For years now, journalists, analysts, consultants, manufacturers and many others in the auto industry have considered plug-in hybrids a “transition technology” that will stick around for a few years until we see a mass adoption of fully electric vehicles. Because of this widely-held sentiment, a number of big players in the car world, including General Motors, have reduced plug-in hybrid development and focused heavily on fully electric cars.
“The quicker you get to our goal of zero emissions, the better, and EVs get you there faster,” GM’s CEO Mary Barra told Motor Trend back in 2019. “So why dedicate a lot of capital and engineering into a segment that doesn’t get you to the end game when we know how to do the end game?” Well, in this week’s David’s Takes (our weekly op-ed) I assert that this thinking was deeply, deeply flawed and that PHEVs should be considered not just a “transition technology,” but rather a long-term solution. And I’ll take it a step further: I think America ignoring them was a humongous mistake.
The internal combustion engine shouldn’t be considered the enemy, but rather an ally in the world’s efforts to clean up vehicle emissions. To many, this notion may sound absurd; how can a car that burns fossil fuels possibly be advantageous over one that doesn’t? Is this some kind of anti-EV screed written by a gas-loving nutjob?
No. I like electric cars and own two of them. And as an engineer, I find them to be vastly superior to ICEs in most ways; the mechanical simplicity, the efficiency, the ability to regenerate energy while braking, the power delivery — an electric car is an objectively better way to get around than a gas car, and anyone who says otherwise is kidding themselves. Still, though I like EVs, it’s clear to me that America focusing on them instead of PHEVs has severely set the country back.
PHEVs Have Been An Afterthought In The U.S.
I’m going to start by establishing the premise that everyone’s goal is to make cars cleaner for the environment. I realize that there are folks out there who don’t care about climate change, and there are those who don’t think driving electric is better for the environment than driving a gas car. And while the latter assertion can be true in some cases, in the overwhelming majority of instances where you’re comparing two cars in the same class — one gas and one electric — the electric one will have been better for the environment by the time it ends up in the junkyard. That’s really not up for debate anymore.
With that out of the way, we can jump to our next premise, which is that we can improve the environmental impact of cars by — as quickly as possible — maximizing the number of people we can get to stop burning fossil fuels by replacing internal combustion cars with electric cars.
With these premises established, I’m going to spend this article arguing that, today, plug-in hybrids are the best vehicles to accomplish these goals — even better than EVs — and that America’s focus on the latter has actually hurt us.
But first, let’s talk about what I mean when I say America has ignored PHEVs and focused on EVs. Doesn’t the U.S. have plug-in hybrids for sale?
Yes, there are some plug-in hybrids available today, but there are more fully electric cars for sale than there are PHEVs (40 versus 33, per EVadoption.com), and there are key segments that offer no plug-ins at all (there are zero plug-in hybrid pickup trucks – an inefficient segment that stands to gain the most from electrification — and five fully electric pickups); that’s just absurd. Perhaps just as important as the quantity of offerings is the quality of those offerings; fully-electric models currently for sale are much more compelling than the PHEVs on the marketplace.
One cannot possibly compare a Ford Escape PHEV to a Mustang Mach-E. One is sleek, was named “Mustang” specifically to amplify its coolness in order to compete with Tesla, and stands out. The other is just the top-of-the-range version of an economy-crossover, it’s actually more expensive than the Mach-E, and its all-electric range is a meager 37 miles. This is pretty standard across PHEVs; they’re the most expensive version of another already-existing car, and while that price can be cut by certain government incentives, the range of most PHEVs is between 25 and 40 miles; that’s just sad. What’s more, it’s not just that there are only a few good PHEVs currently on the market; the other issue is marketing. Namely, there hasn’t been enough of it.
For one, PHEVs usually don’t get their own nameplates — they’re just trim levels since most are built on platforms shared with gas cars. They also rarely get their own media drives, so reviews you read about them are mixed in with the gas variants. And most importantly, they just don’t get the same spotlight as EVs; when was the last time you saw a Ford Escape PHEV commercial? Compare that to the number of times you saw a Mustang Mach-E commercial, or even a Ford F-150 Lightning (which is basically just an electric version of an F-150) commercial.
(Note: Some of PHEVs’ marketing problems are just the nature of the beast; fully electric cars seem advanced to the layperson, while hybrids just don’t, since we’ve all been hearing about hybrids for the past 25 years. A “plug-in hybrid” just doesn’t excite people in the same way as “EV” does, even if a plug-in hybrid is often more technically advanced than an EV (for better or for worse)).
There’s a reason I wrote a few weeks ago that “America’s Plug-In Hybrids Aren’t Good Enough.” The vehicles are an afterthought. I mean, look at America’s coolest PHEVs:
- Jeep Wrangler 4xe: 22 miles
- Ford Escape plug-in: 37 miles
- Chrysler Pacifica PHEV: 32 miles
- Jeep Grand Cherokee 4xe: 26 miles
- Hyundai Tucson PHEV: 33 miles
- Mazda CX-90 PHEV: 26 miles
- BMW X5 xDrive50e: 38 miles
- BMW 330e: 23 miles
- Toyota Prius Prime: 44 miles
- Toyota RAV4 Prime: 42 miles
- Lexus RX450h+: 37 miles
And compare that to these EVs:
- Tesla Cybertruck: up to ~340 miles
- Rivian R1S: up to ~350 miles
- Rivian R1T: up to ~350 miles
- Ford Mustang Mach-E: up to ~310 miles
- Tesla Model 3: up to ~360 miles
- Tesla Model Y: up to ~330 miles
- Tesla Model X: up to ~350 miles
- Hyundai Ioniq 5: up to ~300 miles
- Kia EV6: up to ~310 miles
- Lucid Air: up to ~420 miles
One list is a snoozefest filled with cars that will barely get you to work and back (Prius Prime notwithstanding; Rav4 is also decent) [Editor’s note: Don’t sleep on the spacious Mazda CX-90 PHEV, the opulent X5 50e, or the excellent 330e either -TH], the other is dynamic and exciting and forward-thinking. No wonder EV sales are absolutely crushing PHEV sales by a factor of almost four to one.
Of course, things are changing, and automakers are realizing that ignoring PHEVs was a massive mistake. That’s why you’re seeing headlines like “GM Does A U-Turn: Plug-In Hybrids Are Coming Back” and “GM Hustling To Get PHEV Chevy Silverado, GMC Sierra To Market” as well as “Carmakers pumped the brakes on hybrid cars too soon” and so on.
I hope these automakers build some proper PHEVs, though, and I hope they market them properly without actually calling them PHEVs. Ideally, they’ll call them what people used to call the BMW i3 — a range-extended EV (which is a much sexier term) — and I hope they build them on electric platforms so that they’re actually solidly compelling vehicles. I’ll repeat what I wrote in my op-ed “America’s Plug-In Hybrids Aren’t Good Enough”:
…precisely my problem with the current crop of plug-in hybrids [is that] they’re clearly gasoline cars first, electric cars second. The 30 miles or so of EV range is considered a nifty feature of someone’s otherwise gasoline vehicle. The issue, in my eyes, is that in America there are no plug-in hybrids that are electric cars first, gasoline cars second, and that needs to change. And I think … that transition point from gas car first to EV first starts to happen at about 50-100 miles of range.
The state of California is incentivizing automakers to crank up PHEV range, with the California Air Resources Board writing:
Plug-in hybrid, full battery-electric and hydrogen fuel cell vehicles count toward an automaker’s requirement. PHEVs must have an all-electric range of at least 50 miles under real-world driving conditions.
That’s awesome, though the state loses me at “In addition, automakers will be allowed to meet no more than 20% of their overall ZEV requirement with PHEVs.” This is silly.
Until the Ramcharger launches, America offers no such EV-first range-extended EVs — just those relatively boring, low-range PHEVs in the list above. But even if we do start cranking out great, forward-thinking range-extended EV offerings, the damage from ignoring this segment and instead focusing on EVs is already done.
The Environmental Effects Of Neglecting PHEVs
It may seem counterintuitive, but a plug-in hybrid can actually be better for the environment than a fully electric car. To best understand this, we have to consider how most Americans drive. A typical American will commute about 15 miles a day, one way. Some days they might have to buy groceries, some days they might have to take their kid to a swim meet, but for the most part, weekday commutes are reasonably regular/predictable, and not particularly long.
The very cleanest car, we can probably all agree, is a small electric one with a battery sized exactly for that commute. I myself drive 17 miles a day to work (one way), and I might drive an extra 10 miles to get groceries or do another errand). That’s 44 miles; add a few for safety, and really, all I need is a car with a 50-mile range. A car with a 50-mile range is the very cleanest car I could possibly drive, because it features the smallest battery needed to allow me to live my normal lifestyle.
If I were to drive a car with similar dimensions to, and with a similar powertrain as, a Tesla Model Y (which according to the EPA has a range of 3.57 miles per kWh of juice, though I realize this changes based on mass, but for simplicity let’s just roll with it), I would need a 14 kWh battery to live my lifestyle (50 mi/3.57 mi/kwh = 14 kWh). That’s a TINY battery, and as such, the resources needed to make it would be pretty minimal; that matters because manufacturing lithium-ion batteries is currently a dirty process.
Is anyone going to actually buy a 14kWh battery-having EV offering only 50 miles of range (Note: you would likely need a larger battery to get 50 miles in a cold climate)? Absolutely not (unless it’s hilariously cheap). Just look at the Mazda MX-30; that was an electric car with 100 miles of range, and it got laughed out of the marketplace. It was a total failure. People may only need 50 miles most days, but nobody wants to feel limited, and there will surely be instances where one has to drive 200 miles for vacation or to visit the grandparents or whatever, and charging a million times to drive what should take only a few hours is something most folks would consider absurd.
So what’s the solution? There are two. If you look at the electrified vehicles available in the American market, it’s clear most automakers have decided that the answer is to shove another 60+ kWh of batteries into that car.
Take the Tesla Model Y Long Range that I used as an example earlier. It’s got a 75 kWh battery (that’s usable capacity; full capacity is 82 kWh) in order to give it 330 miles of range — enough to ease up most owners’ range anxiety. Again, many folks are going to drive that vehicle under 50 miles a day, carrying around 280 miles worth of battery — 60 kWh, which is 80 percent of the total capacity — every day for no reason other than peace of mind. That’s probably 700 pounds of expensive, dirty-to-produce lithium ion batteries being hauled around daily as the car drives around going to work and doing errands.
Now let’s look at the second solution. Imagine that 14 kWh Model Y, but instead of adding a 60 kWh battery to ease people’s range anxiety, you add a small gasoline engine hooked up to a generator. The vast majority of the time, that car will be driven on battery power alone, and the gasoline engine, along with its ancillary components like the fuel tank and cooling system, will sit dormant, just as the 60 kWh worth of battery would on a Model Y Long Range.
The car that best lines up with this analogy is the BMW i3 range-extended EV, which features a 19 kWh battery and a small gasoline engine. This is what I daily drive (yes, I practice what I’m preaching):
View this post on Instagram
Of the two options, it’s clear that the hybrid (or range-extended EV) makes more sense. It’s lighter (which matters not just to reduce Vehicle Demand Energy (i.e. the energy needed to propel the car forward) but also because tire dust is a nasty type of pollution, and weight doesn’t help on that front), it’s cheaper (I’ll get to that in a bit), and though there are emissions associated with producing a small gasoline engine and its ancillary components, it’s clear that manufacturing a 60kWh battery is significantly dirtier. This becomes obvious when you consider that a fully electric car takes 15,000 miles (ish — this depends on a number of factors) to become cleaner than a fully-gasoline car. If the emissions associated with producing and running an EV are so high that a gasoline car has to shoot 15,000 miles worth of combustion products into the sky before the EV is cleaner, it goes without saying that a PHEV with a battery 20 percent of the size and a gas engine that rarely turns on is the cleaner solution.
There are lots of caveats to all of this, of course. If you live in an apartment, charging a PHEV every day is a huge pain in the ass, so you’ll likely run on the gas motor a lot, and this could be less efficient than just a gas car, per Consumer Reports; so really, this assessment applies mostly to folks who can easily charge their car every day. That’s not an insignificant number of people, as many have garages/driveways near their houses, and others can charge at work. It’s also worth noting that this all assumes that the small 14kWh battery can handle all the charge/discharge cycles. Many modern battery packs can, but in an instance where you have to replace the small battery because it can’t handle all the charging sessions (as was the case with my i3), the calculus will then start to favor BEVs. Another thing worth noting: If you’re running on the gasoline engine a lot, then BEVs (even with huge batteries) will of course end up winning out over a PHEV when it comes to pollution. There are a number of studies showing BEVs beating out the current crop of PHEVs when it comes to emissions reduction over gas cars, and I assume these are based on significant gas engine usage.
14 kWh may not be enough for some folks. Ideally, you’d analyze a sweep of battery sizes, assess how each of them affects the duty cycle of the gasoline engine, and weigh that against the environmental effects of producing that battery size. The ideal PHEV would be one that allowed the most people to use the gasoline engine the least, while keeping the battery size as small as possible. It’s a complicated analysis that requires an understanding of human behavior; maybe 14 kWh is enough for someone, but because it only offers 50 miles of range, they’re less incentivized to charge it when they’re on their rare road trip. If they go on that road trip enough times, perhaps a slightly larger battery could be worthwhile, since it’d lead them to stop and charge it instead of just running along on the gas engine. If someone doesn’t have a garage to charge the car in, how big does a battery need to be to where it makes sense for them to charge at a public charger instead of just driving on the gas engine?
Regardless of all the caveats, my point is that, in plenty of scenarios, a PHEV is cleaner for the environment than an EV. If you don’t trust me, the PHEV Toyota Prius Prime was just determined to be the cleanest car in America, ahead of BEVs, due to its relatively low energy usage and smaller battery.
I live in Santa Monica and commute to Van Nuys daily. I have a garage at home in which I can charge my vehicle, and I can charge at work. It’s obvious to me that a Tesla Model Y Long Range would be a complete waste of resources, and significantly dirtier for the environment than my BMW i3, which has a battery with 19kWh of usable capacity — just over 1/4 the size of the Model Y Long Range’s. I daily drive that vehicle, and maybe use the gas motor for 1 percent of the miles I drive. The emissions that my little 647 cc gasoline engine produces, along with those associated with the production of my gas engine+ancillary parts, will likely never outweigh the emissions needed to manufacture over 50 kWh of added battery. Unfortunately, my early i3’s battery ended up kicking the bucket after 135,000 miles, thereby requiring another 19kWh battery, but a later model i3 likely wouldn’t suffer from this charge/discharge longevity issue, and would almost certainly be the best environmental choice for my lifestyle, which is not a particularly uncommon one among Americans.
Supply Constraints Make Ignoring PHEVs Even Worse Of A Decision
The calculus behind the BEV vs PHEV debate is complex, and beyond requiring a thorough understanding of well-to-wheel analyses and human behavioral patterns regarding charging, it requires an understanding of supply chain constraints. And right now, we’re seeing such constraints holding back EV manufacturing. And in a world where battery resources are causing slowdowns, a PHEV (or a range-extended EV) becomes an even more obvious first-choice for reducing climate implications of automobiles.
Why use a 75 kWh battery on a single Tesla Model Y when you could instead use those same battery resources to get four families into a cheaper plug-in hybrid, which they could potentially use in electric mode 99 percent of the time? It’s a concept I’ve been talking about for years, but I’m thrilled to now hear that Toyota — a brand that damn near every automotive publication was critical of, as it was slow to build EVs — is championing it. Recently, our friend Tom McParland from Jalopnik wrote about Toyota’s 1:6:90 rule; here’s a look at it via a dealer document sent to Tom:
I’m not going to get into standard hybrids in this story, but six plug-in hybrids that could potentially very rarely use their gas engines versus one pricier EV? Especially in light of supply constraints, it’s obvious which makes the most sense from an environmental standpoint.
PHEV Palatability Made Ignoring Them Even Worse Of A Decision
Right now, there’s a humongous rift in the U.S. between folks who love EVs and hate gas cars and those who prefer gas cars and hate EVs. It’s an absurdly polarizing issue; my conservative friends say they wouldn’t be caught dead in an electric car, while some of my more liberal friends think gas cars are irresponsible and inefficient and frankly just dumb.
I don’t think this rift would exist to the degree that it does today if we’d had more compelling PHEVs on the market. The fact is that, if you look at a typical parking lot full of cars, these days you’re going to see EVs and gas cars, and not a whole lot in between. Seriously, check out this plot showing BEV sales and plug-in hybrid sales:
And it’s no surprise. Like I wrote before, not only are there more fully electric cars on the market than there are PHEVs, but the BEVs are much, much more compelling than the PHEVs. America hasn’t put enough effort into PHEVs.
And that’s a problem because many Americans aren’t ready to commit to fully-electric cars; it’s a scary, big step, especially in light of infrastructural/power grid concerns and cost. For these people, a PHEV would be the ultimate gateway towards reducing fossil fuel usage.
Today consumers get to choose between cool but too-expensive electric vehicles (especially pickups, though to be sure prices are dropping quickly); gasoline vehicles; and boring, derivative, low-range, also-expensive, simply-not-good-enough PHEVs. The result is that, while more and more people are driving fully electric cars than ever (it’s the fastest growing segment in the U.S. — S&P Global says that “Despite slowing consumer demand for electric vehicles, reports of the demise of EVs have been greatly exaggerated. S&P Global Mobility’s 2024 global sales forecast projects battery electric passenger vehicles to be on track to post 13.3 million units worldwide for 2024 – accounting for an estimated 16.2% of global passenger vehicle sales. For reference, 2023 posted an estimated 9.6 million BEVs, for 12% market share.”), I believe far more people would be driving electric every day if there were more compelling PHEVs on the market.
And far more would then feel comfortable transitioning to fully electric cars once they’d driven a plug-in hybrid. They’d tell their friends, and their friends would tell their friends, and we’d have a lot less polarizing a world when it comes to electric cars vs gas cars than we do today. But that’s just not where we are. Today, if you want a pickup truck, you get to choose between gas and electric, with a few regular hybrids sprinkled in. And because there’s not a plug-in hybrid pickup truck on the lot to win over an anti-EV pickup truck driver and get them to think “You know what? This has a gas motor in it, so it’s not an electric truck. I think I’ll buy this,” only for them to drive around in electric mode the vast majority of the time and gradually change their mind on electric vehicles, the rift continues and skeptics remain skeptics.
The truth is, plug-in hybrids are just more palatable for more people (and because of their small batteries, they don’t require a special Level 2 charger; a regular 110 outlet will general do just fine in my experience), and the importance of that should be extremely obvious to anyone who watches today’s political commercials, which often use EVs to divide a nation that should collectively realize just how great electrification is.
Cost
Let’s talk about cost, because I mentioned it a few times above; we’re seeing PHEVs that cost more than EVs, and yet I claimed before that PHEVs have the potential to be cheaper than EVs, adding to their mass-market palatability.
I haven’t been able to get an exact cost delta between that 75 kWh Model Y and a theoretical 14 kWh one, though I’ve put in a request to my friends at Munro & Associates, the premier EV benchmarking company in the world. Still, I was on Munro’s podcast recently and spoke with Sr. Design Consultant Kevin Harty, who told me that PHEVs are indeed cheaper. And if you look at current lithium-ion battery pricing, it’s easy to understand why.
Batteries currently cost about $120 to $140 per kWh, and though they’re expected to drop below $100 by 2025, an extra 65 kWh worth of battery would still cost $6,500 — that’s probably at least double what a small gasoline engine, generator, and auxiliary components (like the fuel tank, cooling system, and accessories) would cost in a PHEV.
Obviously, the cost equation is complicated by government rebates; when huge numbers like $7500 are being thrown around, that cost delta between a big-battery EV and a small-battery PHEV can shrink. Today, though, PHEVs are eligible for that full $7500 figure, but local rebates (like those offered by power companies) can vary.
Still, if we’re talking just resource-wise, PHEVs have the potential to cost less, and actually still do; from Consumer Reports:
Concern about charging logistics, such as where and when to charge, is a primary reason people are reluctant to purchase an electric vehicle. For many car buyers, a PHEV provides most of the benefits of driving an EV without worries about how and where to charge, Fisher says.
In general, a PHEV costs less to purchase than an EV and is less pricey to fuel than gas or hybrid vehicles.
PHEVs Were The Right Answer, And Still Are
Let me begin by saying that fully-electric cars are ultimately a better answer than plug-in hybrids, and I’m thrilled to see that EV sales are still strong and growing. The truth is that, if we can get our electricity grid cleaned up to where we’re using only renewables, and especially if we can figure out fast-charging battery tech that’s cleaner and cheaper to manufacture, then gasoline engines and the infrastructure that supports them will have no place outside of perhaps commercial applications. But that’s not happening anytime soon, and we need to focus on — as quickly as possible — getting as many butts driving electric as possible. And to do that, range-extended PHEVs (which, yes, add additional complexity/failure modes to EVs, and are packaging compromises) are the answer, at least for the next decade or two.
I’ll repeat a quote from GM president Mark Reuss — one quite similar to the one from Mary Barra in my lede paragraph. This one’s from The Wall Street Journal:
If I had a dollar more to invest, would I spend it on a hybrid?…Or would I spend it on the answer that we all know is going to happen, and get there faster and better than anybody else?”
Let’s put this quote into different terms. Reuss is implying that it makes more sense to spend limited battery resources to get one V8 Chevy Silverado driver to trade in for a ridiculous 200 kWh (!) Silverado EV than it does to take that hideously large battery, split it into four, and get four Silverado V8 drivers to stop cruising around getting 13 MPG and spewing CO2 into the atmosphere. It’s nonsense, but this is exactly what GM chose: fewer, pricier EVs instead of more, cheaper, more palatable (especially to EV skeptics not ready to go full-BEV), lighter PHEVs that could potentially each be better for the environment than their EV counterpart (and certainly, when you factor in the number of people now able to drive around predominantly electricity instead of gas, overall it’s much, much better for the environment, as Toyota concludes with its 1:6:90 rule).
How’s that working out for GM? Let’s check out S&P global’s 2024 EV forecast to get a general idea of the state of the industry:
Despite the slowdown in consumer sentiment toward EVs, there is nonetheless an ongoing necessity for emissions reductions – with EV regulations and milestones largely intact and looming a year closer. However, slowing consumer desire for existing EVs could boost profitable internal combustion engine (ICE) markets and legacy automaker portfolios, driving consolidation and attracting private equity interest.
Crucial strategic decisions regarding capital expenditures in the electrification space need to be made in the near term. Several OEMs are beyond the point of no return in their shift to EVs, while some suppliers might be questioning the wisdom of going “all in” on EVs quite so soon.
Now let’s peek at GM specifically — from Reuters:
General Motors Co said on Tuesday it will delay production of electric pickup trucks at its plant in Michigan’s Orion Township by a year as the No. 1 U.S. automaker grapples with flattening demand for electric vehicle.
The move is the latest sign that electric vehicle production and demand may not be as strong as forecast. GM had been set to begin production of the electric Chevrolet Silverado and GMC Sierra in late 2024 at the suburban Detroit plant. The company said the plan now is to start it in late 2025.
During its earnings call on January 30, GM announced that the pace of electric vehicle (EV) sales had slowed—a serious concern for a company that doubled down on a pure-EV future just three years ago. As a result, the company has reversed direction and will alter its future product strategy to include plug-in hybrids (PHEVs) in its vehicle lineup.
“Our forward plans include bringing our plug-in hybrid technology to select vehicles in North America,” said CEO Mary Barra. “Let me be clear: GM remains committed to eliminating tailpipe emissions from our light-duty vehicles by 2035. But in the interim, deploying plug-in technology in strategic segments will deliver some of the environmental benefits of EVs as the nation continues to build its charging infrastructure. We are timing the launches to help us comply with the more stringent fuel economy and tailpipe emission standards that are being proposed.”
It’s quite clear: Neglecting PHEVs was an industry-wide flub of epic proportions.
Addendum: I’d like to add a bit more about pickup trucks, because they, specifically, drive home my point. Currently, you essentially have two options if you want decent range: Buy a 200kWh electric pickup or buy a gas-guzzling pickup. There’s not much in between. The problem is that that gigantic 200kWh battery is needed to give the vehicle any reasonable towing range. The result is that the truck is huge, expensive, and dirty to manufacture. A plug-in pickup requires a battery less than half the size to handle most people’s around-town commuting, and allows for good towing range. “But when they’re towing, they’ll spew CO2 into the atmosphere!” you might argue. Not if they don’t tow. And most Americans don’t tow. They just want to be ABLE to tow. What’s more, the presence of that gas engine could be enough to win over EV skeptics, and even if not all of them plug in daily, if half of them do — that could still be lots of folks driving electric every day instead of riding around in their guzzler. So yes, folks may not ever tow, and folks may just want a gas engine to bring them comfort to cross that great gas-electric divide, but again, human psychology is key to all of this.
I also want to make it clear that I’m not implying that the U.S. should have focused on PHEVs over EVs. No, focusing on EVs is a smart call for a number of reasons, including cultural ones and practical ones (for example: infrastructure buildout requires pain points, and PHEVs are there to minimize those by providing a convenient backup. Having plenty of EVs on the market definitely expedites solutions to our infrastructure issues more than PHEVs would). I just think PHEVs shouldn’t have been neglected like they were.
I don’t ever say this. And I kinda laugh at the people that do (because I know they won’t) but here I go.
If GM would make a PHEV Colorado I would buy it in a heartbeat. I don’t mean a 60k premium EV/PHEV Colorado. I mean their usual range of trims, but as a PHEV.
I buy cars once every 10-15 years. I would buck that trend and trade in my 2022. I love the quiet, carefree operation of EVs but I need to drive farther and tow without compromise (probably every other weekend). If GM is listening I will buy my first new car EVER if they can just make it happen.
There, I said it.
I’m 100% with you. I love my Ridgeline and don’t have a reason to replace it for the next 6-10 years. But if GM or Honda hyrbridized their midsize truck offerings, I’d be all over it.
All this is great, but about 10 years too late.
Unfortunately the policies of the oil and gas friendly government has pushed automakers to make “trucks” instead of cars, meaning that efficient technology has been compliance vehicles instead of pushing for actual efficient technology.
Toyota got it right, but that’s because they are a global company, not just selling to the American market.
(This comment is from a 14 years hybrid driving crank, so may not represent actual reality.)
My sentiments as well. I drove a Prius for 18 years before switching to BEVs — always frustrated that more cars weren’t being equipped with traction batteries and moving to the plug-in variety. The saddest frustration with all this is that the car industry was never motivated by environmental concerns — just money concerns. If it had been otherwise, they would have been starting the PHEV/hybrid transition 15+ years ago, during which time steadily increasing battery demand would have helped more gradually create the infrastructure needed for BEV batteries. What finally motivated them? Tesla eating their lunch (followed by the looming threat of Chinese BEVs) — so, money again. I also wish automotive writers weren’t only now waking up to all of this. When the Prius started gaining popularity, Jalopnik writers joked about it, saying it wasn’t a real car. Some of them scoffed at Tesla as it was making its foray into the market.
The lack of PHEVs is why I have a Mach-E for daily use, and a 20 year old Yukon XL for mountain biking and camping. I would much rather have one vehicle, but there are just a lot of places that I can’t go to and get back from in an EV with bikes. As soon as someone that isn’t RAM comes out with a PHEV truck (or SUV long enough to sleep in), I’ll buy that instead.
But plug in hybrids only reduce CO2 emissions if people plug them in.
In France they received big company car bonuses, and lots went to fleets.
And after a couple of years, the results were looked at (easy with modern tech, where you just look at the memory chips) and something like 70% of them were never plugged in.
Drivers could not be bothered to do so. Company cars come with company petrol / gas cards, so it was no loss to the driver, where many resented having to use home electricity (even if it was compensated) for their cars.
Others were just too lazy, or too thick to realise you could plug in the cars.
And plug in hybrids, when they do not use the battery, use a lot of fuel — most have 200 kg of batteries to lug around…
I think we have to just admit that most humans don’t care if we’re destroying the environment until a climate disaster happens to them. Even then, they will figure out ways to excuse it as “just weather.”
Future generations (if there are any) will look at us as the most selfish and ignorant generation ever to exist.
I hope you follow up with a hybrid take. All those people that you are saying should be buying PHEVs, but live in apartments, etc. should not be buying PHEVs. Hybrids make the most sense for that demographic to reduce carbon emissions. A lot of people advocating EVs and PHEVs get aghast at burning any gasoline at all (if the PHEV doesn’t cover the last 5-10 miles of someone’s commute, is that really so terrible? NO, you shouldn’t feel ashamed for burning one whole gallon of gasoline per week.). But the US personal transportation sector’s share of the total carbon emissions produced by all sectors can probably be fixed by a combination of just 50mpg+ hybrids and fixing the footprint rule so the incentives are not there for producing giant luxury trucks/SUVs in great numbers. After all, if you are still selling big trucks at the same time as EVs, each one of those is as emitting as much CO2 as four hybrid Priuses. If you want to get anywhere, the gross emitters need to be the targets. Fix/get rid of the footprint rule.
Hybrids also make sense for another large segment: shitbox buyers. A Prius hybrid HV battery costs $2,500. That can be considered reasonable to spend on a 15-year old car if the rest of the car looks good/rust free. But a Prius Prime battery costs $10K. Those of us driving around 20+ year old cars (myself included) aren’t going to risk buying an old PHEV unless we already know of a long-lasting, low-cost traction battery replacement solution. I did risk buying an old hybrid Prius back in the day though, having an extra $2K budget for maintenance/HV battery replacement that I ended up not using (car was totalled in caribou collision after owning it 3 years.) Can’t get lucky with free battery (that caused a lot of emission to produce) like you did with your i3 once you are past 10 years.
Also, consider targeting car buying for emissions advice based on other demographics besides having a garage. There is a decently sized segment of people who should continue to drive their gasoline powered cars—low mileage drivers. For example, the average 65+ American woman drives under 5,000 miles per year. That means more than 3 years just to break even to being cleaner than a gas-powered car (and even more if they are already driving a Prius hybrid), and beyond those years, they aren’t exactly emitting CO2 at a high enough rate to be a reasonable target. For cost-to-environmental benefit ratio, they should be lowest on the list to target. If there were a cash-for-k
lunkersgrossCO2 emitters, it would be targeting Hellcat Chargers/Challengers, not the cars of sub-5K per year drivers. A sub-5K per year driver buying an EV makes little sense, especially when the EV long term costs beyond 10 years could suddenly blow up, and with cars becoming more and more like disposable smartphones.My mom drives about 2,000 miles a year, and I think that’s probably typical for her demographic (80-year old woman). Do the math, an EV makes no sense for both the person (in terms of $) and carbon emissions. I’m Gen X and also drive that little most years (during most of my working years, I commuted by running, biking, or skiing, and I live where I recreate with trails out my back yard), and guilt-free drive my old Subaru(s) as an environmental professional. Other demographics that are low mileage drivers: DC drivers average only 6,356 miles per year, so that means a lot of them are probably well into the range where EVs might not make the most sense and either their old car or hybrids make more sense.
You make a lot of sense. Low-mileage drivers don’t deserve EVs; they become lithium hoarders. You can’t save more fuel than you’re already using.
So if we have a proper electric infrastructure actually most people will be able to go to B, charge their tiny battery and go back to A, only using electricity and not needing a huge battery and 1000hp motors.
Unless people commute 50-80 miles a day (not realistic for MOST people using a car) then a range of 25-40 miles is more than enough for perhaps 95% of us.
The ones driving more can go for a (small) electric car, since even 2 x 80 is just 160 miles ; well below what most EVs can do without a problem. You might even be able to drive 2 days without recharging at all.
Is range anxiety a thing when you’re driving through Death Valley? For sure, but a gas car could also have its problems there (e.g. overheating). But luckily 99.9% of us don’t drive on a regular basis through Death Valley.
and this is why BYD is doing so well building cars with 100-150 mile ranges in China: going anywhere further than that, they take a train (Europe is very similar). America is a different market due to our attitudes about and options for traversing our geography.
Fully agree with you David. I drive a BMW i3 94ah with the 33kWh battery as my daily. It fits the purpose 98 times out of a 100.
Used to have the Rex version before but decided to ditch that this time as the only problems I had with my last one was with that scooter engine.
While you make a strong and convincing case for Rex EVs, and the points you make are very much true today, this argument relies on an assumption that our 15 year old battery technology will remain stagnant for the foreseeable future, even as manufacturers face looming mandates that necessitate dramatic improvements in power density.
As per Toyota’s release last month, vastly superior battery tech is looming, with the possibility of a 1000km charge in ten minutes, which is about as fast as you can pour fuel into a vehicle. If all goes well, we could see this tech on the street in just a few short years.
So, I would certainly buy a depreciated Rex EV today, although I would not put my money on this being the best long term solution.
My other concern with range extenders is that in the i3 for example, once the engine kicks in, it is producing 33hp, which then has to be converted to current through the generator, then stored in the battery which finally powers the wheels. So aren’t you driving around on like 18hp at that point?
Yes. The i3’s Rex is a bit underpowered.
And strong points on battery tech, though the truth is that we’re not there yet, and we haven’t been for awhile. We should have focused on PHEVs five years ago. Not doing so was foolish.
It’s true, we switched to focusing on EVs when PHEVs were a better solution for the time.
We all have the Model 3 to blame for this. Those sales numbers just couldn’t be ignored by established brands.
Although, focusing on battery technology will benefit PHEV development just like it does EVs.
Its not just battery capacity though, its also charging speed and charging availability (infrastructure).
True, public charging infrastructure has a lot of room for improvement.
Current development is focused on improving charging speed, and incoming legislation will create financial opportunity for more investment in public charging.
Higher range with smaller batteries should lower the need for public charging.
Using a generator to charge batteries to drive a motor to propel the car seems really inefficient.
But electric motors are typically ~90% efficient, and generators will be 80-90% efficient. Even compounding the losses, you end up with better than 75% transmission efficiency.
Comparing this to the 80-90% efficiency of a typical automotive driveline, you see that a series hybrid drive really isn’t a whole lot less efficient than mechanical drive. If series hybrid drive was an inefficient and dumb idea, locomotives wouldn’t have been using it for the last 100 years.
And the ticket to my whole point is: You barely use it anyway.
The thing about the range extender is: It just has to be there. It’s a psychological thing, though it’ll get used a bit every now and again.
The psychological component is a huge one.
25% is not an insignificant loss, but it’s not a huge deal so long as the range extender has enough reserve capacity for the vehicle to drive normally when it is running.
20-25% isn’t insignificant, but it’s not much more than the alternative. That was my whole point.
But yes, sufficient horsepower is important. I understand the i3 REX totally doesn’t have a big enough range extender: it’s limited to 55mph and really sucks on hills when running on gasoline.
With my Ford PHEV, performance is strong even after the EV range is gone. Its “range extender” is a big 2.0l four. The short-range Hybrid battery always retains enough power to boost acceleration on demand. The result is a tested 8 second 0-60 time, in either power mode. That’s the same as my 1980s GTI’s which never felt like slow cars. Neither does the Ford PHEV.
That’s a PHEV done right.
I’ve been a fan of this type of configuration for a while, and a big selling point for me has always been EV capability for a lower cost.
With PHEV cost now eclipsing EV cost, it would seem that PHEVs are an even worse option, although I am compelled by David’s point about being able to drive in mostly EV mode while having a dramatically lower environmental impact than a pure EV.
Captain Hindsight 100% agrees with you.
Perhaps for some. Many of us decried GM’s decision to forego PHEVs; it seemed foolish even five years ago, and that’s now confirmed.
Oh crap. Sorry man. It was a South Park joke. I forgot you grew up in a Cartmanless world and might not get it.
Your article was brilliant and I for one entirely agree with you. The math of the whole thing was so obvious that it really took the kind of massive corporation group think willful arrogance to not see it. As you well know, GM has perfected such.
Sunova! I miss a lot of references. I attribute this to my military upbringing (much of it overseas), followed by college which involved me studying all day every day, followed by more engineering at Chrysler.
Only around 2015 did I pop my head out from under a rock when I started working at Gawker, but I may never catch up!
We picked up our new Rav4 Prime yesterday. Drove the 33 miles home on EV uphill. Charged on 120v overnight to show 36 miles on EV mode. The gas range is 566 miles. We will only need to gas up once on our 710 mile drive to our kids place in a few days. We can 120v plug in there and drive around Puyallup in EV mode. PHEV is the way to go. I had to take my Prius AWD to the store today as we haven’t set up the Rav4 to haul our three dogs yet. I felt wasteful driving the Prius when the Rav4 EV-mode was just sitting in the garage.
To be fair, refueling only once in 710 miles is extremely normal. That requires only a 350 mile range, which most gas cars can easily manage.
Both our regular Rav4 hybrid and ’20 Prius required two gas stops for the same trip.
Umm….. Google says that a 2020 Prius has an 11.3 gallon tank and gets 48mpg highway. Google says that’s a 598 mile range, although my math says that’s only 542 miles. Either way, that’s WAY more than half of 710 miles.
Don’t forget that gas stations are not always located at an appropriate distance to make travel efficient.
I guess there are no gas stations within 150 miles of the halfway point?
None that we are willing to go to.
I’ve been an EV owner for a whopping 8 days, and it’s been absolutely fantastic! Picked up a CPO Renault K-ZE (aka Dacia Spring) for around 5000USD here in China, and its essentially the minimalist EV DT described: 27kWh pack, 45hp motor, 10%-80% in 40mins, 0-60 in 20 seconds(!) and 150miles of range (at 50mph). A barebones EV, nothing more and nothing less.
The engineer part of me loves seeing the regen meter, and I try to eke out every electron from every stop and every slope. Charging is fun as well, and coming back to a full car after meals or groceries is always satisfying. So far I’ve never had to endure the pains of range anxiety, even without the means to charge where I live.
I don’t think that’s going to be true for the average consumer though; charging is going to be a chore rather than a technical exercise, and for those without the means to install home chargers (aka a significant proportion of Chinese EV owners who rent, or those who live in old decrepit housing complexes with bad grids), finding an available public charger is going to be rage inducing if everyone else without a home charger is doing it too. Imagine if the average Joe had to wait 30 mins for an open spot after a shitty day at work, then wait another 1hr for their car to charge to 100%; they’d probably want to crush their EVs and go back to ICEs in an instant.
From a purely consumer perspective, unless charging times shrink to 5mins per car, I think there’s always going to be a place for PHEVs. Absolutely spot on, DT
(5mins charging for ten 75kWh cars at one station = 9 megawatts! Maybe micro nuclear plants are in order??)
The Volvo XC40 comparison study is currently the most comprehensive look at EV vs ICE break even, and it is not the 15,000 miles as in the NYT link in this article. It’s many more miles than that.
My friend Cletus wants to know if you can roll coal in a PHEV.
Sure, just toss chnks of coal out the window and watch the coal roll. Littering fines may apply.
GM had this back in 2010…
https://www.caranddriver.com/photos/g18107079/chevrolet-volt-mpv5-electric-concept-gallery/
2019 Chevy Volt – at ~53 miles of battery-only range – stops by to say “Hi! Remember me?!”
We filed up our X5 45e for the first time in 7 weeks last weekend. 900 miles of electric only operation on a single tank of gas. Average mpg was 80. And when push comes to shove, I can drive across the country at the drop of a hat.
This is the way.
I’m glad to see the comments section agreeing with you on this. Whenever I say PHEVs are crap (treating REX BEVS as the better alternative) people get all huffy about it.
Even with their obscenely low range I could work with the range of a PHEV, I just want it in Range Extended BEV format. If Jeep put the original Wrangler BEV concept into production and put a little ICE range extender engine in it it would have been perfect for my use case and I would have bought several.
Also for PHEVs that can L1 charge why not have a charging port that is just a 110V plug and throw in the proper gauge extension cord. There’s no need to have a “handshake” for the charging cable and the car when it’s just 110V, a 110V plug doesn’t take up really any space (unlike current charging standards), and it would likely be a ton cheaper for both the car side hardware and the extension cord than a L1 charging cable and such. They did this for the Citicar and the Comutacar.
Also it would save wear and tear on the “fast” charging port.
Not sure how to square some of the claims here with this analysis from a lab at MIT:
https://www.carboncounter.com/#!/explore?
You can play with the sliders to customize to your specific use. In much of America, for anything like a typical use case BEVs are still less carbon intensive than PHEVs. Taking one of the best PHEVs, the Prius Prime, there are several options for cleaner BEVs, including the Model 3SR+ which is currently similarly priced to the Prius Prime around where I’m at in California.
As David pointed out, if you’re in an apartment, then the chances that you’re going to religiously top up the small PHEV battery, even if it has decent range, is pretty limited – in which case why not just get a non-plug-in hybrid and save the marginal cost? Or, get a 250+ mi BEV and charge up about once a week?
And if you have off street parking and can charge up regularly, why not go for a BEV then which will net save on both carbon cost and $$ cost over a typical term of use per that MIT calculator?
Range extended EVs or PHEVs make sense for things like towing and truck things – the energy density of gas plainly beats batteries for those energy intensive things. But for the typical grocery getter daily driver sort of stuff, especially in CA where David is, I don’t see the case for PHEVs to be honest.
Totally agree David. America is a great big place, with a hugely varying climate. It’s going to be a long time before full EVs are capable of meeting our personal transportation needs, so we absolutely need hybrids and plug in hybrids to be getting better while battery and charging technology matures. It’s going to be a very long time before gasoline goes away.
Just how many Prius’ could Toyota build with the recourses and materials needed to build just one wasteful virtue signaling big pig Hummer EV? Enquiring minds want to know
The Prius Prime has a 13.6 kWh battery. The Hummer EV has a 205 kWh battery. Assuming materials usage were the same, that’s 15 Prii Prime per one Hummer EV. Heck, it’s almost 6 Prii Prime per one Model Y Long Range!
100% agree. Should be a transition. If we all drove hybrids emissions would be cut more than half. Time would be there to build a proper charging infrastructure, dealers would have time to transition and still get service for ice drivetrains. win, win all the way around. Our government, sadly, doesn’t do down the middle and sensible anymore. it’s either left or right, we won’t compromise on either side. Full speed ahead! no matter how stupid it is, sadly, my political party must win! Disgusting. this will be the first presidential election I sit out. If my choices are Satan or the devil, I’ll sit out and spare myself jury duty, jury duty, another joke for another day.
Yes, the Perfect is the enemy of the Good. It’s better to accept a moderate compromise than to hold out for a perfect option. You seem to be able to spot this in car-related issues. Soon, I hope, you’ll apply the same principle to politics. Satan is the devil, and he holds just one place on the ballot.
PHEV are a compromise. . .and a good one in my opinion. My only takes in on the available electric range. . .adding a larger electric battery is going to add weight and cost. Not to mention just getting it all to fit in the vehicle. At some point the added cost and weight will be a disadvantage. . .I would assume someone at during design has numbers and graphs to support this (I don’t have the time to look for it for reference).
(This was more a comment that should have been for the previous article, but. . .oh well)
I agree with all of this and I will take it further: Tow vehicles and RVs are ideal use cases for REX EVs. In addition to the extra range and quick fill ups afforded by the ICE who WOULDN’T want a no extra cost, highly efficient, well silenced, powerful generator and heater RIGHT THERE?
Tow vehicles and RVs are the two types of vehicles most likely to see extended highway driving. Aka the one thing range extended electric vehicles are bad at.
Why do you think this.
“Tow vehicles and RVs are the two types of vehicles most likely to see extended highway driving. Aka the one thing range extended electric vehicles are bad at.”
There is nothing inherently inefficient about a REX system, in fact quite the opposite. Taken to the extreme of the concept (big dedicated ICE generator with only electric traction motors and no battery) is exactly what a diesel electric locomotives is and THAT by all measures is the ultimate fuel efficient long distance tow rig.
Why do I think this?
Because what RVs and camping trailers do far more often than travel long distances on the highway is not move at all, often in places with no shore power. They need both electricity and heat when in use which is typically provided now by a loud, dirty, fuel and space inefficient generator. I’ve been woken up far too many times while camping by some jerk ignoring noise regulations by firing up their Jenny at all hours of the night.
The much quieter, much more efficient much cleaner, already there REX could be that generator instead AND offer copious amounts of free HVAC heat and hot water as well. Hybrid engines tend to be quiet and clean enough I think they might be OK to use in a quiet campground. Hybrid engines tend to be 40% thermally efficient vs a typical small generator only turning 15% of the energy of the gas it burns into electricity at best and dumps all the rest as waste heat.
And, unlike a diesel-electric locomotive, a REX EV would be able to capture and use the energy harvested from the regenerative braking, instead of dissipating it as heat.
So, I agree, a range extender and batteries make a lot of sense to have a secondary use as a power supply once your RV gets there.
But when you say, “there is nothing inherently inefficient about a REX system”, that’s just false. During steady state highway cruising, the transmission efficiency of a normal mechanical drive automotive drivetrain is VERY high. Considerably higher than a generator and motor.
A series hybrid(which is what a REX is when you run out of battery) will be 10-20% less efficient than a mechanical drive going down the highway at a steady speed. That means 10-20% more fuel burned, and 10-20% more heat that has to be rejected, which has all kinds of negative aero implications by itself, further hurting efficiency.
Obviously this only becomes an issue once you run out of battery. But with a tow rig, RV, or other heavy vehicles, that will happen long before you get where you’re going. An f-150 Lightning can’t even manage 100 miles with a heavyish trailer, and that’s with a big ol 98kWh battery. And the whole point of a REX is to have a smaller battery than that.
During steady state highway cruising, the transmission efficiency of a normal mechanical drive automotive drivetrain is VERY high. Considerably higher than a generator and motor.
I dunno. I think if the losses were as pronounced as you say locomotives should use a direct coupling once up to speed. Train operators are as sensitive to fuel costs as anyone and trains are as insensitive to weight and bulk as land transport gets. Trains don’t because IIRC the extra weight and complexity isn’t worth the relatively minor efficiency gains.
A series hybrid(which is what a REX is when you run out of battery) will be 10-20% less efficient than a mechanical drive going down the highway at a steady speed.
…
And the whole point of a REX is to have a smaller battery than that.
I assume that is because the engine is under too much load trying to charge the battery while also trying to keep the vehicle moving along. So make the REX powerful enough to keep the battery charged while towing at highway speed, then use cylinder deactivation in generator mode when less power (and heat) is needed to keep the efficiency up. Problem solved.
I don’t know why locomotives don’t use a mechanical coupling once up to speed, but the Chevy Volt does. Obviously the losses are enough that GM thought it was worth the extra cost and complexity. I suspect locomotives don’t do it purely because a mechanical drive strong enough for locomotive service is quite large and heavy.
Right-0. Locomotives have such a tremendous power output — typically, 60,000 pound-feet — that mechanical transmissions become too massive and heavy to be practical and reliable. Railroads tried that powertrain long ago, and it failed.
That I think is for a physical drive strong enough to start a fully loaded train from a dead stop.
What I’m talking about is still an electric traction drive but with the addition of a direct drive that only kicks in once the train is already at speed to maximize the efficiency.
If that’s the case it’s not a dealbreaker. Just add a direct drive ala the Volt to drive the wheels directly if that is worth the cost and complexity to maximize efficiency, at least until EV electronics improve to the point the gains are diminished.
I think though the need is a bit overstated. Most RVs aren’t driven nearly as much as commuter cars like the Volt are, especially off season. The fuel savings may not be worth the added complexity and failure modes as opposed to a properly sized REX. REX EV hybridizing however as previously discussed has benefits other than moving the thing.
Going PHEV instead of REXEV may make more sense in vehicles that are used year round to tow other things as well as camping trailers though. The benefits of a self propelled whole house generator/heater should be a very good selling point, especially for anyone whose been without hear and power during a winter bomb cyclone.
I agree that the cost and complexity of a mechanical direct drive isn’t worth it for a vehicle that gets driven relatively little. But that brings us to one of the bigger problems with a hybrid or electric motorhome/camper in general: Most of them don’t get driven that much, and it’s questionably worth it to put the effort and cost into saving fuel/money/CO2 when it just won’t be that much compared to other cars.
If what you’re after is a really good generator in your motorhome, you can just add a really good generator for less than the cost of hybridizing a motorhome. Or you could get really fancy and run the engine as a generator anyways, just leaving the transmission in neutral.
I agree that a REX setup would make more sense for a tow vehicle, but I’m still not especially sold on that. The whole idea of a REX is that you do 95% of your driving on electric and the generator is there if you need it. When electric tow rigs have such abysmal range towing, you would do the majority of your miles (with a trailer, anyways) running on gasoline.
I really do think that the ideal use case for a REX setup is a small to midsize car that gets used for normal errands and commuting. Which is to say, I quite disagree with your original statement that a motorhome or tow vehicle is an ideal application.
Interesting counterargument to my ideas here is Edison Motors, who are awesome. They are building range extended electric semi trucks. However, at this point they have pretty much admitted that electric towing range is kinda bad, and that it’s just a series hybrid once you run out of electric range. But they have found some quite compelling advantages to a series hybrid setup for certain heavy trucking applications.
Its not just the fuel savings and lowered emissions from moving the thing though, which was my original point and my argument for a REX setup. The REX in the tow vehicle is also a generator.
A big REV/TowEV battery can also be charged with solar and/or wind while the sun is shining/wind is blowing and provide power when they don’t, thus saving jenny gas and lowering emissions. That’s important when you’re far from anywhere, much less a gas or shore power.
Ideally you could use the big battery to charge ebikes and maybe even a small EV runabout overnight from the charge accumulated during the day to be as off grid as possible.
“you can just add a really good generator for less than the cost of hybridizing a motorhome.”
Can you? The small generators I’ve seen are not particularly efficient at turning gasoline into electricity, typically about 15% max whereas a hybrid ICE is 40% and getting better. Natural gas fuel cells are 60% which opens up other possibilities.
My search was limited though so more efficient RV specific generators may well exist but I very much doubt they will come anywhere near the efficency of a hybrid ICE. A separate genny will also need a carveout whereas a hybrid system might fit into the space of a traditional drivetrain.
I also very much doubt those generators will be anywhere near as clean or as quiet as a federally emissions regulated hybrid ICE.
I don’t know much about the state of the art in generators, and maybe nobody has built a Really Good Generator yet, but if it’s possible with a car engine, it’s possible with a generator engine. I know that existing diesel generators are quite efficient, and I know that you can always add more mufflers and noise insulation.
Out of curiosity I looked up a few RV generators. I’m using the cheapest RV gas generator and the most expensive RV diesel generator as boundary conditions for least efficient and most efficient:
The low end cheapest gas RV generator costs $3684. Its rated for 2.8kW and at that load consumes 0.46 gallons/hour. That puts its efficiency at 18.1%
https://norwall.com/products/onan-2800i-gasoline-rv-28hglaa-8303a
The most expensive (and presumably most sophisticated and efficient) RV diesel generator costs $13,404 is rated at 10kW. Fuel consumption at that load is not given, only as 0.43 gallons/hr @ 50% load. IIRC Diesel engines are most efficient at max load so running at somewhat less than optimal efficiency this diesel generator yields 31.3% TE.
https://norwall.com/products/Cummins-Onan-QD-10-0-Diesel-RV-Generator-10.0HDKCA-11506
The most expensive diesel generator ($20,271) does give a fuel consumption at full load: 25kW, 2 gph so its efficiency is 33.7%
https://norwall.com/products/25000-Watt-CK-Series-Mobile-Generator-CK-25KSI-2
So at 40% TE a hybrid ICE should blow any of these away while taking up no additional room.
Costwise even the “cheap” generator is rather expensive and the best RV generator is quite expensive (and bulky) so I expect a hybrid RV won’t be *that* much more expensive than an equivalent ICE only with a separate “good” genny.
but if it’s possible with a car engine, it’s possible with a generator engine.
Yes..and no. Toyota, GM and other manufacturers certainly have the parts available. There are certainly plenty of junkyards to find wrecked donors. There are lots of handy folks with sheds who are up to the task. I myself have said right here on the Autopian and elsewhere that a used Prius engine and battery would make an amazing flex fuel home generator. As far as fuel costs go it’s electricity burning PG&E NG would be cheaper than PG&E electricity with the copious waste heat as a huge bonus for free HVAC and hot water.
I think though most folks would much rather just buy something ready to go, something with a warranty, a guarantee to work in their application and a blessing from all regulatory agencies.
Then there is the issue of cost – will a “really good generator” and conventional ICE drivetrain be cheaper than a REXEV drivetrain? A review of the price difference between PHEV and ICE versions of similar vehicles and the price of a really good RV generator is probably the best way to guesstimate the difference.
I know that existing diesel generators are quite efficient
About 33% TE which is great but still not as good as an Atkinson gasoline hybrid engine at 40% or more.
Gas is also considerably cheaper than diesel, at least where I live.
and I know that you can always add more mufflers and noise insulation.
Once can indeed add mufflers and insulation – and emissions controls if needed. Those do take up room though which might be a tough squeeze whereas the drivetrain already present to move the RV has that already there.
My buddy and I talked about this. He bought an ID4 but preferred to buy a PHEV but there were fewer PHEV options and they are all more expensive than comparable EV options.
That’s absolutely absurd, and is leading more people to just stick with gas cars. Silly!
That’s where I’ll be if I decide to get a new car. A Prius Prime would meet all my needs – weekend errands within electric range (urban location; no life) and depending on my next job, my commute as well (the battery would have lasted almost a week of my former commute and there was free charging in the city garages.) But Prius Prime availability is scarce and a long-range Model Y comes in at the same street price or less after the tax credit.
I’m going to buy a new (to me) car this summer. My top two targets are the yet-to-be-released Toyota Crown Signma and Mazda CX-70 (Only the Mazda will have a PHEV upon release). For the cost of those two, I’m shopping in the CTO Porsche Cayenne aisle – not the higher trims but it certainly make me think when it oughta’ be a no-brainer.
This was pretty much my experience too, I would have been an ideal use case for a phev, but all the ones that would have suited me either weren’t available in Australia or too expensive compared to the BEV options, so I ended up with a cupra born (basically an ID3)
One of the best pieces you’ve written, David Tracy.
Well shucks! (Thank you)
S/he’s right!
They’re was right there.