a major improvement to the article this weekend, particularly the history, drivetrain, and battery sections. The article needs minor reorganizing of some sections, has outdated content that refers to the concept or pre-production versions, some speculative materials or not supported by the source provided, there is duplicated content, etc. I would appreciate if editors allow me these two days to work on the improvements without reversing my edits or engaging on correcting for content that is work in progress, so edit conflicts can be avoided and the whole improvement be judged as a whole when completed. I will let you know when I am finished with this first try, so that copyedit, modifications, and trimming of the modified content can proceed. In particular, after I am finished, I would like to hear suggestions for further improvements and also about how to split the article, since today has a 114Kb, quite above of the recommended size. Since the major hype about the Volt is almost past, and as the article becomes more stable, the final goal is to bring it to "Good Article" status. Thanks.--Mariordo (talk) 20:49, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

This first effort is done. So please provide feedback, go ahead and copyedit, etc. Since the final goal is to raised the article rating to GA, please make suggestion of further improvements for GA rating, and I would begin raising three issues for further improvement of the article:
  • The article size ended up at 120.4Kb. So if we were to move for a GA revision that might be a problem, so my first choice would be to split the History section into a separate article, let's say History of the development of the Chevrolet Volt (the title is too long) or simply History of the Chevrolet Volt. I do have more material for several sources to expand such a new article. Here we would leave a summary (~50% of its current content). Nevertheless, if we are not going for GA review soon I rather leave the whole content here, as in reality the Volt history is just four years old. Any other sections that you think can be branch out?
  • The summary table of test drive is awful (and yes, I did it). My intention is to remove gradually the short test drives when more long term test drives become available from the most notable and specialized sources, so that the article ends up with a smaller and more homogeneous table reflecting more reliable results. So instead of removing or trimming it now, I rather prefer to wait for the long term info, except if it becomes a problem for the GA review.
  • I removed the content shown below because is not supported by a RS, instead these are based on assumptions published in the gm-volt blog (see here). Nevertheless, I left a sentence summarizing such content tagged with citation needed (it could be removed later). Based on RS already in the article, we know that GM initially intended to use only 50% of the battery capacity (8kWh) to extend the battery's life span (with a SOC 30 to 80%), but for the production model launch into the market is using 60-65% (10kWh), but the tresholds of the SOC are not known (I spent quite some time googling unsuccessfully, the only hit is the blog speculation/guessing and severral mirror sites). The only piece of info I found is a lower SOC of 40% for mountain mode. Does anyone has access to more technical literature to clarify this issue?

To extend the battery's life span, GM plans to station charge the lithium-ion battery to a SoC of approximately 90%. Then, once the battery depletes to a low set-point (ca. 25%), the on-board ICE powered generator maintains the state of charge between the lower setpoint and an upper set-point above the 30% SoC level.[citation needed] So, its charge state actually varies between 25% SoC and 90% SoC. This translates to the following analysis of battery capacity:

theoretical capacity 100% 16.0 kW·h (not realized under normal conditions)
highest recharged level 90% 14.4 kW·h (after being plugged in)
charge sustaining level 25% 4.0 kW·h (after ~40 miles of driving)
Empty 0% 0.0 kW·h (not realized under normal conditions)


Please comment on these pending issues and feel free to add more. Thanks. PD: I will make some nitpicking during the week, but now my time is more limited.--Mariordo (talk) 02:21, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Mariordo. I can tell you FOR CERTAIN these % SOCs are totally incorrect. (eg. after recharge the SOC is 85% and total recharged capacity 65% (10.4kW-hr) Unless you have some sort of relaible source from GM (I know I DO!) I suggest you remove them from the article WopOnTour (talk) 01:11, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Not quite the way it works. You may have uncitable data from GM, but all we need are reliable sources, even if they are wrong. I'd have thought the data on kWh used max->min SoC was somewhere on the EPA submission. I doubt it will make it into the popular press. http://gm-volt.com/2010/10/26/chevrolet-volt-will-utilize-10-4-kwh-of-battery-to-achieve-ev-range/ gives figures at least. However if we don't want the blatherings of amateurs and enthusaists then the at least somewhat RS car and driver say 9 kWh approx. Greglocock (talk) 05:11, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Chevrolet Volt/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:43, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

  • I will be your reviewer. I don't know much about this car or its technology, but hope I can learn from this review.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:43, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi TonyTheTiger. I am ready and looking forward to work with you.--Mariordo (talk) 21:37, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
What's the primary purpose/intent of a GA review, and what would it mean for the Volt page in Wikipedia? WopOnTour (talk) 21:38, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
To determine if an article adheres to WP:WIAGA.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:47, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks.I never knew such assistance was available. Having been heavily involved in this page for a number of years, I can say I am quite impressed with the latest series of rewrites & edits by User:Mariordo under your tutelege- Thank You BOTH! WopOnTour 18:03, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Note: Tony, I want to let you know that today I made an updated regarding GM announcement of the 2012 year model Volt, so please check the history because some of the additions were made in sections you already had reviewed. Also, please check here for the recommendations from WP:AUTOS editors. In summary I will keep the engine size in L, the wheel size in inches (I already changed " for in), and the battery volume will be converted to cubic feet, but showing L afterwards, since this is an American car.--Mariordo (talk) 04:52, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

LEAD
  • In general it is at the discretion of the editors whether to have a fully cited or fully uncited WP:LEAD as long as all facts in the LEAD are cited in the main text. In this case, the editor has done such an extensive job of citing the WP:LEAD that it might be offputting to the casual wikipedia reader. I would suggest removing citations from the LEAD and giving the reader a chance to breathe with the basic summary of information before you start directing him to sources left and right. Make sure that each fact is cited in the main body so that the reader can WP:V each claim.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:02, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Done, leave a couple for issues that have been controversial in the past.--Mariordo (talk) 03:22, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
In general, you are suppose to either have fully cited or fully uncited LEAD. Although the claim is extraordinary in the first paragraph. The reader should be able to find the citation in the main body if he is interested. I don't see the second paragraph being used to cite anything controversial. There are no real arguments about gas mileage and such. You can remove that too.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:47, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Done, but based on past experience I do not think is wise to leave the claim about the most fuel efficient car without citations. If you check the article's history you will see that a lot of Volt lovers and haters (the controversy section will give you an idea who is who) have engaged in contentious discussion and edit waring regarding this issue. Also Prius lovers have come to defend the top spot for their car. Besides, being an extraordinary claim, stated right in the beginning of the lead, I think it is better to make an exception in this case. Regarding the other specs, the electric range has been quite controversial, since GM said it was 40 mi, then EPA said it is 35 mi, and GM change it to 25 to 50 mi. Volt lovers want the lead to show only this range. The actual wording was a compromise that stopped edit waring, and this is the reason for having the citation now gone.--Mariordo (talk) 04:30, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Any citation that averts edit warring is welcome. Please include only those that are necessary to serve this purpose.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 11:45, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Done, just for the "most efficient ..." claim.--Mariordo (talk) 13:02, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Tony, can you provide a link to a policy, guideline, or other consensus that requires ledes to be either fully cited or fully uncited? I do not believe this to be the case. It is fairly contrary to WP:LEADCITE and is certainly not a requirement of WP:GACR. SpinningSpark 20:20, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't know where a specific policy. I have been involved in a few debates at WP:FAC on the subject. Ask SandyGeorgia (talk · contribs).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:36, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
International units: I got some advice on policy today. It seems that WP:MOSCONVERSIONS is the relevant policy. For any measurement where the primary unit of measure is the same in all English speaking countries, English WP does not need to do a conversion, as I read that policy. If engines are measured in litres in all english speaking countries as the primary unit of measure no conversion is necessary. Same with wheel rims and such. I will take your word on all the issues below. Have a look at them all and make sure that in each case that you claim the international units exception that all English speaking countries view this as the primary unit of measure for that measurement.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:32, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
According to the answers I got from WP:AUTOS, engine volume and wheel size no conversion is necessary as all English speaking countries use L and inches, so I will keep them as-is.--Mariordo (talk) 03:45, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I know as little about "internal combustion engine" as many housewives who might be reading this, so link it for me.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:18, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
No need, rather ICE term removed, as per wording from the sources define most fuel efficient w/o talking about the ICE.--Mariordo (talk) 03:22, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
  • "The initial launch is limited to seven markets and availability in the rest of Canada is expected before the end of 2012" repeats prior content in that paragraph. Please integrate.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:18, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Please read again, it is not repeating, the first part refers to the limited launch in the US, the second to the limited markets in Canada.--Mariordo (talk) 01:51, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I would expect to know by the end of the LEAD if this car is really hot in the sense that shipments can not keep up with orders or how long wait lists are for such a vehichle. Since the fourth paragraph is rather short, something like the car has been quite popular and has been difficult to keep in stock in its initial markets might be proper. Have not read the article to find out if this is in fact the case, but I am guessing given the awards it has won.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:18, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Production is still limited and supply not enough to meet demand. See the bottom of the Production cost and sales price section. So it is still early to say and overpricing is expected to be temporal, so I rather not include such content in the lead, but I would like to here your reply on this one.--Mariordo (talk) 01:51, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
  • We are going to have to review the LEAD after running through the article. It is not currently a balanced summary of the article. Once I run through the entire article, we will have to rebalance. In the end we will want a brief summary of each major section in the LEAD, but want it to remain under 3000 characters.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:38, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Convert litres in Infobox.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:14, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
I am checking this one with WP:AUTOS, I don't think the engine displacement volume is converted, at least not to gallons, only to cc (I believe this is an international convention). I will back to you on this one.--Mariordo (talk) 05:35, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept in liters as per WP:AUTOS recommendation.--Mariordo (talk) 05:01, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
What about Stepho-wrs (talk · contribs)'s convert suggestions at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Automobiles#Chevy_Volt_GA?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:49, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
As per my previous comment it shouldn't be converted, but the clarification made at WP:AUTO by OSX (talk · contribs).--Mariordo (talk) 04:14, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Main text
  • Again citation is quite vigorous. Although not official policy, Wikipedia:Citation overkill is a relevant concern. For an article this extensively cited, where virtually no fact is not without a WP:RS, I would suggest trimming citations so that almost no sentence has more than three citations. This is going to probably take the editor some time to make sure that he is not removing the strongest citations for specific facts, but it will help the reader feel less overwhelmed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:05, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
You are absolutely right about citation overkill, which is the result of disagreements that took place in the past before the car was actually launched and due to a lot of speculation (that is also the reason why the Lead has so many citations). But now that the article is stable, I will proceed to clean it as you have suggested.--Mariordo (talk) 01:51, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Done with the citation overkill. Please let me know if you think more cleaning is required.--Mariordo (talk) 04:30, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Red Flag Warning I am dumbfounded. I think this highly detailed article forgets that this is a car article. Yes it is a masterful engineering subject with lots of modern green issues. However, I still want an analysis of automobile performance. You have to include a performance section with details on acceleration (after fuel efficiency the most important statistic I know about cars is 0 to 60), braking performance, turning radius, etc. I grew up in an era when cars compared themselves on stuff like rack and pinion steering, power steering, power brakes, acceleration, braking, handling, etc. I think even green cars must mention these topics to pass GAC. Do you mention manual versus automatic issues? Do you enumerate power options (seats, steering, brakes, windows, locks). Tell us what powers the key fob on this thing has (remote ignition, keyless entry, etc.) Please remember this is a car article. You still must hit all the standard car issues to meet WP:WIAGA's breadth requirements.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:34, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Side note For most topics, I would have already determined that the article fails for lack of breadth for an omission of this magnitude. You fortunately are writing about a subject where I want to read the whole article whether it meets WIAGA or not. Thus, I will hold off on my determination, at least until I finish my read through. By then, you must convince me that progress is being made on this issue, that sources to address these concerns are in transit or that for some other reason I should expect this concern to be addressed quickly.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:51, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
P.S. It is possible that you could convince me that common WP:RSs don't discuss performance. If Car and Driver, Motor Trend, Road & Track and all common RS write extensively about the car without discussing common performance measures, you would be absolved.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:55, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
You are right, I will be working on the missing content along the way.--Mariordo (talk) 16:27, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
PS: And yes, most of the coverage and reviews are biased toward the innovation and green aspects, the article simply reflects this bias. I already collected enough material for working on the performance and other key features that are missing, but I also have to let you know that some of that info is there, though not organized in the usual way because of the special nature of this car. I would go ahead and add the new content, but I will try to minimized duplicating content that is elsewhere (the article is too long as-is), once I am finished please point me to info that you think is worth to duplicate for a better understanding of car performance and features.--Mariordo (talk) 20:14, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
You can tell where I am with my read through. Yes I will mention duplication as I encounter it unless you are adding things above my current progress point. However, since you say performance is a backpage topic for this car, I imagine content that you will be adding will be later in the article. In terms of length, the article is at 52418KB of readable prose. I consider 60KB to be the max, but you need to leave a cushion for forthcoming content. Still, making the article 10% longer would not be a problem.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:58, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
First try complete, please check.--Mariordo (talk) 01:26, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I see a performance section. This section adequately describes acceleration and speed. Don't cars compare themselves on breaking distances, handling, impact resistance and feature. Did you add a section somewhere else in response to this concern?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:48, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I got the data I forgot to edit. It is done now (I think that since this is not a high performance car the current content should suffice). Also notice that I expanded the safety section and created a Other features to complement performance.--Mariordo (talk) 05:06, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Terminology
  • Society of Automotive Engineers needs to be followed by an apostrophe on its first use just as you have one in the 2nd paragraph.
  • traction motor needs a link or an explanation. Same with clutch and drive system.
  • Therefore comma.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:40, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Maybe link propulsion--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:03, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Done.--Mariordo (talk) 18:39, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Done.--Mariordo (talk) 05:35, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Concept vehicle
  • link liftgate
  • Shouldn't "without a mechanical connection between the gas engine and the drive wheels" be mentioned in the section above to explain the terminology distinction?
  • link or explain battery degradation, drivetrain, and torque.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:03, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Done. Regarding the mechanical connection, this section presents what GM intended to do. As explained in Terminology, and in more detail later (see details of powertrain operation), for the final production version GM engineers decided to make that connection to improve the efficiency (and that's is why when more energy is required, the Volt works as a parallel hybrid, like the Prius, not a pure series hybrid) Then, there is no need to mention this in Terminology.--03:54, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
I am consulting this one with WP:AUTOS.--Mariordo (talk) 05:35, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Converted to cu ft as recommended by WP:AUTOS.--Mariordo (talk) 05:01, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Normally you convert Kwh to MJ, but not kW is international convention if I am not mistaken.--Mariordo (talk) 05:35, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Production model
  • link aerodynamics, prototype
  • Is there a link for lithium manganese oxide cell, shaker table
  • What is the significance of cylindrical cells
  • had been built and are being tested s/b had been built and were being tested--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:26, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Done until it is feasible. There is no article in Wikipedia for lithium manganese oxide cell, I found only a red link, so I decided to put the chemistry nomenclature instead. This, and the significance of cylindrical vs rectangular cells, all have to do with patented technology that is worth billions of dollars, how you pack the cells to make the battery has to do on how safe they are, how you cool them, etc, and no company is providing much details. Some of this technology was developed for the Volt! So I went as far as I could (I do have a recently published book that spends a whole chapter discussing these differences, check Bottled Lightning: Superbatteries, Electric Cars, and the New Lithium Economy, by Seth Fletcher, but I am not about to write an article about that, too technical and there are not enough RS out there for such cutting edge technology).--Mariordo (talk) 04:31, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
"I decided to put the chemistry nomenclature instead" - How so?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:46, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Oh. You mean the element symbols. Hmm. not going to check this one off, but not much more you can do.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:48, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, not much I can do.--Mariordo (talk) 05:01, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Official introduction
  • I also doubt "will be displayed at GM's Heritage" should still be in future tense and might even need a specific date now.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:26, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Done. I could not find a RS to make sure it is indeed on display now. So I decided to change the wording to avoid guessing, now it reads: ...was earmarked for display..." --Mariordo (talk) 04:31, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Drivetrain
  • naturally aspirated?
  • link horsepower, premium gasoline
  • "until its plug-in battery capacity has been depleted until a predetermined level" sounds wrong with the double until
  • The only time "acceleration" appears in the article is here. I am guessing that means we are not going to have a section on engine performance with measures like 0 to 60. Shouldn't a detailed car article have such a section. Should acceleration be linked?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:37, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Almost done. Would you believe it, but premium gasoline is not properly defined in Wikipedia. In principle the article Octane rating should have the definition, but the US section is a mess (and the article too), and there is not a section I can point to. The other alternative is the desambiguation Premium which has a short but useful definition I cannot point to neither. Any suggestions?.--Mariordo (talk) 04:56, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
I already improved the definition in the disambiguation page and because it would take a lot of work to fix the Octane rating article (more than expertise), I decided to add a small paragraph explaining why the Volt needs premium gas and defining what is premium along the way. I guess this workaround settles the issue.--Mariordo (talk) 02:15, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
I am checking this L convertion with WP:AUTOS but I believe that engine volume is expressed in liters by international convention.--Mariordo (talk) 05:35, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
As per WP:AUTOS kept in liters.--Mariordo (talk) 05:01, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Battery
  • cooling fin?
  • Now you use the word safe. Have you discussed dangers of certain ranges?
  • Maybe link diagnostics. what do you think?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:02, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Done, but safe referred to the margin pre-established to extend the battery life, not related to battery safety, such us risk of fire (there is not much about this from RS, only mentioned in the Flectcher book, and all it says is GM made sure the batteries won't catch fire as some laptops and cell phones did back then). So, I removed it to avoid confusion. Diagnostic is a very general term, so I do not see the need to link to diagnosis, here is used in the same general way.--Mariordo (talk) 04:56, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Fuel economy
Done.--Mariordo (talk) 03:34, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Performance
Done.--Mariordo (talk) 06:06, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't think so.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:43, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, the second quarter mile is now converted.--Mariordo (talk) 04:14, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Tailpipe emissions
Done. Now all in gm/mile converted to gm/km. To the best of my knowledge these are the standard units used when dealing with car emissions and greenhouse gases.--Mariordo (talk) 06:06, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Connectivity
Done + tense adjusted.--Mariordo (talk) 03:34, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Safety
Done.--Mariordo (talk) 03:34, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Done. The crash test article details the specific ones.--Mariordo (talk) 05:35, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Other features
Redundant link removed, but I am consulting WP:AUTOS, I never have seen wheel size converted to other metric. I will get back to you on this one.--Mariordo (talk) 05:35, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
As per WP:AUTOS kept in inches but shown as "in".--Mariordo (talk) 05:01, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Does the commentary at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Automobiles#Chevy_Volt_GA mean only inches or inches first?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:49, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Only inches.--Mariordo (talk) 04:14, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
North America
  • check tenses. Initial production is now past tense.
Nope, GM is still producing the first batch. As per my update today it seems next batch will start production in August, I will fix the tense then.--Mariordo (talk) 05:26, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
How about "Initial production from MMM YYYY until the end of ZZZZ. It is not clear to me what initial production is. Thus, I don't understand why it is considered ongoing.
Sometimes, as it is the case with the Volt, the carmaker launches the vehicle with limited production, and that is why availability is limited or restricted to selected markets. This limited initial production, what I called the first batch, is still ongoing. As the article explains, by now GM must have shut down the production line (no RS available saying so, only was announced some time ago) to upgrade and expand it, and it seems that when production re-starts (around mid July), production capacity will be revamped (the article explains this) and this second batch, no longer limited, no longer the "initial" production, will be for the 2012 model year. Once the process I just describe is completed, then we can include the dates in the article as you are suggesting. Unfortunately, if I include what I just described would be my original research as interpretation of the info supported by RS, so I rather wait to provide proper citations to this upcoming changes.--Mariordo (talk) 04:14, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Done.--Mariordo (talk) 05:26, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
  • More litre conversions.
Kept as per WP:AUTOS recommendation.--Mariordo (talk) 05:26, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
I am looking at Wikipedia:CARS/Conventions#Displacement.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:39, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
  • GM announced in 2010 an initial production... this was a planned number at the time. The text needs to clarify that these numbers are forecasts and not results.
Done, considering ongoing processes.--Mariordo (talk) 05:26, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
  • June 2011
We are still in June, I will update all tense when appropriate.--Mariordo (talk) 05:26, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Is "was to come off the assembly line." still correct phrasing?--

TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:07, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Done.--Mariordo (talk) 05:26, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
United States
  • Initially comma
The wording was changed with the 2012 Volt edit.--Mariordo (talk) 05:26, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Are there links for any of this lingo "destination freight charge, tax, title, license, dealer fees and optional equipment and before any savings due to factory incentives, tax deductions, or other available subsidies for qualifying buyers"?
Nope, except for the incentives that already are linked to an article devoted exclusively to this type of incentives.--Mariordo (talk) 05:26, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Have we linked Suggested retail price yet?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:54, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, in the lead.--Mariordo (talk) 04:14, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Does lease program have an article?
In the general sense yes. Done.--Mariordo (talk)
Tony, this is negotiated at each dealership and to the best of my knowledge it is common knowledge among Americans, so I do not believe it is appropriate to expand nor any of the RS goes into this detail, it is just std financing in the U.S.--Mariordo (talk) 05:26, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Would it be appropriate to say dealer leasing program?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:49, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
I am not sure (I have never lease a car), but I understand the leasing is done through the carmaker's financing arm, not the dealer itself. I can ask WP:AUTOS if you want.--Mariordo (talk) 04:14, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes check with them regarding this phrase.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:46, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Monthly U.S. sales
  • Do "Volt demonstration vehicles" get sold as used vehicles or something?
I re-worded this sentenced to make it clear they are not reported as sales. My understanding is that later demonstrator are sold at an attractive discount, but I am not certain if they are reported as used vehicles.--Mariordo (talk) 04:46, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
  • "representing 51 percent of its value" is currently modifying 33K. The sentence needs to be rewritten so that it modifies 17K.
Done.--Mariordo (talk) 04:46, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
  • "increase the Volt's worth after three years" should be clarified that it is not going to increase from 33K, but rather raise the estimated value above the 17K estimate.
Done.--Mariordo (talk) 04:46, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
  • "if the next-generation Volt’s battery will have" -> "if the next-generation Volt’s battery has".--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:37, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Done.--Mariordo (talk) 04:46, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Canada
  • have we linked CA$ and US$ yet?
All currencies are linked with a template instead, {{USD|..., {{CA$|..., and {{€|..., beginning in the lead.--Mariordo (talk) 05:17, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
  • (US$43,568) needs to say (US$43,568 as of May xth, 2011 or at least May 2011) or something for clarity since this ratio changes constantly.
There is a template for this, however the adjustment is made for different years (see here), since it has been less than a year, so I would do it manually using the exchange rates for the month in the source (it is recent). I do regular maintenance to my GA articles, so I will keep it updated. See for example this table in the Nissan Leaf article here that I update every month/month and a half.--Mariordo (talk) 05:17, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Not sure I understand your update plans. In 2016, the original price in 2011 will still be what it was.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:45, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Only in current dollars, but not in constant dollars (in the sense used in economics). There is a template to do this conversion. For example, using the existing template for $10 in 1935 is now worth: US$10 (equivalent to $222.23 in 2023). In this particular case, $40K of 2011 will be worth in 2016 more than the original $40K of 2011. An alternative is to keep everything in constant dollars, and simply include the price of year X, which will be higher than 2011 (usually).--Mariordo (talk) 04:14, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
I am familiar with conversion templates that convert US dollars in the past to US dollars today. I don't know of templates that convert CAD in the past to USD today. I think what we will want in this article in the future (say 2015 or something) is that the Volt was initially released in canada in MMM 2011. At that time, the price was CA$XX (US$ YY in 2011 US$, which equates to converted US$ today). What do you think?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:00, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
  • "GM began taking orders in May 2011, and the suggested retail price (MSRP) for the 2012 Chevrolet Volt starts at CA$41,545 (US$43,568) which excludes any charges, fees, optional equipment, and before any available subsidies or incentives for qualifying buyers." is run on with the double ands plus a missing and. Try one of the following:
    • GM began taking orders in May 2011. The suggested retail price (MSRP) for the 2012 Chevrolet Volt starts at CA$41,545 (US$43,568), which excludes any charges, fees, and optional equipment. This price is before any available subsidies or incentives for qualifying buyers.
    • GM began taking orders in May 2011. The suggested retail price (MSRP) for the 2012 Chevrolet Volt starts at CA$41,545 (US$43,568), excluding any charges, fees, and optional equipment, not counting any available subsidies or incentives for qualifying buyers.
Done.--Mariordo (talk)
The style in the entire article was to convert only the sale value, not all the rebates or other info. Usually the price of the vehicle is not reported in the articles because, as you noted, they get dated and the exchanges rates too. A temporary exception is being made in articles for EVs, PHEVs, and other advanced technology vehicles because of the premium cost of these vehicles due the battery pack cost. With time this will not be reported, and probably this info would go to the history section. As for the credits and rebates there is an entire article just about them, see Government incentives for plug-in electric vehicles. Once the rebates expired probably they will be gone too. My understanding was that a section about a country could have all amounts in that currency, and the first conversion provides some reference. Are you sure you want me to convert all amounts in other currencies to dollar? Do you want me to convert all figures to June 2011 or keep the month reported in the source? --Mariordo (talk) 05:17, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
    • I would convert the first of the two instances of 8,500 if you are going to report it. When you decide it is no longer worth reporting, then you won't need to convert it.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:45, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Didn't we link tax credit above already?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:45, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Europe
  • "GM will offer in the European market the choice of the Volt or the Opel/Vauxhall Ampera, the European version of the same car." What will determine which or are you saying both will be offered.
GM sells some of its vehicles badged as Opel (Germany) and other as Vauxhall (UK), but really do not know how they are offered in other European countries. I can ask WP:AUTOS if you want.--Mariordo (talk) 05:35, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
  • link bumper
Done.-Mariordo (talk) 05:35, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
  • above "alloy wheels" should have been linked.
Done.--Mariordo (talk) 05:35, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
I meant to link it on its first instance above, not here.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:01, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Is there a link for skirt
Nope, appears only as red link.--Mariordo (talk) 05:35, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Done using "in xxx 2011." As explained above, I can convert all amounts to June 2011, instead of the values provided by the sources in those months.--Mariordo (talk) 05:35, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Cadillac Converj
Linked kW, as explained above kW is international unit, no conversion required.--Mariordo (talk) 04:20, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
EPA fuel economy testing
Done.--Mariordo (talk) 04:25, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
EPA fuel economy rating
Done. KWh is international unit, no conversion required, 100 miles converted.--Mariordo (talk) 04:25, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Production cost and sales price
  • Although Toyota Prius is linked a couple times above, Toyota is not. Link it now.
Done.--Mariordo (talk) 20:35, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Conversions needed: 7 mile, $/KwH, miles/year, miles/day
Done. As explained above, KwH is international unit, no conversion required.--Mariordo (talk) 20:57, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
  • General Motors is already linked about 5 times above. Please scale down total links to two. Also the term GM is used several dozen times although it was not introduced properly on the first few instances of General Motors. Decide whether you want to use GM or General Motors throughout.
Done. I went for General Motors/the carmaker (to avoid repetition). Please note the exception for GM EV1, which is the name of the predecessor electric car.--Mariordo (talk) 20:35, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
  • In the article always use US$ or CA$. Don't alternate between these and just $.
Done.--Mariordo (talk) 20:43, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Done.--Mariordo (talk) 20:35, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Battery charging emissions
  • This seems redundant with the tailpipe emissions section above.
It is not redundant, please read carefully. The second section only repeats the official emission and clarifies that this is at the point of operation, some emissions are shifted to the power plant where the electricity is generated, and continues with other controversial claims.--Mariordo (talk) 21:03, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Neither tailpipe emissions nor tailpipe was linked above. might help
Done.--Mariordo (talk) 20:35, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
In the context of greenhouse gas emission, metric tons is the international unit, the rest coverted.--Mariordo (talk) 20:57, 17 June 2011 (UTC)


Checklist

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

This is one of the two or three best GAC I have reviewed. It has FA potential.

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    It has become broad under review, but was missing a few things that I am aware of. I am not a car buff and can not guarantee it is not missing things important to the modern car buyer or enthusiast.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    When a caption is not a complete sentence, it should not end in a period. Also, what is going on with the caption at File:Erev PHEVseries 98mpg 500px.jpg.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:51, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
The problem was that someone fixed a typo in the filename and it went red (now is fixed - I restored the original filename in the Commons) + ending periods also fixed.--Mariordo (talk) 02:35, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
I just became a filemover myself here and on commons. There are no instructions on what you are suppose to do when moving files to proper names. I thought it was a given that you would correct all the names in article space. You should track down the filemover and tell him that he is doing as much harm as good by moving the file without changing the file name in places where it is linked.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:11, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
The only problematic caption now is the upper left in the Drivetrain section. It has no sentences and two periods. I might separate the two phrases with a semicolon and get rid of the final period.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:11, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Done.--Mariordo (talk) 03:23, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
  1. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    I am placing this on hold while a few things are tidied up and I do some final checking. I will post final issues soon.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:20, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Remaining issues

LEAD
  • We need to get around to reviewing the adequacy of the summary of the subsequent text.
    • Have you revised the lead to summarize all sections of the current article?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:27, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
      • I did a quick review, and I concluded the article is too long to have a summary of every section as you initially proposed. As it is now, it reflects the key issues. Nevertheless, because this is a new vehicle with innovative technology, I believe the lead is destined to evolve relatively fast, so that pricing and limited launch markets will be less relevant for the lead, and then this content could be removed and substituted for other relevant info (as more long term reviews become available, or data on actual use accumulates, such as % driven in electric mode vs % driven with gasoline genset - check the edit I just did). But I am open to suggestions. --Mariordo (talk) 03:39, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
        • What about the organization of the article. Maybe too many small (one- or two-paragraph) sections exist. Should they be merged so that the table of contents is not so protracted?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:52, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
          • Good suggestion, done (change several level 3 headings for semicolon for several one-paragraph sections). How does it look now?--Mariordo (talk) 12:31, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Currently 2099 characters of readable prose. I think staying under 3000 is a goal so we are at less than 70% of capacity. This type of article should be near maxing out, so we can shoot for 2800-2900 in four paragraphs. Let's see how we can summarize the whole article and what else we can teach the reader right away:--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:53, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

  • GM described as Extended Range Electric Vehicle (maybe)
  • unveiled 2007
  • first series plug-in hybrid concept car
  • production design 2008
  • regenerative braking
  • What from other features is in the LEAD now?
  • Controversies and criticism is a rather large portion of the article to seemingly be omitted from the LEAD. Am I missing something?
Comments: (1) The lead used to have a full paragraph explaining how an ERREV works (since the Volt is the first of its kind), but it was considered too technical and removed. See the old paragraph here (the third one). I believe it is worth having it back, but because it is a bit too long, it will consume most of the real state limit you proposed. My suggetion is to spend the available space with an improved version of this paragraph, aiming for a simpler wording. (2) Having some of the controversies in the lead is not an easy task, since NPOV has to be maintain, and then it could be too long for the lead, and I do not think any of them is worth of being noticed in the lead, not notable enough (an example of a controvery worth having would be something like the batteries caughting fire in accidents or by overchanging, something of that nature).--Mariordo (talk) 14:25, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Regarding (2), this is a summary. All we are looking for is 200-250 characters. Something to balance the awards section would remain POV. Saying "Although the car has been well-received by critics and earned many notable recognitions, it has not been with out controversy in the media, especially regarding instances of its batteries catching fire and matters of overcharging." This exact quote may not be the best, but we are looking to balance the LEAD since the Controversy and criticism section is larger than the Awards and recognition section in the main body. Also, note that at FA, the Awards and recognition section may need to be converted from bullet points to prose.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:08, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Regarding (1), that paragraph is 950 characters. We are looking for a third of that here. Trim it down and add it.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:14, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
I will work these two points/ideas and the other pending task (merging sections) below tonight (US time). One more question, do you want me to post the draft here first so that we can work out the final version together or just to work directly in the article? I rather prefer the former.--Mariordo (talk) 16:27, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Please post directly to the article. I am not an involved editor. I can comment on what I see.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:26, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Done. See new second paragraph in the lead explaining in the most simple wording possible how the Volt works (For the sake of making the lead more easily understandable to the general readers, I included some links to more technical terms even though most of them are already linked down below in the article). The fourth paragraph includes the recommended summary of criticism to provide NPOV (I included what I considered the most relevant).--Mariordo (talk) 03:17, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

You overshot a bit with 3324 characters of readable prose and 5 paragraphs. Let's get it back to 4 paragraphs and below 3000 characters. Here are some suggestions toward 3000:
Start by cutting "at this point the Volt switches to extended range mode, when its gasoline engine powers an electric generator to extend the vehicle's range" down to something like "at which point its gasoline engine powers an electric generator to extend the vehicle's range"
"The Volt's regenerative braking also contributes to replenish the battery charge through the on-board electricity generation" down to "The Volt's regenerative braking contributes on-board electricity generation"
"the Volt's sales price which is too expensive for most Americans to afford buying one" to "the Volt's relatively high sales price"--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:37, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Trimming completed.--Mariordo (talk) 03:49, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
If you think more trimming is required I would suggest reducing the Canada details. The Volt is only available in the US for the time being and the full details are available in the corresponding section. In the same line, in the future we will not include all the details about pricing in the lead for the next launch markets.--Mariordo (talk) 03:54, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
3195 so yes more trimming. Your choice. Copy paste the lead into MS word or something to see character count.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:20, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Done. I believe it is now down to 2,890.--Mariordo (talk) 14:10, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Also
  • How about merging performance, tailpipe emissions and fuel economy into range and calling the whole thing performance?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:53, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Done.--Mariordo (talk) 23:04, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
I do not understand this comment about Mexico. Can you expand? --Mariordo (talk) 14:25, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Well the Table of contents has NA, with US and CA subsections. What about Mexico? Not only does it not have a corresponding subsection, but also, the article mentions nothing.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:02, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Car markets are North America, Europe, Japan, ...., that is why the heading is NA. GM has not announced any plans for Mexico, and the Volt is manufactured in the US. Do you want me to remove the NA heading and just leave the countries/region headings?--Mariordo (talk) 16:27, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Leave headings as they are. If there is no news, there is no news. I am sure that if something comes up you will post it.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:26, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


Production model
  • What happened with linking prototype?
Done--Mariordo (talk) 02:42, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
United States
  • You were going to check on the phrasing of "dealer leasing program"
I found the article Vehicle leasing, which I believe solves the issue you raised.--Mariordo (talk) 02:49, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Canada
  • My last comments were as follows:
    • I am familiar with conversion templates that convert US dollars in the past to US dollars today. I don't know of templates that convert CAD in the past to USD today. I think what we will want in this article in the future (say 2015 or something) is that the Volt was initially released in canada in MMM 2011. At that time, the price was CA$XX (US$ YY in 2011 US$, which equates to converted US$ today). What do you think?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:00, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
I agree 100% with your suggestion and I will proceed accordingly in the future (I now realize I got a little confused with this one and somewhere I took the wrong turn). Considering the next fix I believe currencies in the Canada section now looks good (converted to USDXX in June 2011).--Mariordo (talk) 03:06, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
    • I would convert the first of the two instances of 8,500 if you are going to report it. When you decide it is no longer worth reporting, then you won't need to convert it.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:45, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Done, but it looks weird, they are too close to each other, please check. Also I updated the price conversion to USD to June 2011, so the entire section is showing USD in June 2011.--Mariordo (talk) 03:06, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
I still think it would look better with just the first of the two instances linked.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:22, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I actually misread you. Done.--Mariordo (talk) 12:31, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Tax credit is linked several times, but to different sections of the Government incentives for plug-in electric vehicles, so the reader is redirected to the specific country/region, such as Government incentives for plug-in electric vehicles#Europe, Government incentives for plug-in electric vehicles#Canada, Government incentives for plug-in electric vehicles#Federal Government, Government incentives for plug-in electric vehicles#Other states, and Government incentives for plug-in electric vehicles#Charging_Equipment . I believe this is not considered overlinking.--Mariordo (talk) 03:06, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Images
Fixed.--Mariordo (talk) 02:42, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Other issues
  • Link first instance of alloy wheel and not second.
Done.--Mariordo (talk) 02:42, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Genset was already properly linked to Engine-generator (see Terminology) so I delinked the second use + BOSE redirected to the correct article (BOSE in capital letters).--Mariordo (talk) 02:42, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I am quite pleased to pass this now.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:38, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Tony, I really appreciate your patience and willingness to spend time in doing this review. This is my 12th GA, and I have never had a reviewer so careful with all the details as you did. I will welcome if you can point to me the two or three big issues that you believe need to be improved for this article to become a FA. I have not tried to go for FA before because English is a second language to me, but I can ask for help to improve the prose. Thanks again.--Mariordo (talk) 15:56, 22 June 2011 (UTC)


Note regarding the 'Volt' battery.

 The rating for the battery is 16kW-hrs this is 16 X 3.6E6 Joules
 The energy in a gallon of gasolene is 1.3E8 joules
 So (16 x 3.6E6)/ 1.3E8 = 0.44 That is, less than half a gallon of gas.
 The car weights 3700 lbs. Is it possible to move this 50 miles on 1/2 a gallon of gas?
Yes
 The co-efficient of friction for a regular auto tire on asphalt is 0.015
 so for 4 tires its .060. The friction force in newtons is about 3700(0.060)(4.44)= 986N
First mistake
 50 miles = 50(5280)(0.3048) = 80467 metres  Equals 80467(986)= 79340659 joules
 79340659/(16 x 3.6E6) = 1.37 ie we require 16(1.37) = 22kW-h battery (without losses) to
 overcome friction alone. The energy to overcome air drag is much higher. Then there's 
 accelleratiion and hill climbing and the electrical and mechanical losses.
 How does this car work ?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.203.219.62 (talk) 03:56, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Further mistakes left as an exercise for the reader. Also you are assuming the same efficincy for an electric motor as for the gas engine. Given that the car does work and performs more or less as advertisied, arguing that it can't seems a little perverse to me. Greglocock (talk) 04:05, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Success or Failure of the Marketing of the Product.

Recent news articles have reported poor sales for this vehicle. I made an edit to this article citing two news reports of the vehicle's poor sales. A user named Mariordo, who seems to have appointed himself as a defender of the reputation of electric vehicles and biofuels, undid my edit a few hours later. I can see from the edit history that this guy monitors the page and quickly reverses any edit that he finds harmful to the public image of his pet car. I would add this information again, but I have dealt with zealots like Mariordo and realize that it would be pointless.--Drvanthorp (talk) 05:19, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

This article recently received Good Article (GA) status. But if the standards drop then it can have that GA status revoked. References used for a GA must be of an even better standard than normally used for most articles. Unfortunately, the reference you gave for The Weekly Standard was for an opinion piece - it shows no sources of its own, nor is the author well known enough to be reliable on his own (ie well known authors have to have impeccable reputations or they lose the trust of their audience). The NLPC reference at least shows that the author has done some research and he explains his findings but the NLPC isn't exactly known for following electric vehicles. I have been both for and against Mariordo on various discussions on Wikipedia but I can attest to his principles and that he doesn't delete facts just because he doesn't like them. The quality of the references is the main point here.  Stepho  talk  07:20, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
First, I want to apologize to Drvanthorp, my PC had a glitch when I was editing the rv, it saved and the explanation was lost. It is my practice to always provide a justification. As Stepho explained above, the main reason for the rv is that the source you used is not considered a reliable source in Wikipedia and this article is a GA, we are just trying to keep that quality rating. Second, there is already a section presenting monthly sales, in the "United States" section, under the heading "Monthly U.S. sales" and the 125 units sold for July were already reported there before you did your edit. As for the claims in the source you provided, there is also a good explanation from this blog (see here), but because this blog and other reporting GM explanation are not considered a RS, that content can not be used in the article, not even the fact that GM built 3,975 Volts for the 2011 model year, because there is no reliable source confirming that (please note that the article already explains that GM shut down production for a month and low sales were expected, from RSs). If such a controversy goes mainstream in RSs, then, we would added in the existing "Controversies and criticism" section.--Mariordo (talk) 03:56, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Can there be a section of discussion/conjecture about why the Volt has such poor sales while the Prius sales have remained strong? 25-35 miles without any gasoline use seems pretty attractive, why does nobody want one?71.236.2.96 (talk) 23:35, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia only reports facts that can be verified from reliable sources (see above discussion). Conjecture and original research (as opposed to searching through libraries for existing works) is definitely out. But if you can find a reliable source that mentions why sales have been low, then by all means add it to the article. Note that have to be a bit fussy about the source being reliable - opinion pieces in local newspapers and blog don't count - they are often wrong and bring down the credibility of Wikipedia. Thanks.  Stepho  talk  06:09, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Furthermore, as the article already explains, the retooling of GM plant in June and July reduced significantly the number of vehicles available for sale. See the North America production and U.S. sales heading for a detailed explanation. No reliable source has reported other reasons for the slow down.--Mariordo (talk) 11:57, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry, that is the funniest thing I have read for a while. Volt has 121 day supply in September, well in excess of a not very ambitious 90 day target and nothing like the 30 days that desirable cars get. To put that into perspective, they could stop building them for 4 months before they'd run out of cars to sell. Hence no need for a second shift. This actually does GM a favor since they are losing money on every one they sell, and it does the environment a favor since it generates so much CO2, if you care about that. Here's a biased but fact filled summary of the sales story, http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2011/10/chart-of-the-day-the-chevrolet-volts-sales-challenge/ . I'm not actually very keen on putting sales data into the article, we'll have a much more encyclopedic view of the situation in a few month's time. I'd have thought the reason for the Volt's poor sales were obvious. However much this wiki article and the dentist's blog attempts to apply gold paint, underneath it is a bad but interesting concept. When people have to spend real money on a car they are fairly rational, and don't want to spend twice as much as they need to for a given functionality.Greglocock (talk) 19:32, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
I do take my contributions at Wikipedia seriously. If you have content from reliable sources (not editorial or blog related or speculative, remember this is a GA), please go ahead and update whatever needs updating. The content about production and sales reflects the situation until August, right before production re-started. If the Volt is indeed a flop, and such conclusion is supported by reliable sources, please go ahead. I am more interested in keeping a NPOV and I am not in the Volt advertising business.--Mariordo (talk) 04:06, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Mariodo, for such a contentious issue a better reference than a blog is required.  Stepho  talk  09:24, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Who are these aliens and what did you do with G.Locock the engineer? That's very likely the most rediculous piece of trite anti-Volt fluff I've ever read... lol WopOnTour (talk) 08:01, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Dunno, which bit of "Here's a biased but fact filled summary" and "I'm not actually very keen on putting sales data into the article, we'll have a much more encyclopedic view of the situation in a few month's time" don't you understand? Anyway if you add up all the production cars built, subtract all the ones sold, you do end up with the theoretical unsold number, it is not a bad approach in general. But it falls over in the first few months, as demonstrators get lumped in with unsold cars which is wrong. So, let's wait a few months. As I suggested. Greglocock (talk) 04:13, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Here is tphe article in a non bloggy source that gives the numbers. http://wardsauto.com/home/gm_sales_august_110901/ Greglocock (talk) 02:56, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Use of blogs as RS

Blogs have been used as sources throughout this article, especially, but not only, autobloggreen, which is to say the least an advocate's site . Some editors feel that TTAC is not up to the same standard. I disagree. I would think that either blogs are acceptable or not, or is there some way that these sources are being assessed? Greglocock (talk) 04:13, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I too have been uncomfortable with the number of blog entries used for electric vehicles. In the rare case when a blog lists its sources then that true source should be used. Otherwise we should be sticking to sources that have some form of editorial cross checking (as happens in large publishing houses to protect their reputation).  Stepho  talk  22:52, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Agreed blogs should not be used as sources. This isn't a question of "lets either use all blogs or no blogs" it is a question of the integrity of our sources. --Daniel 23:09, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
According to GA criteria Reliable Sources should be used, and the reliable source page says "anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable". Therefore this article should have its GA status removed until the sources are replaced with proper ones, or the relevant statements are removed. The GA reviewer should review the definition of RS before he awards GA in future. roughly 20 of the refernces here are blogs, hence not acceptable.Greglocock (talk) 23:23, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Autoblog Green, despite its name, is not a blog. It is a respected, polished and widely-read source for automotive news. It is an arm of Autoblog.com, which is specifically excluded from Wikipedia's definition of an autoblog. Autoblog Green is no more of an advocate's site than is "Car and Driver" or "Road and Track." It simply comes at automotive issues from a different angle. Ebikeguy (talk) 01:12, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, where was this decision made? Greglocock (talk) 01:17, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
See the wikilink in my previous post, specifically the language excluding Autoblog.com from definition of and autoblog. Ebikeguy (talk) 01:21, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
I had seen that link and discarded it. That link says it is not an autoblog, not, not a blog. It certainly does not say it is a reliable source. Greglocock (talk) 01:32, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
The discussion about Autoblog/AutoblogGreen (an other apparent blogs commonly used in electric car articles) being a reliable source took place here, and also was raised during the GA review of one of the electric car related articles here My reading is that they are OK because these are not actual blogs and as long as sound judgment is applied plus consideration of the obvious exceptions, such as readers comments, editorial/opinion pieces and speculative content, I don't see no problem with raising the issue again in the Reliable sources noticeboard. Nevertheless, Greglocock already contacted the GA reviewer of the Volt article see here and was adviced to raised the issue at WP:GAR. So, I believe the logical order is to discuss about ABG validity as a RS (and Edmunds Insideline, NYTimes Auto blogs,...) and depending on the outcome, questioning if this article is a GA or not. In the latter case, all references can always be changed to the original source since the content is clearly not self-published and supported by reliable sources (so I dont' see where is the credibility issue raised by Greglocock). The piece on TTAC (see the previous discussion) is clearly self-published speculative blog material.--Mariordo (talk) 02:19, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Sadly I did not participate in that discussion, which by the way is not definitive. Whilst TTAC may not have the boosterism credentials of your preferred source it has a near identical format (short articles covering stories in RS, with user comments) and is a professional site. On what grounds can you exclude TTAC but include autogreenywondercars other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT ? Incidentally having investigated this I am fairly vehemently opposed to either site being used as RS, all links should be to the RS, not the news aggregator site. The exception would be where they have cached an otherwise hard to come by report, etc. Greglocock (talk) 02:49, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
The piece in question from TTAC is highly speculative and original research/self published, just as this example from ABG, a piece about the Prius Aqua being the same car as the Prius (see here). The latter, is probably truth, but has not been used in any Prius related because of the caveats explained above and Toyota has not made any official announcement. Or see this one about GM's new all electric-car, also no good because it is speculative. So, in my book, not all material from a reliable source can be considered RS, sound judgment needs to be applied always, even if it comes from the NYTimes, the Economist or any other highly regarded reliable source.--Mariordo (talk) 03:01, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Read the TTAC link, read the wards link, read the autobblogreen article on the same data. TTAC represents the wards article better than autoblog. In my opinion autoblog does not qualify as an RS since the editors/journos are unknowns. TTAC is slightly better as they occasional pop up in the NY times etc, but the best would be to link to the wards article. Greglocock (talk) 03:43, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
By all means, be bold and insert a reference to the Wards article, if you think it appropriate. I'm not sure why you do not consider Autoblog.com an RS, but at this point a strong consensus seems to support it, so please do not delete any language based on your own opinions of it without reaching consensus on this and other related talk pages. Ebikeguy (talk) 03:55, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

With regards to the name itself, [[autoblog] (short for 'automated blog') is a nasty tool for upsetting google results, while autoblog.com (short for 'automobile blog') is a news sight. [[autoblog] specifically says (without a source) that autoblog.com is not an automated blog but that says nothing about whether it is a blog sight or not. As mentioned above in Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_32#Blogs_in_articles_about_cars, autoblog.com (and its siblings) might not really be a blog but might be dressing themselves that way to appear trendy to the new generation.

When doing research, I was taught to look for internal proof (source contains logical and consistent arguments, not obvious nonsense) and external proof (what do other sources say about it, does it agree with other reliable sources). Their articles don't seem to go off on hyperbole and generally read similar to better magazines. http://www.autoblog.com/about-us/ and http://green.autoblog.com/about-us/ appear to have a set of contributors and editors drawn from a profession pool of automobile writers - I have no idea if this is a true fact but at least the internal proof seems reasonable. That leaves external proof. Does anybody have a reference for what other reliable sources sources say about autoblog.com ? Or perhaps some history on the claimed editors. I.e. do they really have typically 15 years of writing about cars in good car magazines or are they just college guys with inflated histories?  Stepho  talk  05:29, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah the good old one two in action

An editor posts a relevant comment. First ebike asks for a cite, the editor gives one, Mariordo deletes the lot. It is not controversial, and I have never seen any requirement that ONLY EPA figures should be mentioned (what about the various crappy magazine tests then?). Nice going boys. How do i join your club? Greglocock (talk) 00:56, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

  • The official US range is 35 miles (56 km) (GM says 25 to 50 miles (40 to 80 km)), the official EU range is 83 km (52 mi) (GM says 40 to 80 km).
  • The official US petrol mileage is 37 mpg-US (6.4 L/100 km; 44 mpg-imp) - if that is relevant in the US, it is relevant in Europe.
  • This article includes GM opinion on fuel economy in the US section, it should contain GM opinion in the EU section (like Kunstmann). TGCP (talk) 06:21, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

TGCP, the logic in the organization of these sub-sections is exactly what you explained, and they were organized in such a way after your edit introducing the EU ratings. This structure allows to include under the same umbrella any other ratings, such as the Japanese cycle which is also different, or any other country rating of fuel efficiency. Nevertheless, let me explain why I consider the last part of your edit regarding Mr. Dr. Christian Kunstmann from Opel is inappropiate, particularly if we want to keep the Good Article grading of this article:

  • You are describing Dr. Kunstmann as a leading Opel engineering, but the source provided does not say so. This is your blatant original research, and just for this reason there is justification to remove the remark you just restored.
  • Dr. Kunstmann has a different opinion on how the fuel efficiency should be reported. This is quite different for GM stating and officially advertising the Volt as having a variable EV range instead of EPA's official mean mpg-e rating.
  • As you can see in the Controversy section, near the end of the article, GM complained twice about EPA's methodology and the rating for a plug-in. I believe that Dr. Kunstmann comment belongs here, particularly if his statement reflects Opel official position. I would suggest a new section after the GM complaints. However, Dr. Kunstmann complaint seems to fit better in the article Miles per gallon gasoline equivalent, which has precisely the same complaint from other sources, see the discussion about using KW-hr per miles.
  • If Opel officially decides to advertise or to state that the Ampera has a range (just like the Volt) or a different value from the one rated by the EU, then, this info merits being in the fuel economy section.

Because of these reasons, and to keep the GA quality of the article, I respectfully request that you remove Dr. Kunstmann statement, and follow any of the two options suggested above. I prefer the latter, but in any case, it would be advisable to have more content to add from reliable sources that just your current one line statement. The GM are good examples. I took a lot of work to clean up this article from lose content such us this one.--Mariordo (talk) 22:17, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

GA is not a blunt stick with which to place an article in suspended animation. I suggets that editor mariordo should cease from editing this article for a while and let some other editors have a bit of breathing space. Greglocock (talk) 03:10, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Greglocock, we are having a civilized discussion here providing arguments. What are yours for the issue raised here? And FYI, I am not the only one editor trying to keep the quality, and nobody freezing it as you believe. Keeping a GA or FA rating requires being more strict about the content, format, etc.--Mariordo (talk) 03:18, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm afraid i long ago gave up any attempt at getting this article to NPOV, it is quite obvious that there is an energetic claque of editors who are fans of the car and are determined that this article should reflect their enthusiasm. Therefore i have mostly confined my activities to the talk page where only the most ill mannered can modify my input. Opel's assessment of the state of affairs was reportd in several organs at the time.Dr K's description is unremarakble and logical, not controversial at all. Greglocock (talk) 03:38, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
I can assure you I am not a fan of the car, but I do support what Mariordo is saying. I too think we need civilised discussion providing clear arguments, to keep the quality of the GA articles we have. Johnfos (talk) 03:56, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Addressing the points at hand (instead of mud slinging)... Dr Kuntsmann is the Assistant Vehicle Chief Engineer Opel Electric Vehicles http://opel-ampera.com/wp_en/dr-christian-kunstmann/ (website is owned by GM). By adding that as a reference at the end of his name we can remove the OR point. He is a moderately high up engineer/manager in the Ampera project, so his opinion is relevant and valuable, even if it differs slightly from the official statements. The only question in my mind is which section it belongs in. He is based in Europe, so that seems a reasonable place to put it. It isn't a particularly controversial statement (in an engineering or political sense), so I wouldn't put it in the controversies section. To me, it just looks like a way of telling us the efficiencies of the electric and petrol engines without getting into the whole quagmire of what driving pattern is used for equivalent MPG figures (the equivalent MPG changes according to whether your daily drive depletes the battery charge or not).  Stepho  talk  04:24, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with your suggestion, probably the wording can be improved.--Mariordo (talk) 04:42, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

EPA Rating and Labels

EPA Ratings and Labels:

I would like to suggest that the two "typical" EPA labels (as found down in the EPA Fuel Economy section of Controversies and Criticisms) be deleted. These appeared as part of a "proposed labels" statement made by the EPA months before finally settling on the new format. Besides being inaccurate and misleading they are NOT related to the Volt and IMO shouldnt be there. The label [Mariordo] has posted up in the "Range" section was accurate for 2011 but has since been corrected to 94mpge for 2012 (apparently an EPA math error made in 2011) and I would like to also propose that 94 mpge be used int he article and the displayed label be updated to the new 2012 version as well. The label changes are shown and explained here http://chevroletvoltage.com/index.php/volt-blog/18-volt/2501-2012-chevrolet-volt-epa-label-revision.html However I have yet to locate a good version of it to upload to the article. Can anyone else find one?? WopOnTour WopOnTour (talk) 20:23, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

WopOnTour, I am glad you raise these two issues. First, I agree that the official label for 2012 should be used instead of the one for the 2011 model year. I updated only the text because I couldn't find a clean image to upload to the Commons, just the same you linked above. So I guess we will have to wait until one becomes available. By the way, I also look for a reliable source explaining why the rating was changed, but I couldn't find one. Please any one who finds the official explanation let's know.
Regarding the typical labels, they are just illustrating what the text says. GM raised a concerned about how the fuel economy was going to be presented to consumers in the labels, and the text (with proper RS) shows EPA answer and how GM issues were addressed. EPA indeed recognized that the Volt is a new type of vehicle, so there is one label for PHEVs with range extender or series PHEVs (like the Volt)and another for parallel PHEVs (like the Prius Plug-in) which has not been made public yet. The images are the proposed labels, but I do not agree they are confusing, only illustrate how the controversy was resolved (the text clearly says that the official labels are due in 2013). The caption could be adjusted to avoid any misleading content, if any, but if there is consensus to delete them, I will go with the consensus.--Mariordo (talk) 03:01, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Yea OK I'll get a scan of the 2012 label WopOnTour (talk) 04:31, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Mechanical Drivetrain?

There was a sentence in the "Drivetrain" chapter: "the gasoline engine can also engage the powertrain mechanically". This would mean there is a clutch, a gearbox etc. - so it would be a full hybrid like the Toyota Prius. This would contradict any publication and report on this model. And as there is no source given, I removed the sentence. --Edoe (talk) 11:27, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Looking into the GM documents ([1] [2]) I found that it's actually a bit more complicated, there seems to be a operating mode (4) where the gas engine contributes mechanical power to the wheels (someone might try to clarify that with GM).
To sum the open questions up compared with the Toyota Prius and similar concepts, based on current wisdom:
  • Is the gas engine connected to the wheels via (planetary) gears? - both: yes
  • Does the gas engine contribute to propulsion? both: sometimes
  • Does the gas engine increase the maximum propulsion power? - Prius yes, Volt no
  • Does the gas engine provide propulsion and charging at the same time? - Prius yes, Volt no
  • Does the gas engine charge the battery to maximum level? - Prius yes, Volt no
One link (that is not as clear as the GM document but has some nice graphics): motortrend: Unbolting the Chevy Volt
Now based on this I added a sub-chapter on operating modes in the article. --Edoe (talk) 15:14, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Check this one also from MT.--Mariordo (talk) 19:52, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Edoe, nice edit. I know the content is accurate but can you provide the additional sources or used ref name to have all the content with proper citations. Once you complete the citations I will complete the ref formatting, so we can keep the GA quality in the article.--Mariordo (talk) 04:35, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
The GM document referred first also describes the operating modes, so I added a name-tag and a second ref at that point. --Edoe (talk) 14:28, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

"Not a hybrid" claims

Personally I think GM have made a rod for their own backs with their various obfuscations of the operating mode and architecture of this vehicle, but, (a) just because they say it isn't a hybrid, doesn't mean it isn't a hybrid. (b) it meets the industry definition of a PHEV. (c) in some modes there is a direct mechanical link from engine to wheels. So the recent additions along the lines of 'it isn't a hybrid cos GM say so' will be removed. We have plenty of independent refs that say otherwise. Greglocock (talk) 21:45, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I also thought the gas engine does not provide propulsion power - but after I read the GM documents linked in the thread before and in the "operating modes" section of the article, I changed my mind. Also, the Motortrend article clearly describes slightly different performance for gas/electric vs electric-only modes. --Edoe (talk) 23:05, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Emissions & language

I changed a sentence saying that charging the batteries "results" in greenhouse gas emissions at the power plant, to "accounts for". Before reverting that again, please explain here. Secondly please explain the value of sentences starting with "However, ..." or information that something is "nearly zero". Thanks --Edoe (talk) 13:45, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

"Results in..." is more clear and accurate than "accounts for..." Also, I restored the language stating that under certain conditions, eg when charged by photovoltaic panels or wind turbines, charging results in almost no ghg emissions. The emissions are "nearly" zero because there are some ghgs created during manufacture of the photovoltaic panels or wind turbines.
"Results in..." implies that the action of taking electricity causes the generator to work more. "accounts for..." implies that the generator has already done the work (or is doing a fixed amount of continuous work) and that the electricity is coming from a fixed reservoir. However, for the purpose of this article, I don't believe it makes a lot of difference either way.
"However" is useful for presenting both sides a story - ie NPOV. See the above paragraph. Another usage could be "electric vehicles do not produce any greenhouse gases, however, the manufacture of their batteries produces large amounts of greenhouse gases" - not necessarily true or false, just making an example sentence. To my mind the production of greenhouses should be separated in those made during normal usage by the consumer and those gases made during manufacturer. Both are important but it is misleading to imply that using an already made battery adds greenhouse gases and also misleading to gloss over whether the mass production of battery adds greenhouse gases.
"Near zero" is correct usage (assuming the facts are also true). It would be misleading to say that it is exactly zero but if the amount is truly minor then "nearly zero" is accurate enough for our purposes. However, it should be clearly pointed out which emissions are from the vehicle itself and which are shifted to the generating plant on behalf of the vehicle. It is meaningless to talk of the "CO2 output of a plug-in electric car" but it is quite meaningful to talk of CO2 generated on its behalf at the power generating plant and to compare that to CO2 generated directly by internal combustion vehicles. If the electricity was produced by solar, hydro, nuclear then it could be said that the total CO2 emissions are zero, but since some power plants still burn coal or fossil fuels, a number averaged across all power plants (in this case for the USA) is used.  Stepho  talk  23:34, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
The point is what is the marginal source of electricity? Solar and wind and nukes are base load, so additional electricity is supplied by working coal or gas fuelled stations harder- you can't turn a solar plant up! Therefore, unless the charger is totally isolated from the grid, the vast majority of electricity used to charge an EV is derived from fossil fuel, compared with the case where that EV is not being charged. Special pleading about the bloke you know who charges his EV from a bicycle powered generator or whatever doesn't affect the large majority who just plug in and bask in a shower of taxpayer funded subsidies. I would fully support a very hard eye being turned on this section, it is very easy to turn it into a greeny fantasy.Greglocock (talk) 01:23, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Did anyone mention a bicycle? Not sure if you're arguing against me or one of the others. The point is that power generation (ie at the power plant) has been decoupled from power application (ie at the car). For those that live near clean power plants the total CO2 produced on behalf of running the car is small. For the bulk of the USA the production of CO2 on behalf of running the car is larger than those lucky states (see, not ducking the issue). And over the years it may shift up or down. My comment above about 'a number averaged across all power plants (in this case for the USA) is used' seems to answer your question for those that want an actual number for the average case. I'm happy to mention CO2 emissions at the car (negligible) and C02 on behalf of the car (at the power plant). But since one is constant (the car) and the other depends on location and many other factors, I prefer the two contributing factors to be listed individually. That way nothing is hidden and any dependencies are made obvious.  Stepho  talk  02:07, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
This subject is complex and already explained at Wikipedia in the following articles: Plug-in electric vehicle#Air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, Plug-in hybrid#Greenhouse gas emissions, and Electric car#Air pollution and carbon emissions. Are we going to open this discussion for the pages of each individual PEV? I believe the official CO2 in EV mode, a mention that there are additional emissions at the power plant and depending on the fuel, and the link to any of these sections should be enough. And please, provide reliable sources for the specifics. Edoe changed the content based on his opinion given that he did not provide any RS to support his edit and neither removed the existing citation.--Mariordo (talk) 13:15, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
PS: Also I believe the discussion is muddled by the mixing of the carbon footprint with tailpipe emissions. The latter is what is relevant for motor vehicles, and in the particular case of EVs and PHEVs running on EV mode, the transfer of emissions upstream (which often include more than CO2) depending on the fuel. Besides the articles mentioned above, see also Zero-emissions vehicle, and a similar discussion to this one here and here.--Mariordo (talk) 15:10, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
The subject is explained at several places, correct, and there are many sides to it, correct. Then even more we should restrain from any public-relation (-style) language, and the text that was restored here: "Charging the Volt's batteries still results in some greenhouse gas emissions ... However, under most conditions CO2 output is less than other low emission vehicles and in the best case emissions are nearly zero" sounds very much like that. It doesn't help the Volt product, nor electromobility, and it spoils Wikipedias reputation. --Edoe (talk) 19:48, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Proposal

In order to move forward and close this discussion in a productive way, I propose we merge the content of the sections "4.3 Tailpipe emissions" with "7.4 Battery charging emissions." The latter is located under the "Controversies and criticism" main section, and 7.4 ended up located there when I reorganized the article for the GA review. However, if you check carefully the provided citations, all pieces are dated, written before the Volt was launched to the market: Edmunds 2007, Auto Express, 2008; IEEE, 2009. The 2007 piece refers to the concept car, the 2008 piece was made when not even the fuel economy of the Volt was known, and the 2009 piece estimations are not specific for the Volt. Therefore, there is no controversy here. Once the content supported from these sources is removed, the content left between 4.3 and 7.4 overlaps a bit, so I proposed to keep all the content in 4.3 to read as follows (the intro in supported by the articles in Main & see also, I can bring the RS if there is consensus in this text):

Tailpipe emissions
Main article: Greenhouse gas emissions in plug-in hybrids
See also: Air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions in plug-in electric vehicles

While operating in all-electric mode the Volt produces no tailpipe emissions. However, the clean air benefit is usually (often?) local because, depending on the source of the electricity used to recharge the batteries, air pollutant emissions are shifted to the location of the generation plants. The amount of carbon dioxide emitted depends on the emission intensity of the power source used to charge the vehicle. When the Volt's battery is depleted and the gasoline-powered engine kicks in, the plug-in emissions are similar to other internal combustion engine vehicles. The amount of total local emissions depends on how much the Volt is driven in all-electric mode and how much in charge-sustaining mode.

United States

EPA rating for the Volt's tailpipe emissions is 84 grams of carbon dioxide per mile, (52.5 CO2 g/km),[1][2] which puts the Volt ahead of the Toyota Prius in terms of low greenhouse emissions as measured at the tailpipe. CO2 emissions are produced by the internal combustion engine in extended-range mode, and only after the Volt's primary battery charge has been depleted. In the other air pollutants category, the Volt rates six out of ten, with ten being best.[2]

The California Air Resources Board (CARB) classified the Volt as Ultra Low Emission Vehicle (ULEV), as CARB tests do not account for the Volt electric range. With all tests conducted under conditions where the engine is running the CARB rated the Volt's carbon monoxide (CO) emissions at 1.3 g/mile (0.81 g/km), missing the limit for SULEV classification by 0.3 g/mile (0.19 g/km).[3]

Europe

The Ampera's official EU-approved UN ECE R101 carbon dioxide emission rating is 27g/km.[4]

Please comment below and feel free to copyedit and modify the proposal above.--Mariordo (talk) 07:07, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Support: Apart from minor grammar tweaks and wiki syntax tweaks, I support Mariordo's changes. It fulfils everything I'm interested in and points to other articles which explain the carbon footprint.  Stepho  talk  10:23, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Ok with me, the new text has a more factual tonality, and I trust you that the information is correct. --Edoe (talk) 13:43, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

NYT resource

to Reinforce Battery in Its Hybrid Car, the Volt by NICK BUNKLEY January 5, 2012 99.190.80.182 (talk) 06:41, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

This source and others dealing with this subject were used to update the section "Battery pack fire risk" (check out under "Battery enhancements" heading).--Mariordo (talk) 04:31, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

article structure

why are battery fires hidden away in 'reception' rather than controversies, or safety? Greglocock (talk) 23:15, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Moved Greglocock (talk) 03:36, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Split proposal

As of today the article is 183,758 bytes long. In addition, I think it will continue to grow once it is launched in Europe, plus new issues that might arise in the future, such as the NHTSA fire incident. Therefore, I would like to propose branching out the article. IMHO some of the sections that might become stand alone articles considering its existing content and notability are:

  • History of the Chevrolet Volt, moving there all the details of the development of the car
  • Chevrolet Volt powertrain. This is plenty of room to improve the content currently in the article.
  • A separate article for the Opel Ampera
  • 2011 NHTSA investigation of the Volt battery risk of fire
  • Controversies surrounding the Chevrolet Volt

This list is just an initial brainstorm, please pick one, or even better, propose a new one, and open a discussion below using the proposed title.--Mariordo (talk) 22:25, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposals

Note debate in section below about splitting. The Volt powertrain is already dealt with in the existing Voltec article so all the very detailed info regarding this could easily be removed to the main powertrain article. Warren (talk) 09:28, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Opel Ampera

KEEP
No consensus to split into an independent Opel Ampera article. Other proposals for branching out do not receive support. Warren (talk) has done a nice job in trimming the article. I suggest opening a separate discussion with specific new proposals for branching out.--Mariordo (talk) 00:41, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The Chevrolet Volt article is too long, so i´ve just took the Opel and Vauxhall parts out of to the Opel Ampera article.

It broke references.... -->Typ932 T·C 16:52, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
I reverted the bold split. The previous section opened the discussion for that option, so please seek consensus before splitting the article. Please state your opinion to support or oppose the split to a stand alone Opel Ampera (now a redirect) below.--Mariordo (talk) 17:20, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Support, due to article length and the Ampera notability, but Neutral Since both cars share the same powertrain I am concerned about content duplication among the two articles. So if consensus is reach for the proposed split, I think this discussion should provide guidelines as how to properly split both articles. I would like to hear suggestions from editors with experience with similar auto related splits.--Mariordo (talk) 18:14, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Support due to the article lenght -->Typ932 T·C 08:03, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Support, due to article length and i remember that I have read in a magazine that only the first generation of Chevrolet Volt and Opel Ampera are identical in order to save costs, but from the second generation they will be different similar to the Chevy Cruze and Opel Astra.
  • Oppose as per OSX, these are virtually the same car so having two articles is an unnecessary duplication of content. --Biker Biker (talk) 15:58, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose, as much as we all like to think that our local brand of GM is the main one, the Volt and its badge engineered relatives are the same vehicle no matter how good the GM marketing machine is. This includes the Vauxhall and Opel Ampera and the Holden and Chevrolet Volt. Which one takes precedence is of course an interesting debate! Any suggestion of second generation is a little premature as it isn't even on sale in most markets yet as the first generation! Warren (talk) 18:35, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
On detail reading of the article I find that there are several areas that a significant copy edit would make the article easier to read and reduce some of the microscopic detail that is perhaps a little too much for an encyclopaedia, and help deal with the concern the article is too long.Warren (talk) 08:56, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
As an example the phrase '111 kW' appears not once, not twice, not three times nor 4 times but 5 times in this article. The lede is also ridiculously long and repeats much of the article content. etc. It needs a lot of the silly detail about pricing etc removed. I suppose the concept car stuff could be pulled out but doubtless the anorak's will merely duplicate all of that back into the main article. Greglocock (talk) 09:35, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose: essencially they are the same car. --NaBUru38 (talk) 19:42, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Support, due to article length, and think of the VW up!, Skoda Citygo and Seat Mii, why are these articles actually not one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Terramon (talk • contribs) 17:54, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Support, article too lengthy, and agree with what Terramon said, VW up!, Skoda Citigo and Seat Mii articles are all seperate too. Also, the Opel Ampera has a WAY different body design and style. And oh, the Chevy Volt is sold in limited European markets, while Ampera is sold in all of Europe,... so really should be seperate.--Chacha15 (talk) 15:46, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
It is worth noting that the article is shorter now with a little copy edit than when it was temporarily split. If a few editors had a look at the pricing and sales figures section (it's monthly at the moment for goodness sake), and removed the table of road tests (and use inline refs for anything specifically interesting or notable) the article would be in much better shape! The Opel's exterior design is far from "way different"; it's just changes to the front and rear fascias. Warren (talk) 16:37, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Monthly sales?

Does this article really need a month-by-month sales record? Seems rather over the top and contributing to an overly long article. The duplication of prices in the prose and in table form also makes for a potential reduction in article length. Warren (talk) 21:59, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, yes, for the reading impaired and for those wishing to see sales progress at a glance instead of wading through a lot of text. Perhaps the text should only quickly summarize the monthly sales chart data. I'm taking the liberty of reinstating the chart as I believe many others also wish to glance at the figures every month. Best: HarryZilber (talk) 23:24, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
This is an encyclopedia and monthly sales is somewhat finite detail... Surely the key events are all that are required here? Warren (talk) 11:10, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Fully agree. This is an encyclopaedia and month-by-month sales figures are unnecessary detail. --Biker Biker (talk) 12:26, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Yearly figures for key markets is sufficient enough. OSX (talk • contributions) 03:58, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
I also agree that monthly sales, now that the Volt has been in the market more than a year, is too much. Since there is consensus, I will proceed to convert the monthly sales to annual totals including YTD. Also since the Volt is the most sold PHEV in the world, I will restore the short sentence with cumulative sales in the US and Canada through Dec 2011.--Mariordo (talk) 00:47, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

photo caption non-reference

In regard to the photo caption: "Chevrolet Volt after being subjected to the NCAP pole test on May 12, 2011 at the MGA test facility." What is "NCAP" or "MGA"? 17:39, 7 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Too Old (talk • contribs)

NCAP is now linked to [[NHTSA NCAP]. MGA is shorthand for MGA Research - a company that is contracted to do some of the testing for NCAP. I have altered the article to reflect this.  Stepho  talk  21:51, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Production and sales - United States

In the article, it is said "[d]eliveries in Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Washington were expected for the third quarter of 2011". I tried to update it since it is now 2012. Unfortunately, I failed to find any reports about when the actual deliveries in those states started. I hope it can be a bit more up-to-date. Thanks.---Now wiki (talk) 19:41, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced outrage

Why do you have to wait until the very end of the article to find out that it only takes you a mere 26 years to recover the added cost of buying this lemon. Is this an unpaid Chevy ad for a car they can't sell on it's own merits? Also, why should taxpayers subsidize purchase of this lemon to the tune of a $7500 Tax Credit? This is an outrage! The-Expose-inator (talk) 21:48, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh come on, how many people with actual money in their pockets will ever look at wiki in order to decide which car to buy? This article is written by, and for, anoraks. Well, one anorak in particular, pretty much. Greglocock (talk) 22:12, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Wow Greg, that's just hurtful. I take it then that you consider yourself wikipedia's annointed Anorak hunter? From what I can see the article is for the most part quite factual and encylopedic albeit a bit convoluted despite various editorial efforts (no comment to the weak politcal rantings of the Expose-inator )WopOnTour (talk) 20:58, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

@The-Expose-inator, quit your complaining. The Volt is a fine car, it is by no means a 'lemon'. Buy the car used, maybe 10 years from now and then the cost goes way down. Replacement battery packs will most likely be cheaper by then too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.76.47.120 (talk) 19:07, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Lede

Looking for a concensus to remove the entire 3rd paragraph from the lede. ALL of these items are covered in detail elsewhere in the article WopOnTour (talk) 05:09, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

The lede is /supposed/ to summarise the article. As such /everything/ in the lede is supposed to be discussed in more detail in the article. quote from MoS "Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article." However I agree, the special abilities badges and so on are probably of interest only to anoraks and the thousands of prospective $40000 car buyers that use wiki to help decide which car to buy. Greglocock (talk) 05:49, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with the proposal to trim the 3rd paragraph from the lead. Notable/significant facts should be summarized in the lead, and the Volt/Ampera has won all important awards in the auto industry. Also, and as per NPOV, criticism and controversy has been significant, particularly regarding the fires during testing (I already added the requested citations, actually, this was already supported by reliable sources in the "Controversies and criticism" section, but I expanded with more recent sources).
Furthermore, during the GA process, the content of the lead was an important issue for the reviewer. Check here under the heading LEAD for the discussion about having citations or not in the lead, and "Remaining issues - LEAD", where the reviewer complained that the "Controversies and criticism" was a rather large portion of the article to seemingly be omitted from the LEAD. Follow this thread to see why this paragraph is too short to my taste, particularly when discussion controversial issues and trying to keep NPOV.--Mariordo (talk) 03:02, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
The anorak has spoken. I'm sorry the battery fire thing is no longer interesting, or notable. Various organisations screwed up a bit (not much but enough) and they fixed the screwups. If, down the track, Volts start exploding in flames in large numbers then it may be notable again. Given the low sales numbers that seems unlikely. As for the special achievement badges, well, if it makes your silly counter-science project seem better, that's nice dear. Greglocock (talk) 03:23, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Gregloccok, I know you are an experienced editor, so would you be so kind to avoide incivility and personal attacks, there is no need to make personal remarks about editors or be agresive, just comment on content, not on the contributor. And please re-check notability, which is not temporary: once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage. Let's try to focus on the discussion at hand. Do you have anything to say about the GA reviewer recommendations for the lead?--Mariordo (talk) 04:01, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes, as I said, the fires aren't interesting or notable /NOW/ and the elephant stamps never were and aren't now either. It is ludicrous to imagine that a pair of anoraks can decide what goes into the lede and once it is in it stays there for ever more. Personally, I don't really mind how stupid this article looks, and if you want to stuff every single positive statement ever made about the car even by people who have never driven it into the lede, that is your privilege. But if I am asked to comment, then I shall. And I was. So I have. Incidententally using GA status as a way of suppressing change is the most ridiculous abuse of wiki procedures I have seen in a long time.Greglocock (talk) 04:36, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
OK After reading the lede over a couple times I guess I'm fine with it. Greg, the notable mention of the NHTSA fires is still in the lede, so I don't know what your complaint is. I can Assure you I have logged near 10,000 miles either driving the Volt, or sitting in the passenger seat collecting data.Since its recently been announced that 49 dealers in Austrailia will soon be selling the Volt, we'll leave it up to you to add that to the article.Maybe take one for a drive... WopOnTour (talk) 17:16, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Again I am concerned with the lede but this time it's the first paragraph. Are we trying to do too much by outlining world-wide sales numbers here? It's so messy and kludgy. The lede shouldnt have to be something that needs extensive updating every month, those numbers are outlined elsewhere in the article. WopOnTour (talk) 05:54, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
I've revised the lede to remove country by country sales information (deferring that to the table within the wiki) and thus simplifiying the lede making it more introductory and readable IMO. Let me know what you think WopOnTour (talk) 20:14, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Looks fine to me. I did some copyedit, but please make any further adjustments you might think are appropriate.--Mariordo (talk) 03:18, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Operating cost and payback period

This section of the article apparently references a 2011 Consumer Reports article on the Volt. However I see no link to any references that would permit the reader to access and if neccessary read and interpret the details of this report. So to me, unless someone can locate this article, and provide references, these statements are essentially unreferenced and could be removed.WopOnTour (talk) 05:33, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

The whole paragraph is supported by citation No. 89 (located at the end of the para), which directs here: http://news.consumerreports.org/cars/2011/12/leaf-volt-tests-show-electric-cars-cost-less-per-mile-to-operate.html. I think your complaint is unfounded.--Mariordo (talk) 14:41, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

How about mentioning that there are online tools, such as this: http://www.digifixpix.com/volt/volt_calc.asp that allow users to customize the TCO to their specific? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1998:2103:1A00:558E:37D9:67AB:79C1 (talk) 19:51, 20 August 2012 (UTC) Or this: http://www.kiplinger.com/tools/hybrid_calculator or this http://www.yourmoneypage.com/auto/hybrid_comp.php — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.235.115.167 (talk) 20:03, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I am concerned that this article has turned into a consumer report - including far too much detail about prices in every single market, down to year-by-year pricing for US! I feel that the article has lost perspective, and needs a third party editor to get back to the key topics. I attempted a consolidation edit a few months back which seemed to help, but the minutiae of detail has come back again like a rash. Veering into WP:NOTHOW and WP:NOPRICES amongst others. Warren (talk) 00:20, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
I agree that more info about prices would be too much. However, the merit of having content related to pricing (as it is today) is due to the high premium price of the Volt and plug-in electric cars in general due to the cost of the battery pack. The relevance/notability of the pricing info can be checked just by googling, every specialized magazine and news auto section deals with the subject. Finally, I do not think that more pricing content was added after the trimming you did.--Mariordo (talk) 00:41, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
I would argue that listing particular reviews and their conclusions on the costs is misleading, considering how much they depend on the particular usage of the car. Arguably the reviews are biased and the TCO is considerably lower over a period of time, reaching parity with other cars much sooner. It is more useful to point the reader to resources that would make the determination based on various criteria including their own. Teach them how to fish... :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.235.115.167 (talk) 15:06, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
On what basis do you say the reviews are biased? Where do you get your better values of TCO? That which is presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence, it is mere waffle. Obviously the sweet spot for TCO comparison with a 4 seater conventional car is 35 miles of electric drive per day. So it comes down to whether the higher maintenance costs and electricity price and cost of capital vs the cost of around 1 gallon of fuel. Sadly at that usage a Leaf will kill you economically speaking. So there are four very easy points on the graph: 0 miles per day, 35 miles per day, 70 miles per day, 1000 miles per day. The biggies are going to be battery replacement costs and resale value, neither of which YOU have any any means to predict better than anybody else. Greglocock (talk) 23:53, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Greg, I do not beleieve he meant biased as much as simply unbalanced. This section has been up until now heavily weighted towards an unfavorable "payback" period for the Volt based on recent articles witten based on data from Edmunds and TrueCar. However much of the flawed premise behind these articles has since been exposed and much debunked for the most part.WITHOUT touching that material, I have attempted to add additional NPOV balance to this section with my edits today. Let me know what you think. WopOnTour (talk) 04:23, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe this section is making an apples to apples comparison in the first place and I think that should be pointed out. Regarding the Volt vs. the Cruze, the Volt has better performance characteristics (e.g. off the line torque), better handling, more standard features, and a quantifiably nicer interior. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.167.2.53 (talk) 13:48, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Plans for a more efficient generator/prime mover?

The 2013 Volt still has the OTTO cycle engine that is also found in the Chevy Cruze/Sonic (without the turbo), when will they upgrade the engine to an Atkinson or HCCI engine? This will be necessary in order for it to approach Prius like MPG on long highway trips.

So far as I can tell the Volt's mission was two fold (a) low running cost, high mpge, lowish emissions when running a typical daily commute, and (b) unlimited range without recharging. I may have that wrong, but if that is right then a diesel or whatever has little impact on either of those, and in a vehicle where cost and weight were blowing out beyond the initial targets (well OK that happens in all car programs, but I suspect that nobody is wildly happy with X tons and Y dollars as it turned out) the prospect of fitting a more expensive powertrain with a lower power to weight ratio would have been a hard one to sell. Greglocock (talk) 04:34, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Reuters production costs analysis

Sorry, you can't add the development and tooling cost per vehicle to the marginal cost, to decide whether they are making a loss on each vehicle. That is stupid arithmetic that was outmoded in the 19th century. Dev and tooling is sunk cost. Greglocock (talk) 05:12, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

You may disagree with the experts at Reuters but the content is in my opinion worthy of inclusion, as it is about an analysis from a respected financial source, also cited by the Wall Street Journal; a Google search for the terms "Chevrolet Volt $49,000" yields more than 50,000 results. For the time being I have restored the contents and requested a third opinion at WP:3 --Itemirus (talk) 06:17, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Greg that Reuter's figures are totally screwed. Tooling and development are amortised over the product life cycle, not the first one or two years. However, Reuters is a source that many people trust. If Reuters puts out such a blatantly stupid statement then it makes sense for us to present both the statement and it's refutation. Itemirus addition seems to do exactly that.  Stepho  talk  11:28, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
That's exactly what I was saying - I tried to write the paragraph from a neutral point of view, by reporting both Reuters' analysis and GM's refutation thenceforth. Thanks Stepho. --Itemirus (talk) 12:40, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
I cleaned up the language a bit in this recent edit on the Reuters OP-ED piece for improved NPOV. One should always avoid the use of flowerery language such as "staggering" ($$$ losses) and "utter" (failure) unless they were being directly quoted from the article (and stated as such). Bob Lutz has also attempted to debunk much of the reuters piece in a recent rebuttal article in Forbes, but I didnt bother to add it to the article as IMO there is already sufficent "balance" in GMs official response. WopOnTour (talk) 16:19, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks WopOnTour - English is not my mother language; sometimes I overlook these subtle details...--Itemirus (talk) 16:58, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

3O Request: Hello! This is a response to the third opinion request from an uninvolved editor. My role is to assist in resolving the dispute. The third opinion process is informal and nonbinding. It looks like the dispute has resolved itself. My thoughts echo that of everyone else's. Reuters might be grossly wrong, but it's also respected news agency that is widely trusted and read, so its claims should be addressed, just not presented unquestionably as a fact. The correct response, as Stepho has mentioned, is to balance the section with a cited refutation that points out the errors of the original Reuters ' analysis.--SGCM (talk) 22:35, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Greglocock and Stepho-wrs are absolutely right, this is a biased financial analysis based on flawed assumptions. Here is the link to Bob Lutz piece in Forbes with a crystal clear debunking. The notability this controversy gained is not in question, and as such I agree that it should be included in the article. But since the Reuters piece is clearly original research by the "article" authors (they are not reporting they are producing the news, and being repeated without fact checking by many news outlets), and considering that the conclusions are so out of reality as the claim that the Hummer was greener than the Prius, I have doubts about the NPOV of the paragraph as it reads today (depite the good ce by WopOnTour). Any suggestions to further improve this edit?--Mariordo (talk) 23:54, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps the Forbes article should be mentioned in the article? Forbes is also considered a reliable and respected source. What other sources have addressed the claims made by the Reuters article?--SGCM (talk) 01:00, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Found another source by CS Monitor, which mentions the Lutz piece, but also presents its own arguments against the Reuters article: "And as we pointed out yesterday, Toyota's Prius has already set a precedent for disruptive technology in the same way the Volt is doing today--and Toyota has churned out over four million hybrids in the last decade or so.".--SGCM (talk) 01:12, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Here's another recent piece at CNBC that further debunks the math and rationale used in the Reuters "article"** http://www.cnbc.com/id/48974022 Perhaps it should be added to the article? i.e. that the "cost per Volt" needs to me amortized throughout its entire model life-cycle AND the developmental investment to be shared across the Volt variants that are currently being sold in Canada, Europe (Ampera) and down-under.(the "numbers" used were USA only) Then there's future generations of the Volt as well as those on other upcoming platforms (such as the upcoming Cadillac ELR) that also must be weighted into the developmental costs of the Voltec powertrain. It also appears that the data presented by Reuters IS NOT merely a reporting of news but instead they are now sacrificing their own journalistic integrity by CREATING news. ** IMHO it could even be argued that the Reuters piece is actually more "original research" than it is merely "reporting" of factual data. I do not beleive it to be even newsworthy, but merely a politically motivated smear. (tis the saeason) They didnt even bother to expose their so-called "industry analysts" that apparently don't even know how the automotive manufacturing industry calculates such metrics... WopOnTour (talk) 02:12, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Maybe it's time for a "Hatchet Jobs Against the Volt" section, describing attempts to discredit the car. The Reuters piece could be at the core of the section. Ebikeguy (talk) 03:36, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Then there's this little tidbit- http://thomsonreuters.com/content/press_room/science/657646 Our 3rd party reviewer states that Reuters is a "respected news agency that is widely trusted and read" but is that true? or is it necessarily always going to be the case?? WopOnTour (talk) 04:33, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Reuters is a reliable source. But it has also been involved in controversies, including those involving fact checking, which is the case with many sources considered reliable (the New York Times being another example). The proper response is to counter the claims made by one source, with other sources that are considered reliable that challenge its claims (including the Forbes, CS Monitor, and CNBC articles previously mention). I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here, as I'm essentially agreeing with you that the section should be balanced with sources critical of the Reuters article. Implying that this is a case of Saudi Arabian conspiracy, and not just shoddy journalism, now that would be original research. ;) --SGCM (talk) 05:16, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
@Ebikeguy. It would be best to mention the controversy surrounding the article, including the criticism of the piece, but I don't think an entire section should be devoted to it. Otherwise, it qualifies as WP:RECENTISM. Devoting an entire section to the Reuters article would only serve to highlight its claims.--SGCM (talk) 05:24, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

For completeness I shall add that the article published on Reuters only in part qualifies as original research as it is based on data and analysis provided them by Munro & Associates --Itemirus (talk) 08:36, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how many clowns there are at the circus they are still clowns. The problem with the reuters article is not that it is OR, it is that it is blatantly stupid and wrong. The ongoing profitability of building a car is not affected by the sunk costs. End of story. Greglocock (talk) 10:25, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
I don't see why you take it so to heart Greglocock - The Reuters' analysis may be flawed, nonetheless:
  1. It is published from a reliable and respectable source
  2. Has been cited by many other respectable sources such as Forbes and the WSJ
  3. Has prompted a reply from GM executives
These three reasons are more than enough to make it worthy of inclusion. What if tomorrow President Obama declares he loves the Volt and that it is the most revolutionary car of the decade? Or declares it is a waste of resources? You wouldn't mention it in the article, just because you disagree with him? --Itemirus (talk) 11:18, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
It doesn't belong in an encyclopedia because it is wrong. What is so hard to understand about that attitude? It is not arguable, not a matter of opinion, but wrong. 2+2=5 wrong. Should we include impeccably sourced nonsense from the Flat Earth society in the Planet Earth page? No. I argue just as heavily against nonsense that is in favour of the Volt, of which there is a great deal.Greglocock (talk) 01:30, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Your point is not hard to understand; it is simply wrong. One of the core principals of Wikipedia is that verifiability, not truth is the threshold for inclusion. If Time Magazine published an article arguing that 2+2=5, then references to that article would be acceptable. This is a frequently frustrating, but ultimately unavoidable aspect of editing here. Ebikeguy (talk) 02:18, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Greg. Thankfully we all agree that the Reuters article is stupid and blatantly wrong. If a 2-bit blog said something like that then the correct thing to do is ignore it. But when a trusted, influential and widely-read organisation like Reuters says something as stupid and wrong as that then we need to address it in some form. Otherwise people will say that trustworthy Reuters says X but the notoriously unreliable Wikipedia says Y, therefore most people will follow Reuters. By mentioning it and showing references to opposing arguments we defuse the situation.  Stepho  talk  04:35, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
I agree that is the wiki way to handle it. Itemirus asked me why I was opposed to including it, so I explained why. Greglocock (talk) 05:24, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Okay, no problem.  Stepho  talk  06:31, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I unfortunately can't properly edit the article right this minute, but I find this paragraph's actual prose to be rather non-WP:NPOV. The "GM declined to comment..." bit is a little absurd, for example - it provides no information at all except to cast doubt onto GM. I would also mention that NPOV is not necessarily about presenting a balance between two "sides" (as in Reuters / GM) the way the paragraph does now (especially since there's more than just GM on the other "side"). In this case, I think the article should present things more along the lines of: "...Reuters calculated that each GM had lost $49,000 on Volt sold up to September 2012..... Various other sources, including GM, pointed out that Reuters did not amortize sunk costs over all the Volts (and international brandings of the Volt) produced... GM anticipated the investment costs would benefit future products as well...." (This is obviously not complete, but something like this would be better.)

(As an aside, I also find it odd that the section is illustrated with an image of Obama in the car? The Production and Sales -> United States section may be more appropriate.) —AySz88\^-^ 21:44, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I already removed the OR and non-NPOV edit. As for AySz88 proposal, I support adding content along the lines proposed, such content will make the paragraph more balanced, it is certainty not just GM against Reuters. Anyone want to give it a try? There is plenty of reliable sources supporting GM rebuttal (the ones cited above are more than enough)--Mariordo (talk) 21:54, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of 10000 dollar discounts

I don't agree with the reasoning behind this deletion. So far as I am aware manufacturers do their best to hide deep discounting, not publicise it. This particular occurrence is newsworthy and reported in RS. Greglocock (talk) 03:05, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Why keep all the other USA Today refs, yet label this one as unsuitable? Ebikeguy (talk) 03:20, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
While what you are saying can sometimes be true Greg, it's not in this case. $7500 of this supposed "discount" is actually the U.S.A. Federal tax rebatre offered for ALL electric vehicles which is already cited numerous times in the wiki.So if someone wishes to add a "Current Dealer Incentives" section to the wiki feel free.The current incentives are for all remaining 2012 models called PMA (Past Model Allowance) that can be up to $2500 depending on the MSRP which the Volt being quite expensive qualifies for. There's numerous press releases directly from GM on these that can be used for citations. They certainly don't hide it, as there's no reason to do so. See your dealer for more info ;) WopOnTour (talk) 14:55, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Oh, fair enough if that headline figure bundles the tax payer funding in as well. No probs.Greglocock (talk) 01:37, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Out of Date on "most fuel-efficient car"?

Introductory Paragraph 2 opens with: "The Volt is the most fuel-efficient compact car with a gasoline engine sold in the United States, as rated by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)". Well according to this EPA comparison, the Volt gets 98 mpge in pure electric mode, 35/40/37 in city, highway, and combined with the gas engine providing power. Meanwhile the Ford C-Max Energi and Ford Fusion Energi each get 100 mpge in electric mode, and 44/41/43 in city/highway/combined gas mode. Also, the Prius Plug-in gets 95 mpge in electric mode, but 50/49/51 in city/highway/combined in gas mode.

No doubt when the Volt was introduced, before the plug-in Ford and Prius products came out, the claim to "most fuel-efficient" was true; but it now appears to be obsolete, and the article would need tear-up and cleanup: there may be a lot of other outdated information. But before we go deleting stuff, would like to see the consensus of those responsible for posting it. Thanks. --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 14:03, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Good question. The reference from EPA supporting it "is the most fuel-efficient compact car with a gasoline engine sold in the United States" is still the same (check here - and pick the tab EPA rated all years: Fueleconomy.gov's Top Ten EPA-Rated Fuel Sippers (1984 to present)). The problem is you are doing the wrong comparison because those high values of MPG-e (98 or 100) correspond to the fuel efficiency only when operating in all-electric mode. The 2011 Volt got a higher rating in combined operation electric-gasoline of 61 MPGe (as referenced in the article - see here) and 62 MPGe for the 2013 model because it has a larger battery pack than the C-Max and the other PHEVs. The same page shows the Prius PHV with 56 MPGe (smaller battery) ranking as second. Note that the EPA page is showing the 2013 model year Volt, so the page is not dated. I hope this solves your doubts.--Mariordo (talk) 15:48, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
PD: Here I found the combined gas/electric ratings for the C-Max/Fusion Energi, is 58 MPGe just like the Prius PHV, confirming the Volt is still leading the fuel efficiency ranking.--Mariordo (talk) 16:09, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
OK - so just why do those numbers and claims not jibe with the side by side comparison from the very same source in the link I provided above? Has this been observed before with the EPA? --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 02:09, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Because in that comparison the rating for combined gasoline/electric is NOT shown (this is the average in terms of energy between hybrid and all-electric modes, that is why the larger Volt battery makes the difference), the links I provided do. The top part of the table shows MPGe for all-electric for which the C-Max Energi and Fusion Energi are the top performers, as the C-max article explains. The bottom part is MPG when the gasoline engine is providing propulsion. Here you have to consider that the Volt is a series PHEV, while the others are parallel- series PHEVs. Check the table with MPGe ratings in the plug-in electric vehicle that shows EPA notes on each car. ---Mariordo (talk) 02:27, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
OK so the EPA used and published two different calculation methods on estimated fuel efficiency, correct? So why does one EPA calculated estimate take precedence over the other? Who decided which is more important? Was there a consensus !vote? If the EPA published two contradictory sets of EPA mpg figures, who arbitrated for the WP? Understand, I am just trying to understand why the figures I found at the EPA's fueleconomy.gov site, which is commonly used by The Public to compare vehicles, are considered irrelevant for the purposes of claimed fuel efficiency, and comparison to other similar vehicles, when they appear to be equally authoritative. Why do one set of figures get used in WP, and the other set get ignored? Thanks --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 01:49, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
No, you are not correct. The article miles per gallon of gasoline equivalent explains how the EPA came up with this unit (they did focus groups to determine which units were more understandable to common citizens). The Monroney label does not shows all three to avoid confusion. One last try, though not strictly correct: MPGe combined gasoline/electric = Average (electric mode and hybrid mode) in terms of energy consumption. If you check all the PHEV articles of these vehicles, the three average fuel economy are mentioned. Sorry I couldn't explained it better to you. Perhaps someone else want to jump into the discussion and provide a simpler explanation.--Mariordo (talk) 03:54, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
OK my question is specific and, I thought, very simple. The article makes the bold and brash claim in the introduction that "As of February 2013, the Volt is the most fuel-efficient car with a gasoline engine sold in the United States, as rated by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).". But the EPA's web site here shows at least three vehicles that get higher fuel efficiency ratings than the Volt, based on at least one of the very common metrics published, used for comparing fuel efficiency between automobiles. For example, in gasoline/hybrid mode (once the high voltage battery is mostly depleted in cases where, for example, a recharge was unavailable), the Volt gets 37 mpg combined highway and city, while the C-Max and Fusion Energi get 43 mpg (same method), and the much smaller Prius Plug-In gets 50 mpg (ditto). Not trying to be a !dick about it, but those numbers are higher, and those figures appear to belie the major claim in the article's intro. I understand the writer was referring to another specialized EPA fuel efficiency metric that involves averaging stuff. I suggest that something needs to be done to clarify it. Perhaps the statement needs to be clarified to say something to the effect that it is higher using "Method A" (with a fully charged battery for XX miles), while "Method B" (with a mostly depleted battery such that the engine is running) shows other vehicles get higher ratings in FUEL efficiency. Otherwise I must suggest that the article's claim could be considered biased to the Volt, if not false and misleading. I have three times produced a very reliable source that proves that something is very wrong with the claim. Understand, I am attempting to protect the integrity of the Wikipedia here, not trying to be a !dick about it, and have no interest in wheel wars - in fact, I am hoping to prevent one. Side Note - I remember when the Volt first was introduced, that Chevy claimed it could get like 235 mpg or something. That was estimated using a made-up method where the vehicle was driven in EV mode until the battery was essentially depleted, and the gas engine came on for a few seconds, and then that was the end of the test. A thimble of gasoline for XX miles. The problem was, once the gas engine was running, it only got about 35 mpg, less than some comparable cars, apparently due to the weight of the electric battery and motor. Well, the EPA came back and said NOOOO, do the test this other way, and the results are shown and on the Window Sticker. So, again, we have a problem with how the article is written. Thanks again. --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 10:41, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
I give this a go. Image you had a car that had a battery that would power it for 100 miles. For most people this is enough for daily use with a nightly recharge. But for the yearly 200 mile trip to the beach house it has a small gasoline engine that happens to be pretty inefficient - after all, why bother spending development money on it if it only gets used once a year, twice if you count the return trip. So for 363 days a year it uses no petrol and for 2 days a year it performs poorly. How should it be rated in mpg? The Chevy method is obviously wrong. The EPA has two methods:
EPA method #1 is to say that the average power station requires XX gallons of oil to generate WWW kW, allow for some transmission losses to get the electricity's equivalent mpg. The car is in pure EV mode for say 99% of the time and gasoline mode for say 1% of the time. So they combine them as ( 0.99 x elec-mpg ) + ( 0.01 x gasoline-mpg ). The 99%/1% changes per car depending on how much time it spends in pure EV mode (bigger battery) and how much time it spends using gasoline (smaller battery) but they're pretty good at figuring out the typical usage figures.
EPA method #2 is to ignore the pure EV mode altogether and only record the gasoline engine's mpg. This is the method used in the link T-dot gave. The downside to this method is that it records the figures for a mode that car is very rarely in - who buys a Volt and then drives it purely of gasoline? Also notice the yellow disclaimer boxes in your link that says "Not comparable to EPA fuel economy because these estimates do not include electricity use."
So the selection of which EPA rating to use comes down to 1) real world driving patterns using a calculation based on average power stations or 2) a rating that uses unrealistic driving patterns (pure gasoline).
Cars with large batteries and not so efficient gasoline engines will of course advertise EPA method #1. Cars with small batteries but more efficient gasoline engines will of course advertise EPA method #2. Method #1 represents real world driving and more closely represents the total energy costs, which is why we use that method here.  Stepho  talk  14:58, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
About the yellow disclaimer box: Look again. That disclaimer ONLY applies to the "Unofficial MPG Estimates from Vehicle Owners". The EPA figures use a formula to essentially add the electricity used to charge the battery, as from coal or a gasoline equivalent. --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 01:23, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
There is NOTHING unrealistic about the so-called gasoline only (actually hybrid) mode! After 20 or so miles, depending on the battery capacity, the battery is depleted. Then you are in gas-hybrid mode. This happens all the time in these cars. It especially happens when the car is not plugged in between trips. --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 01:26, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with advertising. It has everything to do with EPA RATINGS QUOTATIONS. There are different EPA ratings, depending on the assumptions on these hybrid-electric gas cars. The article ignores more than half the EPA scenarios, and is therefore providing an incomplete picture and makes false claims. Apparently it is up to certain editors to decide which EPA ratings are suitable for the article? Really? They are qualified to override the EPA ratings based on what? Is this not pure Original Research? I am absolutely appalled and astounded that nobody can see this! --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 01:31, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
T-dot. We are patiently trying to explain that you are 100% wrong. For five minutes assume you are wrong, first read this explanation by EPA about why MPG-e was used for BEVs and PHEVs. Then read the Volt's article section about fuel economy here (it seems you are not reading the info we cued before such as the MPG-e article, which has the formulas and I understand you are an engineer). After doing your homework use some real data into Stepho's explanation (and please, these are NOT different methods, the ratings are measuring different things). If I remember correctly EPA assumed the Volt's owners would drive around 60% of the time in all-electric mode (they actually, as referenced in the article, are driving more than 60% of their mileage in EV mode), so the assumption was probed to be very conservative. This means the remaing 40% of the miles are driven in gasoline hybrid mode at 37 mpg, while 60% is driven in EV mode at 94 MPG-e, resulting in an average of 62 MPG-e for the 2013 model year model. This average is not just the weighted 60/40 average, you have to do first the energy conversion using the formula presented in the MPG-e article. Nevertheless, the average combined EV/hybrid gasoline city/highway is going to be above 37 and below 94 (62 according to EPA, do your math if you do not trust EPA). Now, if the two Energi's just have an electric range of 21 miles, unless your daily commute is too short, you are going to drive in EV mode much less than the Volt (that is why battery size matters), and most of the time in gasoline hybrid at 45 mpg. Therefore, you will have something like 20-25% of the time at 100 MPG-e and 75-80% at 45 mpg, and you get 54 MPG-e in combined EV/gasoline hybrid city/highway according to EPA, lower than the Volt because you are driving mainly by gasoline power. Actually, in EV mode, as the C-Max article states, the C-Max Energi is the most fuel efficient PHEV in electric only mode, but this is good for the driver only if his travel distances between charges are short enough to fit the 21 mi range. As for the Prius PHV, the real EV range is too short, so the PiP is most of the time working as a series-parallel hybrid, therefore, its combined EV/hybrid fuel economy of 54 MPG-e is just slightly above its hybrid ratings of 50 mpg. As you can see, there are many driving scenarios, and EPA used the average user scenario, there are NO different methods as you incorrectly are reading EPA readings. The section I pointed about fuel economy of the Volt talks about these scenarios, which EPA initially intended to include in the Monroney lables, but it is confusing for the average Joe, so it went for just pointing the EV rating and the gasoline hybrid rating.--Mariordo (talk) 03:31, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
OK well, clearly I'm not getting any traction here, and therefore some EPA-authorized estimates on comparative fuel economies between Volt and other plug-in hybrids shall be dismissed and ignored by the consensus. I am OK with that, as long as the consensus owns up to it. You are correct to point out that I am an engineer, and I am very intimately aware of all these scenarios and assumptions. I am simply pointing out a gaping hole in the logic in the article - it is incomplete and can be misleading. My recommendation is to modify the claim that the "Volt is the most fuel-efficient car with a gasoline engine sold in the United States" to include the specific assumptions going into the claim - it is based on a fully charged vehicle traveling "x" distance under "y" circumstances. In other situations, for example once the battery has reached minimum charge, going down the highway beyond the "EV/Battery only" range, with the gasoline engines providing power, other vehicles happen to be more fuel efficient than the Volt. I am simply pointing out that there are other scenarios where the Volt is NOT "the most fuel-efficient car with a gasoline engine sold in the United States". And that the EPA pointed that out clearly. If the consensus is to ignore those facts, then fine. Carry on. Thanks for your attention. --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 13:55, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 May 2014

This is wrong: "The Chevrolet Volt is a plug-in hybrid electric vehicle manufactured by General Motors" It should state: "The Chevrolet Volt is an electric vehicle with gasoline powered range-extending capability manufactured by General Motors"

The volt is a 40 miles range fully electric car with a backup gasoline engine to extend the range. It is wrong to call it an plug-in hybrid.

See- http://www.chevrolet.com/volt-electric-car/faq.html "Q. What is Volt? A. Volt is the everyday electric car, with gas for longer trips."

"Q. Is the Volt an electric car or a hybrid? A. Volt is an electric vehicle with gasoline powered range-extending capability."

Please correct the page to state the volt is an electric car.

Thank you. NWIFTW (talk) 01:27, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

The "Terminology" section makes clear that series plug-in hybrid is the correct technical term as defined by SAE (most of the time as explained by the article, in special situations the gasoline-powered engine engages to work in parallel with the electric motor). Also clarifies that General Motors calls it a EREV. Read carefully the definitions. The U.S. EPA classifies the Volt as a plug-in hybrid, see here, and even CARB classifies the BMW i with REx as a plug-in hybrid, see here. Of course, EREVs are a type of plug-in hybrid. If SAE changes its definition and defines three types of plug-in electric vehicles, BEVs, PHEVs and EREVs, then the definition must be changed. Until then, the definitions in the article are correct and supported by reliable sources.--Mariordo (talk) 02:02, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

NOT a Hybrid

Totally is a hybrid and GM admitted that there is a direct gear link front the gas engine to the wheels. http://www.engadget.com/2010/10/11/shocker-chevy-says-volts-gas-engine-can-power-the-wheels-its/ The rest of this "NOT a Hybrid" rant is a complete waste of time to read. Personally I think that any automobile with a gasoline engine in it is not an electric car. Evan if there was no direct link (as GM first told the public and made everyone believe), calling it an electric car and not a hybrid is disingenuous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.0.180.75 (talk) 19:58, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

The first sentence of this article says

"The Chevrolet Volt is a plug-in hybrid electric vehicle"

The problem with this, is the Volt, is NOT a Hybrid. It is a fully Electric motor vehicle. It simply has a gas-powered electric generator included in it to charge the electric batteries.

A Hybrid uses both Electric Motor and Gasoline Motor to motivate the tires, depending on if the electric batteries are charged or not; and when in gasoline mode it also charges the electic batteties. An Electriv Vehicle only uses the Electric motor motivate the tires, then needs some alternative means to charge the batteries. This can come in the form of hookup to an electrical outlet or charging station, or to an electric generator usually driven by gasoline, diesel or propane. The Chevy Volt happens to use a gasoline motor that serves soley as an electric generator for re-charging the batteries, which it can do on the fly. The gasoline-generator motor does not motivate the powertain/drivettrain/tires; only the electic motor does so in the Volt.

A Plug-In Hybrid is a regular hybrid (as described above with both fuel and electic motors sending power to the powertrain) but which is also able to plug in the electic batteries to a wall outlef or charging station.

This article's first sentence (and the hybrid footnote [2] caption in the upper right margine) should be amended.

You should also reference your own footnote #2 which tells you it is not a hybrid.

http://papers.sae.org/2011-01-0887/

"The Chevrolet Volt is an electric vehicle (EV) that operates exclusively on battery power as long as useful energy is available in the battery pack under normal conditions. After the battery is depleted of available energy, extended-range (ER) driving uses fuel energy in an internal combustion engine (ICE), an on-board generator, and a large electric driving motor. This extended-range electric vehicle (EREV) utilizes electric energy in an automobile more effectively than a plug-in hybrid electric vehicle (PHEV), which characteristically blends electric and engine power together during driving. A specialized EREV powertrain, called the "Voltec," drives the Volt through its entire range of speed and acceleration with battery power alone, within the limit of battery energy, thereby displacing more fuel with electricity, emitting less CO₂, and producing less cold-start emissions than a PHEV operating in real-world conditions."

Even if there is any truth to this claim mentioned later in the article, it seems to need further reference information to back this up:

"...the carmaker revealed that in some cases the combustion engine provided some assist at high speeds or to improve performance.[13]"

In fact, in your sited reference #13, that very article quotes GM to say:

"G.M.’s stance, at least in the materials distributed to the press, is that the Volt’s design is singular: “The Chevrolet Volt is not a hybrid. It is a one-of-a-kind, all-electrically driven vehicle designed and engineered to operate in all climates.”

Actually, here is a great reference for you from Motortrend: http://www.motortrend.com/features/editorial/1010_unbolting_the_chevy_volt_to_see_how_it_ticks/

"Chevy’s engine and motor/generator both remain decoupled from the whole works most of the time."

Technically, this means the Chevy Volt normally operates as an Electric Vehicle, and only part-time (not often) as a Hybrid. The article explains:

"At about 70 mph, the Chevy’s motor is starting to spin too fast to be efficient, so the ring gear unlocks from the case and locks to the smaller motor/generator. Now both e-motors spin, propelling the Volt to 101 mph turning at reasonable rpm in electric mode. The Prius’ gas engine must start turning when vehicle speed exceeds 62 mph. Once the Volt’s battery is depleted, the engine fires up and clutches to the generator to produce the power required to drive the car. Above 70 mph, when the generator couples to the ring gear, the engine gets a more efficient direct mechanical connection to the wheels. In defense of Chevy’s earlier stance, the only way this gas engine (or the Prius’) could ever drive the wheels without lots of help from the battery is if you somehow MacGyvered up a way to jam the sun gear to a stop. 2011 Chevrolet Volt Cutaway Engine Batter Chevrolet’s approach permits full EV capability over 30-40 real-world miles—something Toyota will never be able to claim with its current Hybrid Synergy Drive system. As such, it represents a bridge between the gasoline present and the electro-commuter future. But is it as good a car as it is a philosophical bridge? Click on our Volt first test story at the right to find out."

Again, this makes it a very part time Hybrid, but most of the time EV. Signed NWIFTW (talk · contribs)

  • Your last line is consistent with the technical definition of the several types of plug-in electric vehicles: all-electric or battery electric vehicles are driven 100% of the time by electric motors, like the Tesla Model S and the Nissan Leaf; series plug-in hybrids (like the Volt), use the gasoline engine to extend range, that is why they are called range-extended electric vehicles, but they are considered hybrids because they are built with two sources of propulsion, a gasoline-powered engine/generator and an electric motor in the case of the Volt (as the article explains, Volt owners drive in all-electric mode about 2/3 of the miles and 1/3 are gasoline powered miles); and parallel and series/parallel plug-in hybrids used both sources of propulsion most of the time, like the Prius PHV and Ford Energi cars. As supported by several reliable sources in the article, the Volt is a series PHEV or a ERRV, not an EV.--Mariordo (talk) 19:27, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Chevy Volt is a Parallel Hybrid. It's not a true series hybrid as the ICE is capable of providing motive power to the wheels. [5]. Due to the ICE being capable of providing motive power: it invalidates itself as a "Fully Electric Vehicle" as noted above. SpikedLemon (talk) 05:01, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Totally is NOT a hybrid as there is a clutch that completely disconnects the gas motor from the 2nd motor/generator. "There is no "direct" mechanical linkage between the Volt's gas engine and the wheels, rather there is an indirect linkage that is accomplished by meshing the power output of the engine with the power output of one of the other two electric motors." http://www.plugincars.com/exclusive-chevrolet-volt-chief-engineer-explains-volt-drivetrain-says-volt-electric-vehicle-90758.ht

For the 1st 40 miles the volt is running off the 1st motor and batteries only as it is 100% an electric car. To call the Volt a Hybrid is silly and insulting to those companies that make hybrids like Honda and Toyota. Signed 108.220.59.47 (talk · contribs)

Reiterating Mariordo's points: SAE defines a hybrid as a vehicle that gets its energy from two different sources. The petrol engine is a source of energy while the vehicle is moving, so the Volt is by definition a hybrid. The fact that it spends the majority of its time operating purely from batteries is irrelevant because it is not the only mode the vehicle runs in.
My Prius has an EV button which lets it operate purely from the electric battery and electric motor until the battery is depleted (usually about 1/2 km). Does this classify it as an extended range vehicle using GM's definition?
GM's meshed power sources is not too different from Toyota's Hybrid Synergy Drive, which also allows the petrol engine and the electric motor to drive the wheels together.
The http://papers.sae.org/2011-01-0887/ link you pointed to is an SAE paper written by GM employees. Of course it says whatever GM wanted them to say.
The remaining articles you linked to (Engadget and Motor Trend) both say that the Volt is a hybrid.
GM claim it is an EV that just happens to have an on-board charger. GM is a WP:PRIMARY source that has a vested interest in how this vehicle is presented to the public. They obviously think that marketing it as an EV rather than a hybrid will give them some advantage but marketing's very nature is about perception rather than reality. Whereas the SAE and EPA do not have a vested interest in the Volt and are more concerned about truth.  Stepho  talk  21:57, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

kilowatt hour abbreviation

Throughout the article there are four different methods used to abbreviate kilowatt-hours (as well as ampere-hours and Newton-meters). I've listed them here along with some other possible options:

kWh (no space)
kW-hr (hyphen)
kw h (&nbsp)
kw•h (&bull)
kw⋅h (&sdot)
kw·h (&middot)

"No space" is in pretty common use but it, along with the hyphen, contradict the SI standard. The third option is just a non-breaking space that is acceptable for use in SI but I believe it is visually confusing and I didn't find it mentioned in the style conventions of other science organizations (based on my quick and dirty google-fu). That leaves us with &bull, &sdot, and &middot. SI does not specify which Unicode character to use for its raised dot so I think any of the three would technically qualify. However, &bull seems a bit large to me and, once again, my quick googling seems to indicate that it is more used for matrix dot multiplication.

The difference between &sdot and &middot is slight. Unicode lists &sdot as a "mathematical" symbol whereas &middot is a "punctuation" symbol (for example, the British sometimes use &middot instead of a period as the decimal point). The multiplication sign article actually says that &sdot is correct (its formal name is the "dot operator") and that &middot (formally called "interpunct") can be used as a fallback since it is a more commonly available character. However, &middot is used in the SI#General rules article and even the web version of SI's own brochure uses &middot (http://www.bipm.org/en/si/si_brochure/chapter5/5-3-2.html#5-3-6).

My personal opinion is that &middot is best since it is more compact, less intrusive, and thus visually closer to the familiar kWh. It is also fairly common in various style conventions and I feel like I've seen it catching on in Wikipedia. It is even one of the 17 characters listed at the bottom of the editing window whenever you are editing a Wikipedia article that you can click on to quickly insert into your edit. You can also insert it into an article by putting · in your edit.

In an attempt to be WP:bold, I'm going ahead and making the change to &middot throughout the article.

PS: Sigh. After researching and writing all this I realized WP:MOSNUM#Unit_names_and_symbols already states that we should use &middot. No wonder it is catching on in Wikipedia! Derp. —Megiddo1013 00:18, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm okay with using a middot but I have some minor points to raise.
  1. Typing in the middot is awkward, so I created a template {{kWh}} to make it easier.
  2. middot must not be used in a parameter to {{convert}}.
  3. You should contact the maintainers of {{convert}} and ask them to put the middot into their output.  Stepho  talk  02:38, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
At first seeing all those curly braces and pipes everywhere made me cringe, but since it also takes care of the &nbsp between the number and the unit I think I can get on board. I looked through the {{convert}} documentation and it turns out those guys are a step ahead of us. Simply throw a period in there, i.e. kW.h, and it spits out the correct result: kW·h —Megiddo1013 03:17, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
And on a related subject, does it bother anyone else the mixed usage of uppercase and lowercase L for liter throughout the article? That lowercase L looks identical to an uppercase i in Wikipedia's default font. Fixing that might have to be my little project for another day. —Megiddo1013 04:45, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
I changed 'L' to '-liter'; sometimes it's simpler to just avoid the problem :)  Stepho  talk  06:03, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Whoa, that looks pretty awkward spelling out liter all over the article especially when it is adjacent to km, mpg, kW·h, etc. You wouldn't change those to kilometer, miles per gallon, kilowatt hour, etc, would you? Plus the {{convert}} template spits out L all over the place so you have an inconsistent mix of L and liter everywhere.
You can tell the {{convert}} template to use capital L. I'm gonna go ahead and change it to L everywhere like I mentioned at first and we can see how it looks. —Megiddo1013 15:42, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Okay, no problem.  Stepho  talk  06:53, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

BATTERY- Cold Weather Operation

Mariordo, My intention for editing the BATTERY section was to clear up a common misconception communicated often at the gm-volt.com forums while referencing THIS wiki that the Volt cannot be operated below -13F (-25C).Which of course is false. The article referenced at Green Car Conference lists no author nor any indication a GM source of the verbiage, or that it even came from GM Powertrain or Volt engineering groups. The statement "The battery is designed to provide reliable operation, when plugged in, at temperatures as low as -13 °F (-25 °C) and as high as 122 °F (+50 °C)." is in error or at the very least misleading. (not surprising given that it was posted in July 2010 BEFORE the Volt was even in production)

Of importance is clarifying cell temps vs. ambient temps. While it is true that if average CELL temperature drops to -13F/-25C or colder the Volt will NOT operate and display the "Battery Too Cold- Plug In To Warm" warning message, this obviously WOULD NEVER occur if the Volt was correctly and properly plugged-in as GM recommended in any extreme of temperature. So yes, that -13F/-25C does represent a critical CELL temperature, but only if NOT plugged in!(completely contradicting the quoted GCC statement) Providing the Volt is plugged-in and the TMS properly operating the cells would not reach this critical temp even at ambient temperatures of -40C.(and as proven by a great many owners in Canada and Scandinavia) This operational detail is supported by the Volt owners manual, a link to which I have also provided in the article as a reference. WopOnTour (talk) 22:06, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Thx for the clarification. The edits you did clearly made the content more accurate. Cheers.--Mariordo (talk) 01:44, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

On-board charger

Here is a quote from the 2012 Chevrolet Volt Owner Manual:

"Charging equipment with a rating of at least 240V/20Amp (US EVSE Amperage setting 16A) will provide the fastest charging time to recharge the high voltage battery. 240V/40Amp circuits (US EVSE Amperage setting 32A) provide flexibility for future vehicle charging needs. Contact your dealer for more information."

I would say that this means the current on-board charger (including the 2012 model) is rated at 20 Amp while future models might be equipped with a 40 Amp rectifier. Guidod (talk) 09:44, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

The parenthetical denotes a 16A current setting for the charger, though benchmark testing carried out by Idaho National Laboratory for the US DoE directly observed maximum power draw between 3.0 and 3.3 kW on a 208V feed circuit, indicating a 15-16A max current.

It is further noted in [6], referenced and quoted from [7] (which appears to have been distributed by Chevrolet) that the maximum charge rate is 3.3kW. That verbiage in the owners manual seems more a reference to the required breaker rating for a 15-16A Level 2 home charger (20-25% margin, which is typical of EVSE installs)

Apparently I haven't made enough edits while logged in to change it myself "I wish you wouldn't agree with me, it makes me think I might be wrong" (talk) 15:17, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

GM Voltec drivetrain

The link to the GM Voltec drivetrain article contains much less information than the Chevrolet Volt article. Landroo (talk) 15:52, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

New Chevrolet Volt 2016

GM announced the new Chevy Volt today, the full announced specs can be found in the media release Note that some data need confirmation from different organisms (e.g. range, consumption) P'tit cali (talk) 15:52, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Article for the second generation Volt is at Chevrolet Volt (second generation). Warren (talk) 20:11, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

CHEVY VOLT HP RATING

The Volt HP rating is listed as 149hp which I feel is incorrect. The Volt has a dual motor configuration which adds the generator/motor 74hp to drive the wheels. The Volt HP rating should be 223hp because this is the HP rating in dual mode. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.30.208.138 (talk) 16:24, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

From the article, "Dual motor electric - At higher vehicle speeds the secondary motor engages over the planetary gear such that it reduces the speed of the primary motor. This facilitates higher efficiency and better mileage for the combined system, without increasing the maximum power." The 111 kW (149 hp) electric motor determines the maximum output - the hp rating is not simply added together.
Also, remember to sign your comments with 4 tildes (~~~~) and that all-caps is considered SHOUTING. Thanks.  Stepho  talk  05:28, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Charging connector should be described

What is the connector used to charge the vehicle? CampKohler (talk) 16:01, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

The Volt utilizes a standard J1772 charging socket, compatible with all standard J1772 plugs for either Level1 or Level2 charging. GalenOfTheShadows (talk) 17:21, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Heating statement is somewhat innacurate/poorly worded

Under 3.2.3 Others: The statement "and can even exceed what is needed to move the vehicle on occasions" should probably read differently, as it is confusing. The Volt heater can draw up to 6.5kW of power to heat the cabin, which is significant, but not more than to regularly drive the vehicle (Average @40MPH is usually between 10 and 55kW depending on grade.) When the vehicle is creeping, it can draw as little as 500W.

The statement is accurate. 40 mph is your arbitrary choice, probably in excess of the average speed of the vehicle, and frankly I'm a bit surprised that 10 kW is the minimum at that speed. I'm even surprised it is 10 kW on the flat, 30 years ago British Leyland were selling a 5 seater that would do 50 mph on 13hp, at the wheel. Greglocock (talk) 10:40, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
The accuracy can be confirmed by simple math: at 40MPH, you get to 40Miles. so if you take 10.3KW/h÷(1h), you get exactly 10.3KW. If you increase the speed to 65 MPH, you get about 35 Miles autonomy, so 10.3÷(32 minutes)×60 minutes ≈ 19.3 KW P'tit cali (talk) 06:47, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Good oh, I wonder when your reading comprehension will match your maths skills? Greglocock (talk) 07:37, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Ok, then never mind... P'tit cali (talk) 07:48, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Generational increments should be Model Years

It is customary to designate production model years for generational stages of an automobile. The currently used values for Gen1/Gen2 years is inconstant and creates confusion as it does not conform to automotive practises or other automotive product wikis. e.g. there was no 2010 Chevrolet Volt (2011 was the first model year) THe 2016 Volt while available in 2015 is still a 2016 model.

I urge that the Gen 1 heading be correctly named 2011-2015 and the Gen 2 2016- WopOnTour (talk) 18:07, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

It is customary to use model years only in American markets. Most of the rest of the world does not and is confused by how a vehicle released in say, August 2010, is called a 2011 model. To keep the peace, WP editors have agreed to allow vehicles sold predominantly in American markets to use model years but vehicles sold in international markets must use calendar years. For regional differences like "litre" vs "liter" or mph vs km/h the spelling or units are possibly not the ones you are used to but you can still understand what it is trying to say, or at least recognise that it is different. But "the 2011 Leaf" means a vehicle released in mid 2010 to an American and a vehicle released in mid 2011 to a non-American and it is very hard or impossible to know whether the author was using the American system or not. So for vehicles sold internationally use calendar years in the section title and we try to word the text so that both Americans and non-Americans can understand it (eg "Deliveries to retail customers in the U.S. and Canada began in October 2015 as a 2016 model year.")  Stepho  talk  22:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Split into generation articles?

In addition to the issue raised by WopOnTour, the mix of content about the two generation is creating confusion, for example, most of the info in the infobox corresponds to the first gen. So, considering that there is a new article/stub for the Chevrolet Volt (second generation), shall we split the article? We might follow the model of the Toyota Prius, with a mother article, and a separate article for each generation. Nevertheless this is easier to say than to do. Most of the current content is for the first gen Volt, so where the history section should stay? The article is a GA, so, the split article will continued to be GA? I ask the regular editors to discuss the matter here and propose options before we make a formal split discussion. Or shall we simply add a general infobox in the intro (with the common info), and have a specific infobox for each generation (move the original infobox to the first gen and bring the infobox from the 2nd gen article to the corresponding section? Cheers.--Mariordo (talk) 23:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I think the article is big enough to start splitting some of it into separate articles for each generation and leaving only common stuff here. I would leave the history section here. Toyota Corolla may be another example article to follow.  Stepho  talk  22:04, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Typos;

March 12th 2016; -In the top of the article listing the HP/KW rating of the 2 electric motors and the engine. You do not list the ratings for the 2016/2017 model. -It is not a series hybrid all the time. At higher speeds when the engine needs to be on, the engine will engage to the wheels in some pseduo-parallel hybrid operation for more efficiency. Not strictly at 70MPH either, that is just an example. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AX5ZwzNwTc4 -First generation is 2011-2015, not 2010-2015 for the USA. Second generation is not 2015+, but 2016+, for the USA. Thanks.

Hi there.
  • Indeed the infobox does not show all the specs for both the first and second generation (few of them change by model year, and the 2016/2017 model is detailed in the dedicated article about the second gen). As per the discussion above the article is likely to be split, but in the meantime you coud add the missing specs for the second gen (providing the corresponding reliable sources) following the format used for range and battery specs.
  • Yes the Volt is not a series hybrid all the time, but as already explained in the article and summarized in the lead, the Volt runs most of the time as a series hybrid, so there is nothing to correct here.
  • The article clearly explains that the car was released in December 2010 as a 2011 MY, and yes the first gen goes from 2011 to 2015, and the second 2016-2017. Can you point the exact location of the apparent mistake? Just in case, the section titles refer to the calendar year when the car was released not the model year, and the content makes that clear: the Volt was released in ... as a .... model year.

Cheers.--Mariordo (talk) 15:24, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chevrolet Volt. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:25, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Chevrolet Volt. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:05, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Chevrolet Volt. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:42, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

BUICK VELITE 5

Someone should add the the Chevrolet Volt is being produced in china as the BUICK VELITE 5. According to http://www.motortrend.com/news/buick-velite-5-chinas-take-chevrolet-volt/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Niftyweegee (talk • contribs)

I briefly mentioned it in Chevrolet Volt (second generation) under Production and sales, and in the infobox under aka. But we can add it on this page as well. --Vossanova o< 16:31, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Very long and needs GA reassessment

This article has grown from 9,000 to 15,000 words in the 6 years since it was reviewed for GA in 2011. It has not maintained quality for held clear focus during that massive expansion. I just started a GA review for another similar article, Nissan Leaf that bloated under similar circumstances. I can't start a second GA review simultaneously, but this long, long article needs to be tagged for splitting or pruning, and someone should do a GA review. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:58, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I've added {{GAR request}}; awaiting community reassessment. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:19, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

The real issue is that the first generation needs it own separate article. 2nd gen already has it WNYY98 (talk) 04:47, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Charge Rate

Hi there folks. I just wanted to correct something in the article, but I see that it's protected. If an administrator would like to revise the information, the charge rate info (for the 2016/17) should be 120v @ 8 or 12amps and 240v up to 15amps. See the 2017 manual here: https://my.chevrolet.com/content/dam/gmownercenter/gmna/dynamic/manuals/2017/Chevrolet/Volt/2k17volt1stPrint.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.58.155.16 (talk) 15:14, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 14 external links on Chevrolet Volt. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:25, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on Chevrolet Volt. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:54, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Chevrolet Volt. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:09, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in a discussion

This is to invite regular editors of this page to participate in the ongoing discussion at the talk page of the electric car article regarding Wikipedia policy about pricing info included in several articles dealing with plug-in electric cars. You are welcome to express your view. Cheers.--Mariordo (talk) 13:52, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

GAR request

This article is 93KB readable prose. This is very large for an article on this topic and probably fails the 3b criteria. Are any regular editors here interested in splitting or summarising this article @Mariordo:. AIRcorn (talk) 01:04, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Chevrolet Volt/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

The article has been tagged as being too long for over a year. It currently stands at 93KB readable prose and this doesn't include the bulleted sections. I suggested at the talk page that a Split and or Trimming needs to happen, but no one was interested. Splitting out the first generation would be an obvious first step. It is much larger then the second generation section. The production, sales and price section is not encyclopadic and contains far too much detail. Also the reception section should be written as prose, not a bulleted list. AIRcorn (talk) 21:44, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Many electric car articles on WP are seriously overgrown. We don't really need day-by-day events or minutia of model year changes unless something is *notable*. --Wtshymanski (talk) 23:02, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Some trimming done, but still feel more needs to happen. Delisting for now. AIRcorn (talk) 10:24, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

chevy volt's exhaust standard

I'm trying to replace California Clean Air Vehicle Decals (DMV Form Reg 1000) for a 2013 Chevrolet Volt, which were lost following a fender bender. The replacement form asks to choose from the following for the vehicle's exhaust standard: ZEV (Zero Emission Vehicle); SULEV (Super Ultra-Low Emission Vehicle); AT PZEV (Advanced Technology Partial Zero Emission Vehicle); Enhanced AT PZEV ( Enhanced Advanced Technology Partial Zero Emission Vehicle); TZEV(Transitional Zero-Emission Vehicle)

How do I tell which it is for a 2013 Chevy Volt? Seems like TZEV or ZEV would be the correct category, but I’m not sure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gmagrane (talk • contribs) 16:37, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

This [3] seems to explain it nicely. Toasted Meter (talk) 17:12, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference Reuters112410 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ a b Nelson Ireson (2010-11-24). "2011 Chevrolet Volt Gets 93 MPGe EV Rating, 60 MPG Combined". GreenCarReports.com. Retrieved 2010-11-25.
  3. ^ "2011 Chevy Volt Classified As ULEV by CARB, Emits More CO Than Prius, Ineligible For Carpool Stickers". Edmunds.com. 2010-10-26. Retrieved 2010-11-25.
  4. ^ Cite error: The named reference hede was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  5. ^ http://gm-volt.com/2010/10/11/motor-trend-explains-the-volts-powertrain/
  6. ^ http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/avta/pdfs/phev/efficiency_results_chevy_volt_onboard_charger.pdf
  7. ^ http://nctcog.org/trans/air/programs/evnt/ContractorInspectorOutreachTexasMay2011.pdf
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chevrolet_Volt/Archive_2&oldid=1191615222"