Performance Tested - A Deep Dive Into the Numbers - 2016 Chevrolet Volt

Comments

• vvk Member Posts: 196

  March 2016

  Pretty terrible. But impressive 0-60 number.

  0
• bankerdanny Member Posts: 1,021

  March 2016

  Again with no slalom speed. Lateral acceleration is all well and good, but slalom is much easier to translate into real world driving.
  
  As far as the numbers go, a Smokey and the Bandit era T/A 6.6 wouldn't have been much (if any) faster to 60mph, pulled less on the skidpad (C&D used to wax rhapsodical about 0.81g's), and took far longer to stop than this fuel economy special.
  
  It's not fast by modern standards, but it is definitely fast enough given its mission.

  1
• vvk Member Posts: 196

  March 2016

  bankerdanny, and that is just pure, old fashioned communism ))

  0
• jjlawyer Member Posts: 17

  March 2016

  I am not sure how this article can be considered a "deep dive" into the numbers. the author didn't even state if the listed acceleration numbers are eclectic only, charge sustaining mode or with a depleted battery. I would really like to see numbers for full battery in charge sustaining mode.

  0
• lmbvette Member Posts: 93

  March 2016

  Why aren't the numbers separated into EV Mode and Charge Sustaining Mode (Gas Only)?
  
  The author makes mention that Charge Sustaining Mode(Gas Only) is quicker but I don't see any numbers to back up the claim.
  
  To put the Volt performance into perspective, lets compare the results against the 1998 Ford Contour SVT.
  
  A stock SVT would run around 15.5 @90-91 mph in the quarter. With BFGoodrich performance tires (for the dry) it would hit .90g on the skid pad. The economy minded Volt almost matches those numbers running on Eco tires. LOL
  
  This is EXCELLENT performance out of an Efficiently-minded car. EXCELLENT!

  Don't worry about what other people think. Drive what makes you happy.

  0
• bankerdanny Member Posts: 1,021

  March 2016

  From Car and Driver's comparo between the '77 Z/28 with its 180hp 5.7l V8 and the T/A 6.6 with the optional "upgrade" 200 hp engine:
  
  "If the Trans-Am can claim an advantage in terms of lateral acceleration [0.81g], then the Z/28 is a winner in straight-ahead performance. It ran the quarter-mile in 16.3 seconds (83.1 mph), which was clearly superior to the Trans-Am's 16.9 seconds at 82.0 mph. Moreover, our Z/28 produced a top speed of 105 mph (limited by the redline and the 3.73 rear axle), while the Trans-Am with a 3.23 final-drive ratio was no faster than 110 mph."

  0
• daryleason Member Posts: 501

  March 2016

  As soon as you use the phrase "we had to adjust our testing procedure" you just invalidated any constructive comparisons you might have gained between a particular vehicle and other vehicles. The fact that the braking would have impacted the battery's charge levels is precisely why you should not have altered the test. Unless, of course, you top off the fuel tank after doing the brake test on your ICE vehicles. In which case, I can understand not wanting to wait for an electric vehicle to recharge fully. But even then, the Volt is a hybrid, so I don't see the necessity to wait.
  

  0
• vvk Member Posts: 196

  March 2016

  "The brake pedal has a soft effort and long travel, almost SUV-like. There's also some occasional instability under maximum braking, which resulted in some front end wiggle on a few runs. The tires don't seem to have great grip"
  
  "Steering feel is almost completely numb and a floaty suspension wouldn't be very confidence-inspiring driving at speed"
  
  THIS is NOT excellent. My 2012 Passat had excellent objective numbers but with suspension like a waterbed it was the worst car I have ever owned. Driving feel is everything.
  

  0