EREV is, as far as automotive acronyms go, close to perfect. There’s an onomatopoetic quality to it you don’t get with, say, BEV or HEV. The worst might be PHEV, which sounds like what happens when you unsuccessfully try to stifle a sneeze. With an EREV, there’s “E” there, which everyone other than Jaguar associates with electricity. Then there’s “REV,” which is what a gas-powered engine does. EREV!
Ford likes the sound of it as well, with the company confirming to Bloomberg its much-anticipated pivot to Extended Range Electric Vehicles for its line of trucks, SUVs, and crossovers. This means I get to tap the “Decade of the EREV” sign again, which you know is something I love to do when I write The Morning Dump.
It’s going to take Ford at least two years to get to this EREV future and in the interim it’ll have to do its best to fend off rivals like Hyundai/Kia and Mazda, both of whom had great months. Tesla will remain an ever-present competitor to Ford as well, although the brand continues to show weakness.
Oh, hey, remember when I wrote that long piece about the impending cost of tariffs against Mexico and Canada? It was yesterday. Those are on hold. Tariffs against China, though, are happening. I think! I don’t know. Keep your powder dry.
How Excited Are You For An EREV Super Duty?
Ford has two simultaneous projects going on to prepare itself for the future. One is the so-called Skunkworks project to create a sub-$30k range of electric vehicles to stave off Chinese automakers and eat into Tesla’s waning dominance of the EV space. The other plan–much speculated on and basically confirmed today in this Bloomberg article–is a hard shift into EREVs.
EREVs have become very popular in China, the world’s largest market for battery-powered cars, and Farley was wowed by the technology during a visit there with his executives last spring. Ford plans to offer EREV versions of its sport utility vehicles, crossover models and its big Super Duty pickup, its most popular and profitable vehicles, according to people familiar with its plans.
No automakers currently offer EREVs for sale in the US, but that will change soon. Chrysler parent Stellantis NV will be the first to offer one later this year with its Ram 1500 Ramcharger. Volkswagen AG’s new battery-powered Scout line of SUVs and trucks is slated to debut EREV versions in 2027.
Am I surprised? I’m not surprised. When the Scout was revealed to be an EREV, David made a big tweet asking automakers to consider this. The response from Ford CEO Jim Farley?
David, interesting comments……
— Jim Farley (@jimfarley98) October 26, 2024
“David, interesting comments……” That’s a double ellipse. That’s six whole periods. Two hockey games! That’s a lot of innuendo.
If you’re not a huge EREV-head, allow me to briefly explain. An EREV is essentially an electric car with a gas-powered generator to provide additional range when necessary. The difference between a PHEV and an EREV is that the wheels can’t be driven by the gas-powered engine. The only EREV sold in the United States in any numbers were the BMW i3 and BMW i8 with the range-extender option. I tend to believe the Volt counts, as well, though there was a mode in which the ICE could be used to power the wheels, so David doesn’t count it even if he does love it. [Ed Note: Also, an EREV provides not only immunity to EV infrastructure inadequacies, but in theory it can be cheaper because it protects for road trip/towing use cases not with a bunch of extra heavy/pricy battery capacity, but with a cheaper and lighter gas generator. What’s more, it allows automakers to use a common platform for both fully electric and EREV powertrains. -DT]
To explain why EREVs make sense, I’ll quote from David’s follow-up piece on the inevitability of the technology:
America is a truck and SUV market, which is why GM has axed legendary nameplates like the Chevy Impala and Malibu, and Stellantis and Ford don’t offer a single sedan today. Expecting Americans to give up SUVs and trucks for small cars in order to get more range for their money just ain’t gonna happen organically (it doesn’t help that small cars see higher fatality rates, and that in the U.S. you almost have to have a big car to feel safe). High-range small and midsize crossovers — not unsubstantial classes, to be sure — will get cheaper and cheaper as they become even more efficient, and we’re starting to see that already (see the Equinox EV, which is great) — this is a segment for which EREVs perhaps make less sense. But big trucks and big SUVs simply don’t work as affordable EVs. In fact, right now there are zero affordable, competitive electric pickup trucks or large SUVs on the American market, especially if the EV tax credit goes away.
Rivians and the long-range Kia EV9 are both too expensive, every EV pickup truck is either too pricey or can’t tow nearly far enough on a charge, and as for hard-core off-road competitors to the Wrangler and Bronco? Forget about it. Throwing 35-inch tires on an EV will damage Vehicle Demand Energy so much it just won’t work out.
I’m all for reducing Vehicle Demand Energy to reduce overall EV cost, and I’m for offering lots of lower-range models, but Americans aren’t giving up full-size pickups, large three-row SUVs, or off-roaders, and if you want to get lots of folks driving electric as quickly as possible, you’re going to have to meet them where they are.
Ford is a brand that only makes one car. Just one! It’s the Mustang. Everything else is some form of truck, SUV, or crossover. Let’s think of all the ways an EREV makes sense:
- Super Duty Trucks: Yes
- F-150: Yes
- Expedition: Yes
- Explorer: Yes
- Bronco: Yes
- Bronco Sport: Yes
- Maverick: Yes
- Mustang: Maybe?
- Transit: Yes
The big question, of course, is hybrids. Ford sells a lot of regular HEV-style hybrids. If you build an EREV platform you ideally want it to be BEV + EREV, not BEV + EREV + ICE + HEV. For trucks that might work because packaging is easier, but anything Explorer or smaller is another question. Does this mean we’re going to get a Bronco that’s either electric or EREV?
The Scout is either EREV or BEV. The Ram platform, though, is available as an ICE-powered truck, an incoming EREV, and an electric truck that’s been delayed so the EREV Ramcharger can go to market first. Ford is going to be talking to investors on Wednesday and the question I want analysts to ask is: Where is the cutoff? At what point do you say something is either hybrid or EREV?
Either way, I love this. More efficient big trucks are a good thing. This, I hope, will move more buyers towards upgrading their homes for EV charging. It’ll show people how often they actually drive. It should lead to lower gasoline consumption and, therefore, emissions. All of this is good.
Also, just to be clear, I like to use old concept cars to introduce new ideas, so I’m using the Ford Atlas Concept from 2013 here to illustrate an EREV future for Ford. This was actually used to preview the last generation F-150, but I like the blue lights.
January Was Another Good Month For Hybrids
Even with some less-than-ideal weather in a lot of the country, many automakers reported strong January sales. Everyone loves a winner, so let’s start with some winners.
Honda was up 4.1% and Acura improved 0.6% over last January. Honda lumps the Prologue with all its hybrids as “electrified” vehicles, and “electrified” vehicles saw an 83.2% year-over-year increase. Sure, that’s mostly hybrids, but Honda also sold (or leased) 3,744 Prologues. That’s a lot of Prologues.
Subura had another good month, up 4.1% year-over-year. Mazda was an even bigger winner, up 11.2%. Overall, though, it’s Hyundai and Kia you’d like to be right now. Overall, the brands improved deliveries by 13.1% if you include Genesis. Hyundai was the strongest of the two with a 14.6% year-over-year increase.
Toyota sales were off by about 1.6%, though some of that may still be from a lack of inventory. While Toyota sells more cars than Honda, Honda usually has more cars to sell. One small bright spot for Toyota was the 3.8% year-over-year increase for the Prius.
EV sales are now growing faster at Ford than hybrid vehicles are, with a 21.2% year-over-year increase in EV sales led by 3,529 Mach-Es. HEVs were up just 19.2%, though those were seemingly dragged down by a drop in Maverick sales of 29.8% off a banger of a January last year. It’ll be interesting to see how the introduction of a revised Maverick will impact sales now that prices are higher.
Most other brands report quarterly, so we’ll have to wait for registration data later this month to make broader conclusions.
Tesla Sales Are The Ultimate Rorschach Test
Tesla was always destined to lose market share. You can’t be that successful at something and not expect other people to compete against you. Are Tesla’s declines in places like California, where EVs are expanding, a sign that the market is maturing or a sign that people don’t like Elon Musk? How you answer that question might say more about what you believe than what you know.
At the same time, is Tesla’s big 63% drop in France a sign that the French don’t like the company’s CEO and his Lost Boys/AfD antics? Or is it just that the French are nationalistic and will buy a French car before an American one?
French government ministers late last month called for the European Commission to immediately suspend the regulation on CO2 emissions from passenger cars, warning that it could result in billions of euros going to Chinese manufacturers and Tesla, “whose CEO Elon Musk is openly attacking European regulations and values.”
Or, and hear me out, the world isn’t black-and-white and it’s a mixture of all these things plus the fact that the cars are old and need to be updated.
Tariffs On China Will Continue
Speaking of Rorschach tests, the very short-lived tariffs against Canada and Mexico didn’t happen. Was this capitulation from Mexico and Canada? Was this President Trump getting spooked by the market? Does anything mean anything anymore? Again, the answer to that question has a lot to do with what you already believe. And for our purposes, it doesn’t matter. What matters is that the tariffs are on hold for a month, and whatever happens in renegotiations to the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement in the next month is far more important.
The additional 10% tariff against China, which was lost in all the panic yesterday, is apparently happening. China is already responding, according to Nikkei Asia:
China’s Ministry of Commerce on Tuesday announced a 15% tariff on American coal and liquefied natural gas, as well as 10% on crude oil, farm equipment and some vehicles, all starting next Monday.
China also expanded export controls on shipments of tungsten, tellurium and other rare metal products that could be used for goods such as lithium batteries. American companies including clothing maker PVH and biotechnology player Illumina were added to a so-called unreliable entity list.
“The imposition of tariffs by the United States on Chinese exports to the United States is a serious violation of [World Trade Organization] rules,” a ministry spokesperson said on Tuesday. The representative blasted U.S. behavior as “of bad nature, typical of unilateralism and a form of trade protectionism.”
Separately, China’s market regulator said it was launching an investigation into Google over alleged violation of antitrust law
Chinese President Xi Jinping and President Trump are supposed to talk soon, so perhaps this will also go away. I saw two different elementary school performances of The Wizard of Oz last week and it reminded me how much I loved the meta line “People come and go so quickly here.” That’s basically how I feel about these tariffs.
What I’m Listening To While Writing TMD
The debate yesterday was between playing Bjork’s “It’s Oh So Quiet” and “Birthday” by pre-solo Bjork project The Sugarcubes. Why can’t we have both?
The Big Question
You go through the Ford/Lincoln lineup and tell me what should be:
- ICE
- ICE + HEV
- BEV + EREV
- BEV + HEV + ICE + EREV
or any other combination.
Vanilla: ICE + ICE + BEV
I desperately wish Lincoln had a version of the Mach E. I absolutely love that car and want a luxury version
I also want to see a Maverick in both EREV and full BEV. The compact trucks don’t haul as much so the range extender isn’t as important for them
This all assumes an unlimited battery supply and engineering resources. Whatever Ford does, they need to stop burning their supplier base by changing directions all the time. Eventually I’d like to see it all go BEV + EREV. If they can scale up semi-solid and solid state batteries, will be the end of traditional ICE only vehicles.
Ford will do no such thing, there won’t be a single EREV – or whatever – any time soon. They WILL redesign the grill on the F150 again, and put out numerous special editions of every vehicle (truck) they make, and continue business as usual. In a climate for friendly to ICE, they’ll simply spend less time and money on EV’s and be caught flat footed again when the pendulum swings back the other way. They’re lazy.
The solution to this transitional time in automobile powertrain and drivetrain technology is rather simple and has been staring us in the face for decades. However I suspect none of the legacy manufactures have the courage to embrace it because to do so would be at the very least a partial admission that they have invested far too heavily in reciprocating piston engines. The solution requires a petroleum powered generator with a high output relative to its size and weight and far less complex mechanicals with unsurpassed reliability and durability. That is a microturbine and could be used in a series hybrid to generate electricity for the battery and possibly supplemental heat for cold weather climates. Ditch the complex and heavy transmission outright. I believe this is the type of hybrid that people want. The problem is that its been hiding in plain sight ever since the last Chrysler turbine car was crushed along with that dream. Sadly the only company I am aware of that makes such a hybrid powertrain is Wrightspeed for medium and heavy commercial trucks.
All Fix Or Repair Daily’s suck…all of them should be gas though
Pink Floyd is the best band ever
Dark side of the rainbow
https://youtu.be/627aciBA2E8?si=MYg5_bQK0B5NIYOR
“I tend to believe the Volt counts, as well, though there was a mode in which the ICE could be used to power the wheels, so David doesn’t count it”
The Bolt connects the engine at 80 mph with a dead battery because this increases efficiency. Do you not expect Americans to continue to keep up with traffic, and then complain about fuel economy even though they are driving way to fast? Maybe the ideal EREV only works in China because they have a low maximum speed limit and kind of a strict authoritarian surveillance state to enforce it.
I personally think that in the US automakers will go with the Volt method, do a better job of hiding or explaining it, and then just call everything EREV because it is a cooler name. This is probably what is happening with China, and something is just getting lost in translation. The BYD Han DM-i is front wheel drive and probably is a decent example of an EREV sedan with a low price. The BYD Han DM AWD has the electric motor in the back. This is a PHEV because the engine drives the front wheels. Even if PHEV vs EREV sales numbers from China are being correctly reported, is this really anything more meaningful than the cheapest option sells in the highest numbers?
That poor, unfortunate, taxidermied bird.
Don’t want a suv, cuv, truck or van and a sedan won’t work with an erev you say. Out of the market for a few more years or I have to bite the bullet and lease a lucid.
i don’t like the EREV acronym.
it has ICE for Extended Range, but Plug it in to charge the battery, so wouldn’t it be nicer to call it a PERV?
shouldn’t we all want to plug in with a PERV?
Ford shouldn’t have given up so easily on their Energi products. The name was a bit silly, but the tech was good (even if the transmissions can be a bear to replace when they need replacement around 150K or more). The Escape Hybrid was a staple of the taxi market, to the point they should have offered an Energi version of it.
To answer the question: do what’s being done with the F-150: ICE, EV, hybrid, and add a plug-in hybrid and/or EREV.
-Do the same through the lineup starting with the Super Duty, Expedition, and Ranger (and maybe Bronco and Everest by association). Get those CAFE numbers in better areas while allowing battery and charging tech to improve, so when it comes time to electrictrify the crossovers batteries can be smaller and lighter.
-The next generation of Escape/Bronco Sport/Corsair should all be hybridized at least.
-Next-gen Edge (don’t kill it, it’s a good size!) and Explorer (and their Lincoln counterparts) should all be hybridized with an EREV option. The platforms have more room than their smaller siblings for batteries.
-I mentioned the Everest earlier. Sell that in the U.S. It’s a better competitor to the 4Runner than the Bronco.
-Mustang should always have a V8 option. A hybrid/EREV option isn’t a bad one, but would probably need to be coupled with the smaller engine. The Mach-E is fine, but could use a visual update. The Rally version looks fun.
I still think EREVs could make a lot of sense in theory.
In practice, affordability and useful lifespan will be big issues.
Not only you have the complexity and raw material cost of a large EV with a 90+ kWh battery, but you also have an entire gas engine with emissions, charge control electronics, fuel delivery system, exhaust, and so on.
If you’re in EV mode, all of that is dead weight. If you’re in ICE mode, the battery is the dead weight.
Then what happens when they get a bit older and either of those components die? Mainly, when the big EV traction battery goes.
People buy expensive trucks expecting a 15-20 year useful lifespan, sometimes even more in rust-free areas. Still lots of 7.3 diesel Superduties around and those are closing in on 30 years soon.
Will a 20-25 year-old EREV still drive on the gas engine alone?
And if it will, won’t it have even worse efficiency than a traditional ICE truck, that doesn’t have to haul a thousand lbs of bricked battery around?
This is why I think traditional hybrids make more sense, the battery is small and not terribly expensive to replace, yet it still offers the benefits of being able to shut down the gas engine in stop-and-go traffic, saving some gas.
How long can gas sit in the tank before it becomes problematic?
My uncle had a BMW I3 with range extender and never drove enough to use much gas as he just ran errands around town. He ended up trading it in for and I3 without range extender because the unused gas started causing issues and he had to deal with draining it and putting in new gas. I’m not sure what kind of problems he actually had as a result of this, but it’s something that I have not heard discussed regarding EREV’s. Obviously an EREV is not a good choice for a person with these driving habits, but I’d like to hear thoughts on it. I think many people do fall into this category and it doesn’t seem like an obvious consideration, at least it wasn’t for my uncle.
Elon is definitely putting some people off, but I think Tesla is at a point where we’re seeing another weakness of it not being like other auto manufacturers: their aging lineup.
It’s 2025. I don’t want to go out and spend brand new mid- to full-size luxury car money on something that launched in 2012. The Model X, which launched in 2015, is and has always been dumpy looking, fun rear doors be damned, but now it’s dumpy looking and a decade old. The CUV style pendulum appears to be swinging back to aping the style of boxier SUVs. That’s not the Model X or Model Y. The Model 3 seems fine, but we’ve seen what happens to sedan sales when more CUVs become an option.
Any legacy automaker would have replacements for the S and X on the road by now with replacements for most of the rest of the lineup already well into development. Those new models would react and adapt to changes in the market, offer new features, and, ideally, offer refinement over the outgoing models. They also take competition into account which, aside from range, I don’t think Tesla does well.
Ford needs EREV, ICE and EV – That’s it.
An EREV makes the most sense if you can only have ONE vehicle. Covers almost all the bases…
Battery – only range of at least 100 miles for around town trips. Charge every night – no need to run the gas engine.
Battery + range extender for anytime the battery is getting low – just filler’er up and you’re on the way!
Ideally Ford will offer a Maverick sized pickup with EREV drivetrain in trims to cover cheap – off-road – and cruising. Even better if Ford teamed up with Mazda (again) for a spinning-Dorito rotary (or a liquid piston / omega-one) – a small lightweight ICE optimized and matched with a generator.
My fear is that the EREV will allow the engineers to crap out on maximizing efficiency. I want to see at least 4-5 miles / kwh.
One look at the Mazda RX-Vison and ICONIC concept cars shows how nice an EREV can be…
https://monochrome-watches.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/2023-Mazda-Iconic-SP-Rotary-sports-coupe-3.jpg
100 miles around town for an EREV is definitely into overkill territory. I think the sweet spot for most people is closer to 50.
Factor 2 trips a day + winter heating I think 100 is about right
From owning a Volt, the key is that you don’t actually want to use 0% gas. At least, not if you aren’t guaranteed to go on much longer (like 300+ miles) road trips at least a couple times a year. You end up burning fuel in gas mode just so it won’t get too old and the ICE engine won’t sit too long without use (bad for seals, corrosion, etc). So you want most days to be all battery, but an extra-long day with unusual errands here and there should push it into gas mode. (Also, if you’re running morning and evening errands separately, it can often pick up another 20+ miles between)
Great article and good call on your prediction! The more I read about Farley, the more I respect the guy. He is exactly what car companies need to run them: A true gearhead and a great executive that is open to new ideas and not afraid test them out himself, including on the road. I say all this as a Chevy guy.
*himself, including on long road trips.
It would be awesome if he would also test out and “LIVE IN A VAN, DOWN BY THE RIVER!”
I know I sound like a broken record, but this isn’t necessarily a good thing. The whole reason the Volt engine could directly drive the wheels at some speeds is because it was more efficient. Trading efficiency for ideological purity is stupid, and I wish we would stop implying that vehicles which made the right engineering choice are somehow inferior.
Can a smaller and more efficient motor be used for charging than one which can also be used to provide force to the wheels? There’s probably more than one way to skin this cat.
Yes! One interesting possibility would be to use a Wankel engine as a range extender. Some of the reasons for which Wankels failed in the market place are the lack of torque at low rpm, and high fuel consumption. As a range extender working at constant and optimal rpm, it might be a great alternative to traditional engines. There would still be reliability and emissions issues to be sorted out, but maybe they’d also benefit from a more linear / constant operation.
I don’t think EREV or PHEV alone is a good enough differentiator. Both terms are used to cover vehicles that don’t fit into any particular category. Ultimately it does not matter if the engine is in any way used to directly drive the vehicle. From a consumer standpoint it only matters 1) That the vehicle’s performance is the same regardless of which fuel source is used. 2) The fuel tank can be refilled as needed to drive long distances while the battery is depleted.
Looking at a couple vehicles as examples…
1) Volt – Performance same with full or empty battery, can filled with fuel indefinitely.
2) Prius Prime – Mainly a charge depleting hybrid (electric only at lower speed/accel) but can be filled with fuel indefinitely.
3) Jeep 4xe – Decent EV only performance, can be filled with fuel indefinitely.
4) BMW i3 – Series Hybrid, max performance only with battery, range extender intended as limited performance with limited fuel. I believe this required a special designation as BEVx for ZEV credits and probably not a feature that towing folks are going to want.
The simplest system is the Jeep 4xe where a big motor essentially just replaces the torque converter of a conventional drivetrain. The other end of the spectrum and is a series hybrid where a ‘gen set’ is added to a conventional EV. There are trade-offs to all these systems and reasons to choose one over the other for a given application. I’m guessing the direction that Ford goes will depend on the starting platform. They will either add batteries and a motor to an ICE vehicle (like 4xe) or will add a series range extender to BEV (like Scout). Either way it’s extra powertrain mass, cost, complexity etc… I’m going to guess its going to be more like 4xe where driving around town with some lawn chairs and lumber in the bed you’ll be fine with EV, but as soon as you hitch up the camper its just ICE with some EV boost for hills and regen. Honestly that’s fine and probably smart but not as sexy as Scout.
I’m not as concerned about mass since there should be less battery mass in exchange. As for costs, in the short term, what is the cost of assembling a drivetrain vs a battery? Seems like the reason for high BEV costs is the battery and the materials that make it up. There is some R&D cost to fit the engine in the platform, but by and large, the engine, itself, is already developed.
My ideal would be engine to charge the battery or power the motors directly with no transmission or driveshaft to add weight or complexity.
This contradicts my earlier point about using an engine that has already been developed, but it would be great to stick a small displacement boxer engine under the rear bench seat or low in the front so as to be able to keep a Frunk. With no need to connect the engine mechanically to the wheels, you can get creative with placement and packaging.
I’m partial to “Planet” –
https://youtu.be/73nZt1qS0Hk?si=vK7qed0UoihhMVOP
As well as the 1992 version off “It’s It” – great driving noise:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=doQNLNIi844
For me – the entire point of going electric is to eliminate gasoline, oil changes, gas stations, and all that antiquated & costly mechanical complexity & maintenance.
Seems to me that dealing with all that – and plugging it in too – is the worst of both worlds.
It’s like having a cellphone or iPad that you must leave plugged into a wall outlet the entire time – What’s the point?
I don’t drive farther than 2 hours away from home 99% of the time – I don’t need an EREV.
And I sure as hell don’t need anything with 4 doors – much less a massive truck, SUV or AWD/4WD.
(And most people who buy them don’t need them either)
Call me when GM or Ford come out with a RWD Golf to C-Class sized coupe or convertible EV.
I won’t be holding my breath.
The phrase “don’t let perfect be the enemy of good” has come to mind a lot recently. Within the automotive sphere, this applies to EREVs vs PHEVs. At a certain point, it doesn’t matter if the ICE engine is connected to the wheels or not. As long as there are reduced emissions, fuel savings for drivers, and it’s affordable, it’s a step in the right direction.
This means if an EREV Maverick would cost too much for Ford development, but they can easily modify it to make it a PHEV (which they can since there is a PHEV Escape), that’s great! Automakers just need to make sure there is a minimum of a 40-mile EV-only range. It’s also okay if the electric motor can only operate around town and the ICE engine is needed for highway speeds. If I need to go on a long trip, that’s when the advantages of having gas in the first place come into play.
As for the Mach-E or the F-150 Lightning, it would probably take a lot of engineering to reconfigure either to be a hybrid. But can they throw in an ICE range extender in the frunk and call it a day? 100% yes.
The EREV/PHEV/HEV does not get me away from having to do timing belts and oil changes nor from having a small, inefficient power plant to carry around everywhere.
=================================================================
This transition to EV is weird.
We have become so accustomed to watching change happen in real time. This EV transition is just so slow to happen. We are now 15 years deep into it, and we are still seeing such low levels of integration (sales). And, in the process of the transition, we have invented ways to actively SLOW down the transition (PHEV/EREV), just because people don’t like the change?!? It’s just kind of insane to me. What will be the next band-aid we come up with to further get in the way of transitioning to EV’s???
It is weird. But it’s also hard, especially given the automotive landscape in this country. Large vehicles are the norm (require large expensive batteries), there’s vast areas and many drivers want the option to road-trip vehicles, more owners are likely to tow with their vehicles (or aspire to own something to tow). Personally, with > 1 car and a home with a 240V outlet already in my garage owning a pure EV makes a lot of sense and will almost certainly be my next purchase (major savings over gas, no bothering with refueling or oil changes, always having a “full tank” every morning). But I’m still not sure I’m ready to use an EV to take the whole family (young kids included) on the >600 mile (each way) road trip we take annually… the kids are hard enough to manage and adding in potential for unreliable fast chargers and long waits in busy parking lots makes me nervous (the usual routine is: drop kids and partner at playground –> get gas –> get food –> return to playground 20 minutes later a hero). I know that example is very specific but also I think indicative of the various concerns a lot of people have. I think the EREV thing will at least help people adapt habits for eventual EV ownership (unlike a PHEV, you’re gonna be really unhappy if you treat an EREV like a hybrid and never plug it in).
I’ve been sold on this idea for probably a decade or so: For those 2-car households/families that can have charging where they live, the vast majority of those people can swap out one of their cars for a BEV and see next to no difference in their daily lives. The one issue that I’ve never really been able to combat is the cost of a BEV, which remains an issue.
I hope more PHEVs will prep people for BEV ownership, but like Parsko started with, this is a weird time in the automotive landscape to be sure!
That’s exactly what we did. 2 car household, with 240v 40A in the garage.
Leased a MachE for my wife and we take it almost everywhere.
I only use my 4runner to commute twice a week 6 miles each way, or if we’re both going somewhere at the same time.
We fill up with gas 4-5 times A YEAR now. Everything else is electric.
Ditto, except my wifes twice a week commute is 30 miles each way. Still only about 4-5 gallons (er, sorry, 132-165kW) of gas.
My wife is the longer commute (25 miles each way), 3-4 times a week, so she does all that in the EV.
It’s what I did. I plan to swap out another once this EV is paid off. I will always keep an ICE in the driveway for the foreseeable future. How foreseeable, I don’t know.
We did! Swapped a 2018 Sorento V6 for a ’24 Kia Sportage SX HEV. Wife’s brand-new Mazda CX-5 got totaled – in a school zone by a speeding young driver experiencing her third accident in a month – so she picked up a Genesis GV60 at an insane discount. So, we have one hybrid and one BEV. And we love it. Highly recommended.
It might have been brought up here at The Autopian, either in an article or the comments, but imagine if Ford or GM – rather than Toyota and/or Honda – had been first to the US market with a hybrid (and not just a hybrid, but a hybrid pickup!). We’d probably be long past a majority of new cars being electrified, and well on the way to a majority of new cars being BEVs.
Instead, the Prius became the liberal virtue signal, and the other half of the country dug in, and here we are at this weird inflection point.
It’s almost as if people are willing to put up with maintenance to have a vehicle that does everything they need it to do so they don’t have to buy multiple vehicles. Also avoid the renting hassle if you do anything more than once a year.
I would love it if BEVs worked in every scenario I want it to work. I would love if the infrastructure was there to support better travel options. Until then I’ll put up with my yearly maintenance so I can do all the things I want to do, not find a way to live with the 80% of what I want that my car is capable of.
I would prefer to rent when on holiday so that if it breaks down, I can just get a new car and move on, not having to worry about the hassle. I drove to Florida twice in the past 10 years. The first time in my own car, and it was horribly stressful (I had overheating issues due to a failing water pump). The 2nd time was awesome, cause I rented, and gave zero poops about breaking down.
I agree, though, that we are not there yet, and is why I also have an ICE. That said, I’ve put gas into a car 2 times in the past 6 months now and changed zero oil.
I get it. Although the last time I was in FL I had a rental. BMW 535 and the check engine light came on halfway through the trip. Enterprise wanted me to drive an hour and a half each way to exchange the car. I told them I was only an hour away from the airport and I would just return the car there at the end of the trip and hope the car didn’t die on the side of the road.
TL;DR, I don’t trust the rental car to keep me off the side of the road after so many people have abused it and you just know the garage at Enterprise is not employing certified techs. On a side note, I don’t know why people buy cars from rental agencies, but I digress…
I guess I’m also a big outlier because me and my wife work from home and barely leave the house. So I really buy my car based on fun things and what we want for occasional road trips. I bet I buy about 10-15 tanks of gas per year so it’s not like I have my finger on the pulse of what everyone else wants. I wish everyone wanted more manual transmissions and drove hot hatches instead of SUVs, but here we are. The best I can hope for is variety and choice.
I think it’s time to retire the bit about the supposed maintenance advantage of EVs. They have not delivered on that promise. Hertz found this out the hard way. It’s just different stuff now.
Anyway, it’s been slow because telling people that they don’t know what they really want isn’t usually an effective strategy in the marketplace.
I do not agree. During this transition phase, sure, EV’s may require more maintenance than they normally would because it is still unproven technology.
EV’s are different maintenance-wise, but WAY easier. They have definitely delivered on that promise. The stuff that sucks about them is all the luxury crap they tack on. But, the EV part of things is more reliable than an ICE.
Yeah I see that stated all the time just like you have, it’s just never accompanied by evidence unfortunately. Also if the tech is unproven, why would we be attempting to force use of it?
For example we’d need a quantum leap in energy density to solve the tire eating issue (or maybe smaller batteries combined with gas generators??). Not to mention things like battery coolant replacement on Hyundai EVs.
I have maintained my vehicles for the past 30 years, never paying anyone to work on them.
For the first time in those 30 years, I do not feel a sense of dread over having to maintain my EV compared to that of maintaining my ICE’s. It’s just not even close to the amount of work I would have to do to my ICE vehicles.
In addition to that, EV’s are like legos. The modules are more expensive, but there are fewer of them, and they are super simple to swap out.
Regular maintenance is changing fluids every 50k miles or more. I will gladly swap coolant and brake pads versus timing belts and oil pumps.
The tech is very proven. What about it is not, IYHO? And, what are you talking about with the “tire eating issue”???
A quote from your post:
“EV’s may require more maintenance than they normally would because it is still unproven technology”.
EVs, because they are heavy, are famously hard on tires. They go through them at a much higher rate than comparably sized ICE vehicles. They also seem to go through 12V batteries at a breathtaking clip, but that’s probably more of a (widespread) bug than an inherent issue like the tires.
All due respect, but your point is not supported well by the fact that EV’s go through tires a bit faster and batteries a bit faster. Two things I’d gladly choose to maintain over swapping out timing belts, gaskets, seals, belt driven water pumps, and doing oil changes every 5000 miles.
I’m curious to see what the relative sizing of battery size vs. engine power will end up looking like on a market-successful EREV in various categories. It isn’t straight forward.
Let’s take the ‘I want a BEV pickup for commuting but I also want to tow’ use case. You’d want to size your battery to give ~50 miles of range electric only, which will cover most commutes – see the positive experiences with the Chevy Volt as existence-proof that that is enough range. That said, there are CARB regulations that will likely push that to 75 miles for Reasons (partial ZEV credits, blah blah). So let’s take the F150 Lightning battery and shrink it down to 30 kWh. If we keep the current C-rate limit they seem to impose of about 3.5C that means power in electric-only mode would be limited to about 105 kW, or 140 horsepower. That’d be fine for most sedate driving, but if you have a heavy foot it’ll have to kick on the engine for extra help when stop light drag racing. Chances are they’d tweak the battery chemistry and push that C rate up to something more like 5, so 200 horsepower EV only, which should be plenty.
But if you want to tow at max GCWR up Eisenhower pass at the speed limit, your battery will be gone in no time: it takes something like 265 horsepower to maintain 60 mph up a 6-7% grade at 14,000 lbs GVW in a pickup towing an enclosed trailer, so that’s likely the minimum power output the range extender engine needs to develop to make good on the ‘good at everything’ premise. This rather tidily explains why the Ram EREV still has the 3.6 V6 in it – that’s just about right, output-wise.
Which begs the question – why EREV instead of a PHEV version of the F150 PowerBoost, for instance? I don’t really think there’s an opportunity to downsize the engine very much in practical terms, and keeping the option to have the engine drive the wheels directly is a more efficient way of using the engine power when it is needed.
THANK YOU for putting into words the thoughts in my head about the right size the engine needs to be to tow. You still need the power. Does the EREV provide enough??
Part of that is you’re getting the most efficiency out of that ICE engine by running it at a set RPM and not being hobbled by gear ratios or drivetrain losses. So while a 3.6 pentastar may fall short on it’s own, as the part of a system that best leverages it’s power output may work better.
There’s also a lot less chance that you’ll be sitting on the side of a grade with a blown engine that you overtaxed. In the generator config, it can’t be overworked as it was designed to simply output a maximum wattage continuously.
Plus, if we’re using pulling long grades as our benchmark, how big of a battery (and the weight that comes with it) will we need to add? Cause it’s fine to fully deplete the battery going uphill with a generator onboard. Combined with regenerative braking, you could be full by the time you reach the bottom of the hill on the other side.
If you’re in a straight BEV, then you better hope there’s a charger within 10-20 miles of the bottom.
Last time I checked, the worst highway road grades around North America are often in areas largely devoid of infrastructure. A fuel station is easier to get power to than DC fast chargers.
The issue is that our country is so disparate. The Volt worked for what it was, but it is a city/suburban car. My closest gas station and closest store of any sort is 25 miles away. So a round trip would deplete the battery in the summer. And when the high is sub-zero like today, it will probably deplete before I even start heading home. My normal drive, 1 to 2 times per week is 250 miles each way. One the other hand, it has been decades since I drove up the Ike with a heavily loaded trailer. My use-case is more EREV from what I’ve figured, which is why I have a pre-order in for a Scout Terra. Assuming it has a 150hp range extender engine, I can probably make that work.
Here is what no one can explain to me about an EREV.. is the generator powerful to generate enough power to drive the car, if the battery is depleted. I know the tanks are small, and thus the range limited, but say I run out of power and gas on the side of the highway. Do I just need to put in 5 gal and I can drive off of that gas? or does it NEED to always have some level of charge to move. And it will just limp without being charged?
Another way to put it, could you do a long road trip with it only using gas, but just stopping more often to fill up than a regular car?
I don’t really care if the engine is connected to the wheels via a transmission or an electrical wire. What I care about is understanding if the engine is just extending my battery range, or if it can really move the car in a pinch.
You can absolutely drive them on just gas. I had an i3 Rex, perhaps the worst vehicle to never charge, and there were times where I would have to drive it just on gas for several tanks. The engine is just a generator, so running the engine is literally the same thing as plugging it in – both are doing nothing more than putting electricity in the battery. Also, you’re never going to completely drain the battery from driving. There’s always a buffer – on every electric, EREV, PHEV, Hybrid, all of them, there’s a buffer so you never completely drain the battery.
As far as I know, the Volt is the only EREV that also had an option to add engine power directly to the wheels. That made sense a decade and a half ago, but, with all of the various advances, I doubt there will be more EREVs that can directly add engine power to the wheels. The engines will just be generators.
Yes there is a buffer so the battery won’t go to zero but it DOES run out of usable power at some point, so effectively and practically it does run out. Just like running out of gas, when you can’t pull any more out of the tank or battery that’s it.
From what I understood David said at some point, when on gasoline only in range extending mode, the power is reduced, i.e. it isn’t going nearly as quickly as it was when there was still battery power, what do you see or what downsides are there as compared to starting out with a charge in the battery? Is the car now limited to 70 or 75 or something and how far does it actually get you, i.e. what is your fuel tank size and range in that case?
How big will the fuel tank be on a RAM EREV? The battery if I am not mistaken is already about 92kWh, i.e. larger than many quite long range EVs where the common complaint is battery cost, and there will SURELY be somebody who wants to max tow their EREV pickup up I70 with a quarter tank of gas, a semi-depleted battery, a 10,000 pound trailer and stay at the speed limit. Will they effectively run out of all juices halfway up in the fast lane and then bitch about the “crappy RAM”?
Yes, once you ‘deplete’ the battery down to its limit, you’re left with whatever the range extender can produce. In the case of the Ram EREV, you have a 300hp V6, hooked up to a generator sized to convert max power into electricity. So, on range extending mode (i.e. burning gas), you can do whatever 300hp can do. It’s not quite as efficient as using the electricity from a geared transmission, but, it’s not massively different.
Yes, stupid, uninformed people will continue to do things. That’s a given, regardless of what happens. That’s why the Ram has such a huge range extender – so it can still tow a heavy trailer up a hill in range extending mode. If they can’t even manage to have gas in it, that’s completely on them.
It sounds like you need to wait for full reviews of it to be released.
Yes so in the case of YOUR car what exactly DOES the range extender produce and what limitations apply relative to a fully capable car with juice in the battery and the tank? Since it’s not directly driving the wheels (the definition of an EREV here) it’s likely not using exactly what the engine produces, and likely the same with the RAM, i.e. no you aren’t most likely getting a continuous 300hp to the wheels until you actually run out of gasoline. I don’t think the engine runs at its peak horsepower rating but rather the most efficient engine speed that generates the most efficient power level vs fuel usage, so maybe 200 or 225hp vs the theoretical 300 peak when the same basic engine is used in a vehicle as a normal ICE and at its power peak level? (I’m not an engineer or expert though but seriously doubt the range extender will be spinning at 6500rpm which is when that peak power level is generated in the PentaStar 3.6l).
I think we ALL need to see a full review with multiple worst case scenarios without it being a scripted press event to see what is realistic rather than just over and over saying that EREVs are the correct answer to every possible question/scenario with zero downsides.
Again, this information is available. It has a 130kW generator, driven by the V6, fed by a gas tank. The computer decides what speed to run the engine at – yes, most of the time, it will run at a lot speed. Sometimes it will run at ‘peak efficiency’ speed. And sometimes it will run at max power.
Since you’re obviously just trolling, that’s all I’ve got for you.
Ok thank you. Not trolling at all, just interested in information which was not presented in the post, or if it was I didn’t see it and hadn’t seen it before. You have an EREV, I don’t, trying to figure out the pros (obvious, the extended or I suppose effectively unlimited range if you’re willing to stop for gas whenever the small tank runs dry) and the cons (cost? And what the driveability differences are once you are in range extension mode as compared to beforehand.)
The information you gave about the different engine speeds was interesting, I hadn’t seen that before, I thought it just ran at the ONE set most efficient speed, good to know!
If that’s trolling to you, alright, but not my intention, always willing to learn something from someone with more knowledge.
That info wasn’t posted in this article but I think it was in a previous Autopian article on the coming Ramcharger (EREV), and that info comes only from what Ram has released so far on it. How it ends up performing in the real world will be revealed in time. But I do think it’s the best “solution” for an electric pickup *today*. Electric infrastructure just isn’t there yet for *everybody*, and contrary to what you’ll read in the comments section, while there are millions of pickups with a single body and an empty bed, there are also millions of pickups and vans that get used for genuine hauling and towing duty every day, and even more that pull truck duty more than a few times a year be it hobbies, home projects, or helping friends/family.
For the EREVs (Ramcharger specifically) the V6 ICE is explicitly a generator that provides juice to the electric drivetrain – it does not power the wheels independently like a PHEV does. At low demand it will hum along at peak efficiency, but can ramp up it’s RPM for more power generation (at the cost of fuel consumption). If you’ve ever ran a generator after a hurricane in the SE, it’s power output is variable depending on the demand load. If I’m using it to run just a refrigerator, a ceiling fan and a receptacle to charge our cell phones and Milwaukee flashlight batteries, mine can get about 24 hrs out of ~5 gallons, but if I turn on my a/c system too because it’s 93* and 97% humidity inside the house, you’ll audibly hear the generator throttle up and now that 5 gallons only gets me about 10-12 hrs. Similarly, the V6 ICE for the battery depleted Ramcharger coasting along on a flat highway, no trailer, & empty bed will hum along at peak efficiency, but if you’re towing a trailer uphill the Pentastar generator will ramp up throttle to generate more power to keep you going but use more fuel doing so. And when it does run out, it’s a 10 minute stop in the next had station to top of the tank and keep going. Then when the truck duty is done, you can recharge the battery at your convenience an run EV mode until you need the range extended again.
Thank you for the explanation, that helps tremendously. I have not had the need nor the opportunity to run a generator so that information is quite useful (as to how it can vary its output depending on need/load) and helps explain things a lot. I did locate that initial article on the RamCharger in the meantime, it explained some things but your response filled quite a few blanks.
Re: the i3 REX. I have a new-to-me middle-sized battery i3, and I was able to travel on the freeway on the generator no problem (but also no mountain passes!) and got 40 mpg. In that state the battery charge fluctuated a little as I went along, but it didn’t continue falling. I did get a notification that I was limited to 75 mph, which was not a problem for the area I’m driving in. It’s an interesting technology!
I mean, the answer is “it depends”. Generally, if the designers aren’t dumb, it’s not a problem. The Volt leaves some “reserve” power for hard acceleration, and also has a “mountain mode” with an even larger power reserve. In practice it hasn’t been a problem at all on mine, even in the mountains.
The Ramcharger will apparently only have 170HP gas-only, which is pretty far below the 654HP peak, but should be plenty for towing on flat ground. Hopefully it’ll have some sort of “mountain mode” as well for towing up long inclines, but even a relatively small percentage of the 92KWh battery is probably enough to fill in.
Hi! The BMW i8 was in no way, shape, or form an EREV. They have a <20mi electric range from a 7kWh battery, and have a full 6-speed automatic transmission. Pretty much the definition of a PHEV.
I believe this was intended to say the i3 Rex and the Volt?
Yeah the 3-cylinder gas engine in the i8 drives the rear wheels.
I think the ICE in the gen 1 Volt could switch between both methods – mechanically drive the wheels or charge the battery.
My HEV Sportage has an EREV-equivalent mode that is selected under certain conditions by the onboard controller. 1500 RPM is the optimal engine speed for charging the battery. It’s kind of funny when it kicks in, because you’ll be driving but the engine stays at one speed, independent of the drivetrain.
It also acts as a normal hybrid, though it can power the vehicle along with charging the battery, or charge battery only, Without the tach selected on the display, it’s quiet enough that sometimes you don’t even realize the engine is engaged.
Serious take: I think David is doing more to innovate in the automotive industry than Tesla (or any OEM for that matter).
Series hybrid would give us so much as drivers, and do so much good from an environmental perspective. And I say this as someone who DD’s a Rivian, while we also have an i3 REX in the house. And a Miata, because MIATA.
While he’s not a lone voice out there, he’s got the attention of those that matter. Keep pushing, M.r Tracy. We appreciate you.