Last week Motor Trend wrote the article “Plug-In Hybrids? Just Say Hell No,” with a subheading that read “EVs have progressed. It’s time to ditch the training wheels.” I’m a fan of the author, Johnny Lieberman, but I have to call his “take” what it is: a steaming hot pile of manure.
I’ve already described in detail why PHEVs are valuable to American consumers and to the climate at large—these assertions are not refutable, they are simply fact. Still, Lieberman and many other journalists keep writing the same things: that EVs are so good these days that we should just get rid of PHEVs, and that not every PHEV owner plugs in all the time, anyway. Those are pretty much the main arguments against PHEVs, and they’re just ridiculous.
These authors’ “all or nothing” stances towards EVs are detrimental to our planet and they don’t help the consumer. I will not stand for it.
The Basic Premise: Getting More People Into Electric Cars Is A Net Societal Good
Let’s start with a basic premise: The best thing for the environment is to, as quickly as possible, get as many people driving electric as possible.
That’s a fair premise, right? Obviously, there are infrastructure saturation concerns, but by and large, the premise seems sound. Climate change is about cumulative emissions, so time matters. We need to get folks out of their guzzlers and zipping around on grid power ASAP. Then we gotta clean that grid up more and more (aka decarbonize the grid).
Then… Why Aren’t More People Buying EVs?
OK, so the premise is established. Now let’s take the next logical step from that premise: We have to determine why everyone can’t drive an EV immediately. Let’s, for the sake of simplicity, talk about those in the market for a new car. Why is it that over 80 percent of all vehicle sales are still traditional gas cars? For us to meet the goal established by our premise, we need to get those folks driving electric now! What’s happening? Let’s figure out the possible problems.
To simplify this, let’s just put the problems in terms of supply and demand. If every new car buyer wanted to drive an EV, and there was plenty of EV supply/variety at a good price, then our problem would be solved. And yet, less than 10 percent of new cars in the United States are EVs. So something is happening on the supply or demand side — which is it? The answer is: Both.
There are lots of reasons why not all car sales are EVs right now, including supply constraints, EV skepticism (including concerns about EV longevity/range/infrastructure/depreciation), and cost. Many of these, as the anti-PHEV article by MotorTrend correctly points out, may go away in time, with EVs dropping in cost year by year, infrastructure building up, and folks becoming better-versed on how EVs work. But, as I established earlier, climate change is a cumulative emissions issue. In 2024, we have lots of people looking to buy a new car they can drive for the next five or 10 years; they could choose an EV, but at least 90% of them do not.
The result? They keep driving gas cars, harming the environment.
This is a choice automakers have made, and it’s a choice that lots of anti-PHEV folks apparently want consumers to continue to make: “Buy an EV or keep driving gas guzzlers.” It’s the “All or Nothing” approach to electric vehicles and it’s doing significant harm to the environment.
Let’s Imagine A Customer Who Wants A Truck That Can Tow
Take example-customer Joey. Joey wants to buy a pickup truck to replace his 1997 Chevy Silverado, a V8 workhorse that has seen one too many Michigan winters and has succumbed to rust. He shops around and finds a Ford F-150 Lightning. “Oh wow, that’s a nice truck,” he says. “But damn, that’s not cheap. Worse, the thing can only tow a trailer 100 miles before needing a long recharge.
Joey passes. He looks at the Rivian R1T; it has the same issues. He checks out the Cybertruck — well, damn, it’s expensive and can’t tow far, either! Finally, he visits a Chevy dealership and sees the Silverado EV — it can tow his trailer for 200 miles! Awesome!
Except the reason it can tow a trailer 200 miles is that Chevy shoved a humongous 200+ kWh battery pack into it — a heavy, expensive, dirty-to-manufacture battery. “Yeah, that’s too expensive, I’m out,” says Joey. So Joey runs to his local Ford dealer and picks up an F-150 hybrid, which gets only 24 MPG combined. Joey continues to spew emissions into the air from his ICE pickup for the next 10 years.
Now let’s look at an alternative. Let’s say Joey waits a few months for the Ram Ramcharger to hit the market. The Ramcharger is a plug-in hybrid, though more specifically, you can call it an extended-range EV, or EREV. Joey checks it out. It can tow lots of weight, it has ridiculous range since the gasoline engine acts as a generator once the battery is depleted, it has a smaller battery that’s lighter and cleaner and cheaper to manufacture than that of an EV truck with the same range, and Joey can drive it in electric mode 95% of the miles he drives, since he really doesn’t tow that often.
So Joey turns in his gas guzzler today, and instead of driving a 24 MPG F-150 hybrid (or a 21 MPG Ram non-hybrid or his patched-up old 15 MPG Chevy V8) for the next decade, he spends 95% of his miles driving his Ramcharger in EV mode, only using the range extender when towing once every couple of years. The environment benefits. (Note: The Ram Ramcharger is expected to cost about as much as the Ram REV fully-electric truck, but per my conversation with experts at Munro & Associates, range-extended EVs can be cheaper to build than EVs since their batteries are so much smaller. The MotorTrend piece also notes that PHEVs tend to be cheaper than EVs).
Car Buying Is Not Rational
This “all or nothing” attitude is ridiculous and ignores human psychology. People are not rational actors, which is one reason why PHEVs are so important. Also, PHEVs CAN be cleaner than BEVs.
No disrespect to Motor Trend, of course. But read this:https://t.co/eDu54w0XSI https://t.co/k9qRuD5Irm
— David Tracy (@davidntracy) May 26, 2024
PHEV detractors will retort with these two non-points:
1. If this fake “Joey” person only tows once every couple of years, then he should just buy an EV and not a PHEV. He’s barely even towing!
2. What if he doesn’t charge and just uses the gas engine all the time?
These are the two main arguments against PHEVs, but they both fall flat under scrutiny.
First, when it comes to purchasing decisions, it’s really not that relevant what consumers actually do with their vehicles, it’s about what they think they can do. It’s why sports car buyers buy sports cars — not because they race them all the time, but because they could if they wanted to. It’s the same reason why people buy Jeep Wranglers — not because those customers off-road all the time, but because they could. It’s the same thing with trucks; people buy them not because they tow or haul that often, but because they could. It’s a vehicle’s capability — its potential — that creates its image, and it’s that image that consumers buy into. It’s been that way since the beginning of cars, and it’s never going to change.
To Lieberman’s credit, he acknowledges this:
Another argument is that a PHEV is perfect for running around town and then when it’s time for a road trip you have a gasoline vehicle. I absolutely get this part, especially psychologically. Lord knows, I’ve spent my fair share of time screaming into a phone about a slow/broken charger. But charging is improving.
But “charging is improving” isn’t enough of a counterpoint when less than 10% of new car sales are EVs. Are we just going to wait for infrastructure to improve as millions of Americans spew emissions from their tailpipes? Or are we going to give those Americans more options to drive electric today? Obviously, the second one is the answer, and we can make that happen by offering more PHEVs.
‘But Not Every PHEV Owner Charges’
The second point that many anti-PHEV folks make is about PHEV owners not actually charging their vehicles. ‘PHEVs are less efficient than gas counterparts when they’re not charged, and not all PHEV owners charge, so PHEVs are bad’ is the crux of the argument.
This I don’t entirely understand, either. First, if it’s inconvenient for these folks to charge, then how do we expect to sell them EVs, which require charging? More importantly, there’s not amazing data out there on what the “electric drive share” (i.e. how much of a vehicle’s driven mileage is done in electric-only mode) of a typical PHEV is today. Chevy famously said that over 65 percent of a Volt’s drive time (not miles) is done in electric mode:
And according to The Detroit Free Press, the best-selling PHEV in the U.S., the Jeep Wrangler 4Xe, is seeing plenty of charging. From the news site:
…Jeep owners are enthusiastic about EV mode. A whopping 90% of 4xe owners charge their vehicles an average of five times a week, Jeep North America boss Jim Morrison told me.
“A lot of our customers go days at a time without breaking into gasoline power,” Morrison said. “It’s something our customers want to do. They love the 4xe because it’s a really good Jeep. It’s fun to drive and quiet.”
Jeep collected data from 50,000 4xe owners who agreed to have their charging and driving behavior monitored anonymously.
The charging rate is even more impressive because the 4xe’s electric range is considerably below what the Strong Plug-in Hybrid Coalition considers necessary to encourage regular charging.
Remember that last line about electric range being too low to encourage charging, because I’ll get back to it in a second. For now, I’ll paste a bit more data from that Detroit Free Press article:
Kia sells a trio of plug-in hybrid small SUVs: the Niro, Sorento and Sportage. Assembled outside North America, they are not eligible for federal tax credits, but their charging rates are encouraging.
Owners of all three report frequently plugging in to charge daily or nightly:
◾ Niro: 70%
◾ Sorento: 80%
◾ Sportage: 62%
Obviously, that Kia study is fairly weak, and there are studies out there that say charging rates on PHEVs are too low — studies like this one from the International Council On Clean Transportation. But even that study says it could benefit from additional data.
So the data is murky, but that doesn’t matter because not every owner has to plug in all the time for PHEVs to make sense. If only a third of truck drivers plug in daily and drive 95 percent of their miles in EV mode instead of spewing emissions from a 21 MPG (or lower) truck, that’s going to be a significant win for the environment. And to be honest, I bet the figure would be above a third for pickup trucks, since driving them on gas leads to such a significant added cost for the driver.
What’s more, it’s not a given that all PHEVs have to be less efficient than equivalent gas cars when they’re not charged. A range-extended EV running on its gas engine could, in theory, be more efficient than an equivalent ICE vehicle since the engine is able to run at a steady RPM to act as a generator.
And that leads me to a significant issue with these anti-PHEV assertions: They assume that all PHEVs must be like the ones currently available. Just because modern PHEVs aren’t good enough (as I wrote in a previous story) doesn’t mean future PHEVs can’t be different.
PHEVs Can Be So Much Better Than The Current Ones Out There Now
I mentioned a few paragraphs up that you should remember that line in the Detroit Free Press article about PHEVs’ electric ranges being too low to encourage charging. Here’s more from that piece:
“Longer-range PHEVs get plugged in very, very regularly,” said coalition co-chair and Colorado State University engineering professor Tom Bradley. “Even PHEVs that are only charged at work or every other day are still effective” at reducing emissions.
There are many potential policy tools available to increase the electric drive share of PHEVs. EPA could consider the following measures:
» Adjust the regulatory charge-depleting drive share (utility factor) downwards for PHEVs to reflect current real-world performance.
» Require in-use data reporting for specific PHEV models to receive a higher utility factor reflective of said in-use data.
» Adopt minimum electric driving range requirements, similar to California’s range requirements for zero-emission vehicle crediting in its Advanced Clean Cars II regulation.
» Adopt other vehicle model-level technical requirements such as minimum all electric power, maximum fuel tank size, fast-charging capability, and minimum cold weather performance.
» Establish a higher utility factor corresponding to demonstrated purchase of PHEV by drivers with home chargers or proof of manufacturer-provided charging access assistance. Meanwhile, manufacturers could incentivize regular charging by assisting in home charger installation and by actively reporting cost of driving to users. Tax administrators can incentivize PHEV purchases by offering purchase or tax credits for PHEVs whose in-use data show high utility factor.
This all aligns with my aforementioned article about how modern PHEVs just aren’t good enough. Here’s a quote from my piece:
let’s have a look at the pure-EV range figures of some of America’s most popular plug-in hybrids:
- 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
- Hyundai Santa Fe PHEV: 31 miles
- BMW X5 xDrive45e: 31 miles
- BMW 330e: 23 miles
- Toyota Prius Prime: 44 miles
- Lexus RX450H+: 37 miles
These numbers are pathetic.
Many of these cars don’t even have enough range to get the average American to work and back without recharging, and even if you can plug in these low-range PHEVs at work, plenty of Americans will still not be able to do a full home-work-home commute.
[…]
Seriously, if the government’s goal is what they say it is — to get folks driving electric — then we need higher-range PHEVs, ideally relatively-simple, range-extended models that are clearly EVs first, gas cars second. If we can get reasonably-priced, 70-ish-mile PHEVs out there, I bet we’d see a lot more folks driving electric sooner than we think.
Today, we have far too many low-range, half-baked PHEVs out there, and far too few high-range range-extended EVs (which count as PHEVs). Plus, we have zero plug-in hybrid pickup trucks — vehicles that, more than most, would incentivize charging given how much gas they’d use when the ICE was on. If we had a larger variety of range-extended PHEVs with decent, 70+ mile EV-only range, there’s no question that they’d get plugged in far more than the current crop of PHEVs, especially if we adopt “vehicle model-level technical requirements” that the ICCT mentions above like maximum fuel tank size and minimum electric power.
We need the PHEVs to feel like EVs first, and gas cars second. Modern PHEVs feel like the opposite.
Let’s Stop With The Anti-PHEV Slander, Because The Value Of PHEVs Is Irrefutable
What exactly has led Lieberman and so many other car journalists to write these anti-PHEV articles? I think maybe they’re getting caught up a bit in all the EV excitement, but more than anything, I think their view of PHEVs does not span beyond the current crop of offerings. Modern PHEVs kinda suck, especially relative to what they could be, and if you drive a vehicle with only a 30-mile EV range, and listen to the engine cut on before you make it home from work, you’re naturally going to think what Lieberman thought:
A charged Prius Prime is smooth and silent and torquey; it does indeed offer most of the inherent good benefits of EV driving. Until the battery runs dry. Then the weak, coarse 2.0-liter Atkinson-cycle inline-four fires up and routes its power through a continuously variable transmission. Not exactly my idea of a good time. The whole driving experience gets worse. I kept thinking, Man, why not just plop a larger battery into the Prime and turn it into a damn fine EV?
I’m going to respond to that rhetorical question at the end of that quote: Because not everyone wants an EV, and what’s more, an automaker can make two or three PHEVs using the battery resources from a single BEV. If the Prius Lieberman was driving offered a decent EV range of, say, 75 or 80 miles, he’d rarely ever hear that anemic gas motor cut on, he’d be driving a car more palatable to the masses, and he’d possibly be driving a car even better for the environment than a full-EV since the battery is much smaller (depending upon how often he uses the range extender).
Before I conclude, allow me to address a few specific quotes in the Motor Trend piece:
A dead PHEV battery means you’re needlessly dragging a heavy EV drivetrain around town with you…With a PHEV, you get added tire wear to go along with all that.
Um, with an EV, you’re carrying around 1000 pounds of extra weight every day as you commute to and from work. The weight of a gas engine and cooling system doesn’t even compare.
But let’s say you dutifully charge your PHEV before you drive it. You’re being trained to use an EV in the worst way. Fully charging a battery to 100 percent and then running it down to zero is terrible for the long-term health of any battery.
This assumes PHEVs only have just enough range for an average commute. Current ones do, so I’ll give you that. But some PHEVs, like my 2021 BMW i3S, offer 130 miles of range, so I have to recharge once every four days, and I don’t have to top it up to 100%. So that charging assumption isn’t fair, though yes, you’d have to charge it more than you’d charge an EV. (Note: I owned a small-battery PHEV that needed its battery replaced, but that was an early battery on BMW’s earliest EV; later updated models have batteries that last extremely long, rendering the point about battery degradation moot).
I’m aware pro-PHEV individuals will argue the local infrastructure where they live doesn’t support owning a fully electric vehicle. My counter: If you’re charging your PHEV at home, why not charge an EV at home?
I don’t get it? Why not just keep the PHEV and charge it at home? Why is charging an EV at home better than charging a PHEV at home? I’m a bit lost on this point. Especially if you only use it as a short-range commuter, why would you want a humongous battery that you never use?
Another pro-PHEV argument is that on average, they’re cheaper to buy. Also a fair point, for now. Lower-priced EVs are coming, but in the meantime, have you checked out how little used EVs cost?
Sure, but if I’m buying new, those crazy EV depreciation rates would scare me off a bit. (To be sure: PHEV depreciation is a bit lower based on what I’ve read, but it’s not great).
Why have two propulsion systems when one works just fine? It’s a dead technology, anyway, as several countries and 12 U.S. states will be banning the sale of new internal combustion vehicles in coming years.
Why have two? Because 1. You can build 2-3 PHEVs with the battery resources from one EV. 2. PHEVs are cheaper than EVs 3. PHEVs are lighter than EVs 4. PHEVs can be better for the environment than EVs 5. EV skepticism is real 6. Infrastructure concerns
And I could go on and on. (Though technically it’s not two propulsion systems, since a range-extended EV just charges the battery, which drives the car via the electric motor. Added maintenance is minimal; change the oil every couple of years, maybe swap an air filter, that’s about it). The reality is that the automaker with the biggest decrease in carbon emissions last year was Toyota, and the company did that not by offering EVs, but by offering hybrids. Additionally, the ICCT — the organization that wrote the study criticizing PHEV charging rates — states emphatically that PHEVs can be major players in reducing climate change:
Plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) have the potential to reduce emissions from light-duty vehicles and help ease the transition to fully electric, zero tailpipe-emission vehicles. Though PHEVs store less energy in their battery packs than fully electric vehicles, PHEVs can be designed with enough energy storage to cover most daily trips in the United States. As long as such vehicles begin with a full, or nearly full charge every day, they have the capacity to significantly reduce fossil fuel consumption.
PHEVs value to the environment is irrefutable.
I’m not saying that the U.S. shouldn’t still push EVs, because people who absolutely need charging infrastructure to get around will help push that infrastructure to improve more than folks who have a gas range extender backup onboard — pain points yield growth. Nor am I saying there aren’t major issues with PHEVs. They don’t have enough range, for one, and their emissions output isn’t easily predictable.
This latter point is worth reiterating, because it should not be understated how important accountability is to overall emissions reduction, and thus climate change mitigation. And that’s a challenge right now, because automakers are awarded by the EPA when they sell clean cars, and they’re punished when they sell dirty cars. If the EPA is rewarding automakers for selling PHEVs under the assumption that those PHEVs get charged the vast majority of the time, and those cars rarely get charged, then the automaker is reaping rewards without actually benefiting the environment. This is an important challenge for us to tackle, but it’s 2024, and this can be solved easily, and things are happening on that front. The ICCT breaks it down:
The upshot is that EPA had been giving automakers too much credit for greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions from the PHEVs they sold. EPA counts electric vehicles as zero-carbon in its vehicle regulations, and PHEVs as partially-zero carbon, based on their assumed electric drive share. In effect, EPA was undercounting the GHG emissions from the higher-than-expected gas guzzling of PHEVs.
EPA is addressing that problem now by lowering their assumed PHEV electric drive share. The figure below shows EPA’s previously assumed drive share in blue and their proposed revision to that curve in red. EPA’s proposed new curve is almost exactly the same as the one in our 2022 study, shown in green, which we derived from user-reported data in the Fuelly app. As a result, EPA’s estimates have moved closer to real-world usage. For example, a PHEV with a 35-mile electric range will be labeled as 45% zero-carbon instead of 57%.
The ICCT recommends the EPA drop that electric drive share further, and it even suggests in the previously-mentioned study that the EPA “Require in-use data reporting for specific PHEV models to receive a higher utility factor reflective of said in-use data.”
So yes, the GHG credits side of things still needs work, but it’s something that can be solved, and it certainly does not detract from the (once again) irrefutable fact that offering PHEVs is good for the climate. It’s not up for debate anymore. Please, stop writing articles about how EVs are so good and not all PHEV drivers plug in, so therefore PHEVs should go away. Those points are weak.
You can get more people driving EV daily by offering PHEVs, which are cheaper, lighter, more palatable to EV skeptics, not as resource-intensive to build, and immune to infrastructure issues. And as the infrastructure improves, PHEV buyers will just plug in more frequently.
Let’s move on.
Lots of decent arguments in this article. I think many of them will be very true in 2-4 years from now when those range extender EV vehicles are available for sale. I can’t think of a single ranger extender EV on the market in US at the moment. This is particularly relevant for trucks as towing with a battery long-distance is currently not feasible with current battery technology and current underdeveloped charging infrastructure.
I would argue that cars should be BEVs and towing vehicles should be ranger extender BEV.
No point wasting time and resources on PHEVs for something current technology does well already. Cars should be EVs 2-4 years from now.
A few ways I can see to address the incentive models:
My theory on why lots of initial PHEVs (and lots of their drivers) sucked:
Most people in California or with California style High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes bought PHEVs *solely* to drive solo in the HOV lane. They didn’t give a shit about MPG, plugging in, or the engine technology: it was just about that sticker on their bumper. Lots of these initial PHEVs were basically luxury compliance vehicles to pickup sales in CARB states, like the X5 xDrive40e and the Panamera E- PHEV. I saw these all the time in the parking lots of FAANG companies in Silicon Valley.
Now that these HOV stickers are expiring permanently in 2025 (and many of these lanes are being converted to toll lanes in CA) this type of behavior should disappear!’
…also, if you have a <20 mile range PHEV with a locking charge connector and you hog a charging station at the office for 8 hours, your car should be impounded for a day and replaced with a Mitsubishi Mirage.
I live in a city. I have a house, though. Most of my trips are within a few miles. If I had a PHEV truck, I’d almost never put gas in it if it had a 50 mile range on battery.
Periodically, I have to go to the dump or we need to go haul a bunch of stuff home from the nursery or lumber yards that a bit further away. Or I want to two my motorcycle to SoCal to go riding (don’t judge, I’m old and well past riding I-5 again, if I can avoid it) I don’t have a problem using a little gas to have truck function that day, but the rest of the time, it’d just be an EV truck getting juiced off my roof.
For me, it means that I can have my EV runabout for errands and my Get Shit Done vehicle be a single vehicle.
It can be a Nissan Leaf most of the time and a regular pickup truck when I need it.
MT and CD are considering this from an engineering standpoint, arguing relative merits of either solution. That’s not how people make decisions. They make a decision based on whether a vehicle limits their ability to get their shit done.
For a whole bunch of us, a PHEV gives us the ability to have both an ICE and EV vehicle without having to buy one of each.
David – Keep Preaching!!!
I haven’t read the MT story, but I read the one in Car and Driver, which sort of comes to the same conclusion as MT and I am still scratching my head trying to figure out how they got to their numerical based conclusion, that PHEVs don’t make economic sense.
75 mile range PHEVs make economic sense and would be convenient to more of us than BEVs right now. To paraphrase Churchill, Americans will do the right thing as soon as they have exhausted all alternatives.. Essentially we will be on board to save the planet when it’s economical and convenient.
If I have a PHEV that gets 70 miles of full electric range, it gets me everywhere I need to go all the time UNLESS I travel out of town. I travel out of town, maybe once per month on average. The last time I did the math, my PHEV (Ford Cmax) cost about 1/3 as much per mile on electric as it does on gas. The maintenance costs have been less than my gas cars (one is a BMW so that may be a low bar). When I do go on a longer trip I get 35 to 40 MPG. What am I missing here?
To be clear, the Cmax is not fun to drive at all, but my wife loves it. That said, she has been patiently waiting for Mercedes to bring the GLC 300e to the US which has 70 miles of electric range. It’s due this year is a 2025 model.
I don’t know what your baseline “fun car” is, but I find enjoyment from my C-Max. And my previous car was a Mk.V GTI. Do you know that they take the same size tires? The C-Max is just a fat Focus station wagon, and the Focus suspension was often praised. The C-Max has especially precise and quick steering (unless you’re bumping into the titanic turning circle). The 190-odd HP come on fast and low, too. Basically the C-Max has 4/5 of the performance I was actually using from the GTI, and its main drawback is the flat seats. This car needed an STI version…
Don’t count on that Mercedes as automatically more fun. My other car is a GLK, which in many ways is like an overgrown GTI. It has gobs of power pulling two tons of weight. With slow steering and long pedal travel, it’s capable of going fast without ever feeling as responsive as the humble C-Max.
Very soundly reasoned, David, and your points are valid IMO. The thing that rarely gets mentioned (tho Isaac Fortner did here) is the maintenance factor; range-extenders excluded, PHEVs still have all the high-maintenance componentry of an ICE vehicle AND the electronic complexity of a BEV. Besides emissions, the upside of a BEV is its ease (or lack) of maintenance, and their downside (omitting the production/environmental costs) is potential electronic gremlins. If all PHEVs could be range-extender instead of dual-powertrain I wouldn’t even need to write this post! And on that note, I am very jealous of your new i3 (cuz I still want one), congrats.
>3. PHEVs are lighter than EVs
This is just wrong.
24 Model 3 SR RWD: 3892 lbs
24 Model 3 LR AWD: 4030 lbs
24 330e weight: 4083 lbs
24 330e xDrive weight: 4180 lbs
24 RZ450e weight: 4617 lbs
24 RX450h+ weight: 4800 lbs
24 Model X weight: 5148 lbs
24 X5 PHEV XDrive: 5672 lbs
24 Jeep Grand Cherokee 4xe weight: 5300-5600lbs depending on who on the internet you ask
Not to mention the fact that you state that these vehicles have too small of batteries. Another few KWHs of battery would push these margins further. The horrible efficiencies of PHEVs make it so that a far higher battery capacity would be needed for a similar increase in range.
Are those truly apples-to-apples comparisons, though?
Look at the Kia Niro. It’s one of the few cars that has a PHEV and BEV version. The Niro BEV weighs 3803 lbs. The PHEV weighs 3497 lbs. The BEV has a 253 mile range. The PHEV has a 510 mile range (33 miles electric).
35kWh small EV sedan with 1.0-liter range extender vs 85kwh EV. The PHEV will be lighter, no question. (In time, this will change. New cells are becoming lighter).
That said, as that battery delta becomes bigger (like on trucks, whose batteries must be huge in BEV form in order to meet towing performance requirements, the delta increases), the range extended EV’s weight advantage becomes more significant.
Which is still a huge improvement over the gas-only version that gets like 17 combined. And traditional hybrids don’t have the “never plugged in” problem. They give you excellent efficiency without demanding any change from the driver whatsoever. That’s an easy sell to 95% of the driving population (the other 5% are the contrarians who will argue against any change and should be ignored with prejudice).
Plus, I think Toyota said they can build 10 non-plugin hybrids for every BEV. It’s an even better use of limited battery materials than PHEVs.
Citation needed. The non-Tesla charging networks are still a shitshow and the Tesla supercharging team just got laid off and partially rehired. Definitely bodes well for the future of that network. /s
Overall the PHEV vs. EV debate is a classic example of “perfect is the enemy of good”. The anti-PHEV people are looking for perfection, which is not achievable by imperfect humans, and in the process they’re screwing us out of something good.
Also, given that my local electrical grid is still about 70% fossil fuel-based, it’s debatable whether EVs are, in fact, perfect. According to some calculations I heard about recently, the break even on emissions right now for my specific area is 34 MPG. Yes, an EV is equivalent to a car with a combined MPG of 34. That’s…not great. Non-hybrids can do 34 MPG these days. PHEVs can do north of 100. It’s arguable that in this moment and for the foreseeable future (that 70% of my electrical grid isn’t being replaced over night) PHEVs are the “perfect” solution.
I can never tell if Johnny is trolling or stubbornly committed to being wrong about everything.
I’m seriously considering a Chevy Volt if I can get one in good shape for a good price.
I would love to swap out my 2012 wrangler for a 4Xe wrangler. I would love to drive in town, run errands, drive to work the days I have to be in office, all on electric power then do the 3 hr drive to the off road park using gasoline. Having just a gas motor got long trips in a daily driver is cheaper than haveing one EV for in town and one ICE for road trips.
I average just under 25 mpg with my 2019 Ram 1500 RC 4×2 3.6L. That’s as of just over 40,000 miles. I’m the original owner. It has the factory towing package and 3:73 rear end. I often get 21 mpg towing a 4400 pound low profile trailer. Never below 19 mpg. I have over 400 miles of towing range and I put gas in it every 2-3 weeks when I’m not towing. Takes 10 minutes, tops. Call me when EV trucks can match that. I might listen. In the meantime, it still snows in the winter and gets hot in the summer. No one’s ass is catching fire anytime soon. Your paranoia will not dictate my vehicle choice.
They may not be literally catching fire, but climate change is happening and it’s causing real damage now. There’s a heatwave in India and Pakistan that’s going to top 130F. The world is experience more and greater record heatwaves every year (which can cause wildfires which will literally cause one’s ass to catch fire). Summers are hotter. Winters are milder. Weather is more volatile. Droughts are more frequent. Air quality is worse.
No it’s not. Not outside of politically motivated pseudoscience. It’s bunk and more people are figuring it out.
Extreme weather is objectively happening more often over the past couple of decades. I suppose you could claim that’s not due to climate change, but if so I’d like to hear your explanation, preferrably with extensive scientific data to back it up.
No, doorknob, it isn’t. The Dust Bowl happened. The Ice Age happened.
I can smell who you voted for with your comment history
I have been a structural engineer for 25 years in New York.
When I started out most outdoor construction work stopped between December and March, due to cold weather. The shutdown then became shorter and shorter as time went on.
In the past several years, there was no shutdown. We may stop for a few days now and then when it gets particularly cold, but for all practical purposes we work year round.
The evidence is here for all to see. When one’s lone opinion differs from peer-reviewed scientific consensus, he are either unique like Einstein, or he is simply wrong. Occam’s Razor suggests it’s most likely the latter.
Witch doctors can read the chicken bones and come to a consensus. Does that make it true? Hell, your side don’t know what a man or woman is but we’re all supposed to open our wallets to YOUR political side because all your side’s pseudoscientists agree? You know, maybe if we start whipping ourselves with chains and begging global warming to forgive us, that’ll fix it.
I love your posts: pleaze say moar
Manmade climate change is literally one of the most widely accepted scientific consensuses. But if you and your “sources” say otherwise, that has to be the truth.
I bet you believed RJ Reynolds when they said cigarettes were part of a balanced breakfast.
Yeah, like how we need a consensus using made up computer models to know gravity is real…Will raising my taxes and letting the government tell me what I’m allowed to buy fix that damned fatal gravitational pull when someone falls from a building?
hey, sources, dunce. Stay focused. He asked you a question
The sky is falling and only paying higher taxes will stop it!!! Totally scientific.
I’m not sure why they have not removed your account here yet for the level of trolling we have going on
When I buy a vehicle, my thought process is:
*Affordable in my circumstances is not defined as total cost of ownership. I don’t drive much, so maintenance is basically a yearly thing. I can afford to fill the gas tank without really considering the cost. Affordable is more of a value judgement against its peers. If I can get an ICE pickup for $55K, I might consider a PHEV pickup at $65K because of the environmental benefits, but I wouldn’t consider an EV pickup at $80K+, even if it would do what I wanted.
Here’s an idea- both the Motortrend article and this article are correct.
The key thing is that instead of grouping both the current PHEVs and rexEVs into one category of PHEVs, they should be separate. As you state, the current crop of PHEVs are sort of pathetic (they also have serious emissions issues when the motor cuts on and off, effectively they can have lots of “coldish” starts with the associated high emissions), the “PHEV” should be seen as an “HEV” with some extra batteries and electric range, that can also be plugged in- a hybrid with some extra stuff. The rexEV should be seen as an “EV” with a backup engine- an EV with some extra stuff.
With this distinction, the “PHEVs” are just incrementally improved hybrids, and are not really worthwhile as more than a stopgap band aid (as Ford apparently just said). As you say in this article, the rexEVs are primarily EVs, and then fit the mold for the “EVs” only for the Motortrend article. Then you both can agree on the big picture, maybe not the small details.
There should be no passenger or light duty pickups that are gasoline only vehicles at this point. Lots can go hybrid, the F150 is a great example and shows how useful a hybrid truck is. They could do more range extended BEV because a smaller engine as a generator is much more efficient to charge the battery than to drive the vehicle because you can run it in a more optimal range continuously.
Sure, there should be choice because we are not ready for all BEV for all things, but people are so dismissive that some truck buyers do not care about towing, lots of vehicle owners get tow packages for bike racks or other racks. Hell, I saw a Model X towing a boat to the river yesterday. Car buyers may not be rational but not everyone’s edge case matches. If everyone bought for just an edge case, then everyone would have a truck and not a small crossover which are big sellers. It will be interesting to see how the Ram Charger stacks up in real world use.
I went from a 2012 Lexus RX 450h (normal hybrid) to a 2022 Volvo V60 Recharge (PHEV) and have been averaging 2-3 times more miles per tank of gas, even with a smaller tank. I think that’d be an interesting piece of data to add to these statistics supporting PHEVs. You could work out estimates using mpg and tank capacity figures, but that doesn’t always reflect the reality of actual mileage per tank (mpt). It could be more impactful to people seeing they could double/triple/quadruple their mpt in daily driving use, not just the range you could get on a single tank all at once.
My PHEV has a 23 mile range in ideal conditions. It would be nice if it were larger but it is what it is.
Even so 3/4 of the miles on it are electric. I have to plug it in every night, otherwise it’s a normal, excellent, car.
Every little bit helps and if it takes PHEV Escalades to wean us off dino juice, I’m all for it. Vehicles below 20 mpg need the most help.
https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/350382/gas-mileage-fuel-economy-mpg-gphm-gas-guzzlers
I went back and forth between a Volt and a Bolt. We’re in the process of moving to a smallish town in the desert, and we have a garage in both locations and there is charging infrastructure both locations. Trouble is between old house and new there’s a 140 mile stretch without a charger, and two chargers in about 190 miles. Total distance is exactly the Bolt’s range, but you’re not supposed to go from completely full or to completely empty. Having to do this drive somewhat often I opted to get a used Volt instead of Bolt. I could have made either work, but the Volt requires zero hoops to jump through.
Also, if companies would make car hybrids like train hybrids they could have 300+ MPG. I know a guy who was planning on building a Hybrid where a small highly efficient engine would charge a battery that would power the wheels. According to his and another person’s calculations, a hybrid using this system (with a old Nickel metal hydride battery) could get up to 300 MPG, and not just on a light car, this was calculated using the weight of an old Camry.
Unfortunately, the plan was immediately stopped when he found out the cost to get the special high-efficiency engine built was 40K$ in the late ’90s…
Imagine this with modern tech. A modern diesel train can haul 1 ton with an MPG of 500+ Imagine what a small gas engine could do.
You’re confusing ton-miles per gallon with functional miles per gallon. A train driving a circuit similar to a car will have a horrible rating compared to that 500+ number, just as your friend’s car would if it had been built because of substantial losses in energy recovery.
For comparison, my gas guzzling truck averages 15mpg, but weighs 2.5 tons empty, meaning its ton-miles per gallon would be 37.5, higher accounting for cargo. Semis average more than 100 ton-miles per gallon.
I trust my close friend’s story, he was a poor man with a big idea. Unfortunately, his roommate wasn’t the sharpest tool in the shed and threw out most of his stuff (including the notes and calculations) instead of asking if he wanted it.
Even if his calculations were wrong and your story is correct, I believe it would still be highly efficient and outperform normal cars and hybrids by a significant amount.
Also the calculations were performed by both the intelligent person I am talking about, and an old architect who was excellent at math, and designed buildings BEFORE computers and calculators were big.
I think you may have misunderstood, it used a train hybrid system, as in an engine powering a generator, then the generated electricity is stored for use by the electric motors.
The engine would basically be idling at a certain RPM, and the engine could be specifically optimized in that RPM range to provide maximum efficiency, instead of having to compromise and produce large amounts of power over a large RPM range, while trying to be efficient at the same time.
In theory, the car could also act as a generator to power your home, Instead of an EV that just acts as a battery and can’t move after it loses its charge.
PHEVs are a great midpoint with MPG, price, and low environmental impact. They are a perfect, both long and short term solution to the EV problem. EVs don’t have as much range and pollute more than PHEVs. These people are just blind to the fact that EVs are not the future and are worse for the environment than some normal cars!
Plus PHEVs are cheaper.
My dream truck platform builds off the 1986 IAD Alien concept. That car had a fully modular powertrain in a cartridge form factor designed to be swapped quickly by the owner. You could have an efficient 4 cylinder for commuting during the week, then swap in the V12 for the weekend. Carrying that concept to today, I’d like to see an affordable mid-size BEV truck with extremely modest standard range and capability, like maybe 150miles with the standard skateboard battery with an empty cargo frunk.
As an option, you can purchase an ICE genset that slots into the frunk and is designed such that an owner can install and remove it themselves (perhaps at the complexity level of removing a Jeep hardtop). That makes it a PHEV. Genset needs servicing? You can take it out to work it yourself or swap it at the dealer for a newer version.
Alternatively, you could add an auxiliary battery pack to the front, similar to the concepts floated by Rivian and Tesla. That might be a bit more permanent given the weight involved, but maybe the dealer could have a dedicated “swap bay” when you could pull in for 30min and rent a booster pack for a while if you needed the extra juice for a bit.
Not sure why people think that when a battery no longer has the juice, the engine turns on and it never goes back. It’s not “one or the other.” My wife’s non-hybrid switches back and forth between battery and gas and sometimes both. The engine will recharge the battery. When driving down a hill with cruise control on, the battery often will recharge to the max.
My BIL’s plug-in Prius went from The Valley (SFV) to Scottsdale in one tank AND the tank was still 1/4 full. That’s 450 miles. On long trips, the Electricity acts as the range extender!
I’m slowly coming around to this argument. I have some cousins who have driven BOF SUV’s or large crossovers the entire time I’ve been alive. Hostile to EV’s is being mild about their views. At least they’re willing to listen to new evidence. A usable PHEV would be right at home in their driveway. Plug it in for the daily drive without range anxiety when they travel.
What about cost though? Taking your pickup example, the F-150 hybrid is almost certainly going to be cheaper than the upcoming Ramcharger, and while gas prices are climbing, even a $10k price premium for a PHEV truck over a hybrid one still buys a lot of gas. I get that BEVs typically cost even more than PHEVs, but BEVs also drop the complexity and maintenance of an ICE powerplant entirely, leading to my next point:
You never mentioned complexity either. For the vast majority of PHEVs (and I know the i3 and Ramcharger are exceptions here), it’s a parallel hybrid drivetrain with a mechanical connection from the engine to the wheels, in addition to the electrical one. There’s a LOT going on with that that system, requiring a lot of bespoke components. It’s not cheap to fix.
I would concede series hybrids like the Volt, i3, or Ramcharger could be less complicated to service with the elimination of that mechanical connection, but I haven’t dug into that.
I’m not anti-PHEV, though I did choose a Mach-E over an Audi Q5 PHEV. I just think there are a LOT of factors that go into a buyer’s decision, and everyone is going to have bias when considering those factors.
I wouldn’t worry so much about complexity; it’s range-extended EVs that I’m calling for.
As for cost, PHEVs are cheaper than EVs, and with proper incentives, they can be cheaper than ICEs. Just look at the Chrysler Pacifica PHEV: Was cheaper than its gasoline counterpart!
But people do consider complexity, reliability, and repair costs when they buy a car (at least the people I know do). I know specifically some of my friends have shied away from PHEVs preferring either a full EV with the compromises that come with that, or just get an ICE/hybrid.
I fully get the benefits of a range-extended EV, but as a mechanical engineer myself, I also understand how complicated that integration can be.
It’s not nearly as complicated as most modern PHEVs. It’s not two drivetrains, it’s one hooked up to a generator. It’s not crazy complex.
Yes, I specifically mentioned that in my earlier post, but most PHEVs on the market today are parallel hybrids, not serial (like the i3, Volt, and Ramcharger).
I agree the i3 and Ramcharger are much less mechanically complicated.
“What about cost though?”
I guess instead of a Limited ICE, you could get a Lariat Hybrid for about the same
profit marginprice?Well I really meant choosing between different hybrid truck options since fuel efficiency and range are the article topics, not interior trim levels.
Looking at the F-150, you can only get the hybrid engine on the Lariat on up, and right now they’re offering discounts on the hybrid so the hybrid is only a $90 cost adder for a $65k+ truck.
A Lightning Lariat is about $75k before tax credits.
So at the national average gas price of $3.54, $10k gets you a little over 2800 gallons of gas, and at 24mpg in mixed driving for the F-150 hybrid, that’s nearly 67800miles. I realize gas prices are never constant (and unlikely to get cheaper), and I’m not factoring in tax breaks and other incentives, but the point remains the Lightning is going to take a while to pay for its cost premium from strictly a financial perspective.
Again, I have a Mach-E, I’m totally supportive of all manner of powertrains, but you really have understand your use case and do so math on the feasibility.
I was more making a commentary on what level of OTT truck luxury can be sacrificed for efficiency.
Then again, a few years back Lincoln sold a hybrid MK-something for the same price as a turbo-four MK-something.
As a home, we’ve had two hybrids (Ford C-Max and Maverick) and two PHEVs (Honda Clarity, and Volvo S60 Recharge) we still own three. The C-Max is gone.
The hybrids are good for what they are. Vehicles that were not sold at a surplus in terms of sticker price (C-Max only came hybrid or PHEV and our 23 Maverick, hybrid at that time was the same price) and got significantly better mileage than a full fuel version 40-45mpg.
The PHEVs are great. My Clarity, while not a engaging driving experience, but a fantastic driving appliance, would average 700-900 miles on a 6.5 gallon tank of gas with a 45mile daily commute. The new Volvo has been averaging 40+ mpg in a 455hp grand tourer. It’s been a month since I’ve filled it, and with strict commuter duty, I would likely have to fill up once a quarter.
I charge on 110 wall plug over night, and have a full charge by morning for both cars, and don’t really worry about capacity, as there are built in nannies to prevent overcharging, and with the trickle power, doesn’t stress the system like high speed charging does.
I guess what I’m trying to say is that I totally agree, and I can’t see a future that isn’t hybrid/PHEV in our house. I was 95% of the way to going full electric with a Polestar2, but those edge use cases where we go on a longer trip and the lack of a durable electric infrastructure just made the case for the S60.
Motor Trend has historically always been a mouthpiece for the automotive industry (especially the Big 3). It makes sense they’d be towing the company line of an all-or-nothing BEV approach.