Porsche Taycan Turbo S with mountain bike on the roof

Hooniverse Asks: Do PHEVs have a place or should people jump right to full EVs?

Jeff Glucker

/comment

Comments

I enjoy vehicles of all sorts. Gas-guzzling V8 monsters to electric silent assassins and everything in between. I also enjoy a good plugin hybrid. That’s because I like the ability to run around silently when I want, eke out pure electric driving range, and also inject power into an otherwise standard vehicle. A good example of this exists in the latest Audi Q5 PHEV. It’s as quick as the SQ5 version, can get around 17 miles or so of pure electric driving, and with incentives and rebates can be had for less than the SQ5.

But there’s been some recent chatter about the PHEV being a useless stopgap for the EV evolution on our roads.

I disagree with that notion but I also understand its point. Still, PHEVs have been improving as the battery tech in EVs keeps getting better. Automakers can stuff a relatively small battery pack and electric motor into a gasoline-powered vehicle and deliver a massive power bump and increase in driving range. The owner gets a taste of full EV ownership via charging, purely electric driving, and range monitoring, yet suffers no range anxiety. I say it’s less a stopgap but more a stepping stone.

What do you think, should people skip the PHEV and go full hybrid, or is a PHEV a great idea in the meantime?

About

Jeff Glucker

Jeff Glucker

Jeff Glucker is the co-founder and Executive Editor of Hooniverse.com. He’s often seen getting passed as he hustles a 1991 Mitsubishi Montero up the 405 Freeway. IG: @HooniverseJeff

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

The maximum upload file size: 64 MB. You can upload: image, audio, video. Links to YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and other services inserted in the comment text will be automatically embedded. Drop files here

26 responses to “Hooniverse Asks: Do PHEVs have a place or should people jump right to full EVs?”

  1. crank_case Avatar
    crank_case

    Most the current crop of PHEVs, which are basically an ICE car with battery bits – not really, they’re kinda the worst of all worlds.

    On the other hand, something like the new Mazda MX-30 RERE – now that makes sense to me. It’s an EV most of the time, but with a rotary engine specifically designed to work as a range extender. Small, light, powerful, good if run it at steady RPM. A microturbine might be even better if the NOx problem can be cracked or at least seen as an acceptable trade off outside urban areas.

    https://japanesenostalgiccar.com/the-mazda-rotary-is-coming-back-to-america-as-a-range-extender/

    Most EVs are inherently wasteful, which might sound crazy given they are more energy efficient than an ICE car, but it’s relative. The big battery in many EVs is not there for your actual needed daily use, it’s there to deal with anxiety for the odd trip. Most the time, it’s just extra weight. A decently powerful range extender generator could give you a lot of extra range for its weight compared to a shedload of extra battery.

    Reply
    1. Batshitbox Avatar
      Batshitbox

      I haven’t looked up the state of the art, but isn’t an ICE / generator setup just as heavy as a conventional drivetrain? Like in a diesel-electric locomotive, you need an engine that’s powerful enough to motivate the whole vehicle, whether via a gearbox or a gen set. You can’t really use the ICE as a ‘range extender’ for a battery; there’s only room for one prime mover in the system.

      Reply
      1. outback_ute Avatar
        outback_ute

        Most PHEVs, ie with add-on EV, would have a conventional drivetrain, ideally with a large generator/motor that replaces the flywheel so the extra weight is not significant.

        On the other hand if it is an EV with a range extender, you could get away with a smaller engine; steady-state highway driving doesn’t need that much power and could be supplemented by the battery if managed correctly.

        I think there is a place for PHEVs with current tech. Sure there’s the weight of the ICE drivetrain but I’d guess that a big battery to give a “long enough” range as a pure EV would be just as heavy, but take longer to recharge.

        Maybe in the future we will see EVs with a small daily-commute battery pack built in, and a bigger pack able to be added for longer trips. There was an interesting Fiat concept car where the small daily battery was actually removable so you could park the car, then take the battery inside your apartment to charge.

        Reply
        1. crank_case Avatar
          crank_case

          That’s exactly it – you have a far wider choice of combustion engine when it doesn’t need to drive the wheels. You don’t really need to worry about a broad torque range across a wide range or RPM, so you have an engine that doesn’t have to have multiple compromises – all that matters are power output and you don’t need all the transmission/drivetrain components to connect the engine to the wheels, so you can use something like a microturbine, which is very efficient, has few moving parts, but was never an ideal solution to drive a cars wheels directly as they suit steady RPM, not accelerating or idling.

          It’ll probably be heavier than a conventional combustion car (well, a combustion engine car in and ideal world and not the lardbuckets many plump for), but lighter than filling an EV with a ton of battery in the name of more range.

          Reply
      2. Scoutdude Avatar
        Scoutdude

        Done right a range extender would work and be lighter than having a standard ICE power train. The big problem I see though it that it would take driver intervention, and a driver smart enough to know what to do. That is because you would want to set it it up so that you choose to engage range extending mode. You could size the Genset combo such that it provides say 125% of the power needed for operation on flat ground at say 70mph with a full accessory load operating at peak efficiency preferably. Then if you know you will be exceeding the EV range switch to range extending mode when the battery still has a 40-50% SOC. Now if you are cruising down the freeway at say 60mph the engine will continue to make that 125% of power needed at 70mph and the excess will charge the battery. Once SOC hits a certain point, the gen shuts down and you switch into EV mode until the SOC drops and then the process repeats. Ultimately you would want a system where you could pick the target SOC range. That way if you know you are going to be climbing a pass you could turn it on earlier to ensure you had enough battery power to provide needed power long enough to climb a long pass.

        Reply
        1. crank_case Avatar
          crank_case

          Combine it with satnav and if you at least punch in your destination, it could figure out that stuff for you. We already have cars that know there is a series of bends coming up and adjust their suspension setting pre-emptively.

          Reply
          1. Scoutdude Avatar
            Scoutdude

            Yup! Ford hybrids since 2013 use built in GPS, even if it doesn’t have navigation, to learn where the car cold soaks. It then tries to end the trip with at min SOC. That way when the engine starts and does a warm up cycle there is room to dump the excess energy in the battery, so that it isn’t wasted. So yeah if you were to tell it where you wanted to go it could maintain an optimum SOC for the conditions ahead and distance to any planned charge point.

      3. Chad Avatar
        Chad

        I don’t know the details about diesel-electric locomotives but I’m sure there’s a reason they added a bunch of complexity if the diesel engine is “good enough”.

        I do know a bit about engine efficiency, and it’s pretty widely known that combustion engines are most efficient in a very narrow band of RPMs. Removing the need to operate through a wide band of RPMs has enough value to overcome the losses due to complexity and weight.

        Reply
    2. Sjalabais Avatar
      Sjalabais

      You’re on to something here, when Fisker presented his SUV the other day, he said that today’s batteries are already too large. It’s not necessary for daily driving and too ressource-intensive. Thus, even what we consider the spearhead of today’s development – massive range EVs – might be seen as a mere stopgap measure. Better infrastructure and faster charging (like the new 800V Hyundai doing 80% in 18 minutes) will fix that. It’s just a perspective, an opinion, but it points to a less ressource-hungry way of evolving electric cars.

      For one-car-households, I believe that PHEVs are reasonable choices still. Our Leaf gets driven 60 kms at the most, on one charge. The typical pattern is 80% charged, I take it to work for 23 kms, charge it to 100% for free while changing the world at the epicenter of power (corner office pride /s), and drive home again. From what I am reading, this kind of commute is far from unusual. Many PHEVs can manage that on battery alone.

      Alas, for a hoonified household, with a bunch of cars and a strong aversion towards spending too much money on compromises, the ultimate solution is, of course, and old EV parked next to a rare Korean business limousine for longer trips. So obvious, yet so elusive.

      I’m gonna shut up now.

      Reply
  2. Jimmy7 Avatar
    Jimmy7

    I’m on my second Volt. The concept works. Electric commuting and drive anywhere on the weekend.

    Reply
  3. Maymar Avatar
    Maymar

    I’m considering moving about 60km away from where I live now, and with the places we’re considering being in older neighborhoods with relatively limited parking, an EV might not be feasible at this time (it’d work for commuting, but it’d be inadequate for going to see our families even though they live on the other end of the same metro). But a PHEV would work great as a solo vehicle, and getting access to HOV lanes is a big selling point over a normal hybrid. It might just be a stepping stone, but it’s appealing enough to me for now.

    Reply
    1. OA5599 Avatar
      OA5599

      I’ve never understood the logic of extending HOV access to solos in fuel efficient vehicles.

      Consider which scenario results in cleaner air: gas guzzlers idling in traffic or Teslas, making zero pollution (if you overlook the battery manufacturing process) while going nowhere. And the ICE guy who pumps 2,000 gallons per year at the Exxon station pays a lot more in road taxes (while helping small businesspeople who own the station) than someone who plugs in a battery charger at night.

      Reply
      1. Maymar Avatar
        Maymar

        Incentive to get more people into PHEV/EV’s, I guess – I’m just happy to take advantage of it as long as it’s on offer, as I don’t think anyone’s going to offer HOV access to solo Hellcat drivers anytime soon.

        Reply
      2. Scoutdude Avatar
        Scoutdude

        Yeah it is all about making them more appealing to people. I know that the HOV access sold a lot of Hybrids, PHEVs and EVs in CA because for some people it could save an hour or more per day. On the other hand the less cars in the main lanes the quicker than traffic can flow, at least that is what they say about the car pool/toll lanes around here.

        Reply
        1. Tiller188 Avatar
          Tiller188

          I’ve wondered about that; HOV lanes seem to be no more, no less than an incentive generator, a way to encourage people to share vehicles and thereby reduce congestion and emissions (or now, to buy high-efficiency vehicles). The intentions are laudable and make a certain amount of sense, but during commute times (well, pre-COVID, anyway), I would sometimes look over at the lightly-occupied HOV lane(s) and wonder whether the tradeoff was worth it. Depending on the road, that’s an additional ~25% bandwidth that’s going underutilized in the name of encouraging a particular set of behaviors.

          While you’re correct that “the less cars in the main lanes the quicker that traffic can flow”, that is starting from the assumption that the HOV lane is unique from the main lanes. I wonder what the end result would be if HOV lanes were instead simply additional lanes for open usage. I mean, maybe you just get a 5-lane traffic jam instead of a 4-lane traffic jam, but I would think that extra bandwidth would have to count for something. I also wonder what role in worsening traffic jams, or just increasing collision risk, is played by the fact that drivers of HOV-eligible cars are effectively encouraged to Frogger their way across the entire width of the freeway as soon as possible after merging on, though I guess the same is true of average-Joe-left-lane-bandit, HOV lane or not.

          OA5599 also makes a very good point about the irony of giving lightly-polluting vehicles access to a special lane that reduces their time on the road, while relegating gas guzzlers and single-occupancy vehicles to the main lanes where they’ll sit in gridlock and pollute without accomplishing any useful forward motion. Hooray for unintended consequences.

          Reply
          1. Sjalabais Avatar
            Sjalabais

            It’s certainly not a perfect system, but as a comment from someone who occasionally touches public planning principles at work, adding more lanes will usually not solve congestion issues – or only temporarily do so. More throughput has a tendency to encourage more people to drive, or to make them move from expensive places to less expensive ones a little further off. Thus, reserving one lane for a special purpose has less of a cost than it has value for the goal you’re trying to achieve, almost on principle, and especially if the goal is better traffic management. Around here, EVs and public transport have their own lanes. With the advent of 50% new car sales being EVs, the effectiveness of these have been discussed, but there is no doubt they are effective for bringing more people faster to their destination as long as they sit on busses*. EVs might lose a lot of their benefits rather sooner than later, but these lanes will probably remain marked for “chosen traffic” – and if it just is about cars with more occupants than 1.

            *Classic: https://img-9gag-fun.9cache.com/photo/aE16W0e_700bwp.webp

  4. Neight428 Avatar
    Neight428

    Would be a neat concept to test without the market disruptions paying people to make certain choices.

    Having a smaller battery low in the chassis and a small, high revving gas engine that makes big HP, with torque filled in by an electric motor sounds like a formula for a vehicle with performance close to high end models and superb efficiency to boot. My suspicion is that the added complexity and cost isn’t worth it to buyers unless its subsidized. At the price point necessary to support it, people don’t really care about efficiency. Infiniti made a very brief run at hyping the performance potential of a hybrid powertrain, and I’m guessing it appealed to almost no one.

    EV’s are working(ish) commercially specifically because they are electric. While I might do so myself if I were in that market, very few people are buying a Model S Plaid because it will gap an E-class AMG.

    Reply
    1. Batshitbox Avatar
      Batshitbox

      That’s how I assumed PHEVs were arranged; with the electric motor engaged fro zero mph to whatever speed the ICE becomes the more efficient power source. The first hybrid I ever encountered was a custom Freightliner box truck that the Mythbusters had built to replace their old Top Kick, and that was how the arrangement was explained to me. Each according to their abilities.

      Reply
      1. Scoutdude Avatar
        Scoutdude

        The way PHEVs that are sold in the US work is that when the battery is above a certain state of charge it is in pure EV mode unless the power requested is higher than the battery pack’s output. In that case the ICE will turn on and help out until it is no longer needed. Once the SOC drops to a certain point then it switches to standard hybrid mode. Many of the PHEV MD trucks were what were known as charge depleting where the battery and motor just provided boost when accelerating as those required the engine to be turning to drive the belt driven accessories.

        Reply
        1. Neight428 Avatar
          Neight428

          I couldn’t tell you if there’s a decent tradeoff in the formula I was talking about. At one end of the Hybrid spectrum, you have an EV hauling around a ICE generator that keeps the juice just high enough to limp to a charging station while on the other you would have a battery that good for a couple of acceleration squirts and that would be dead cargo weight until you either recharge. I think that’s the problem with the market here is that there’s no definite “sweet spot” that makes sense for the power/efficiency/range compromises. You had to have tax credits, crazy EPA MPG bragging rights and odd duck styling to launch the second gen Prius into the mainstream as an economy car only and without the EV cache` no one is going to drop $150k on a Tesla.

          Reply
    2. Sjalabais Avatar
      Sjalabais

      Market distortions are certainly relevant here. I remember the Mitsubishi Outlander PHEV as one of the first of its kind, and due to strong government incentives, this vanilla SUV that wouldn’t even afford a big V in vanilla became a huge success around here – it was well 40% cheaper than the similar, non-chargeable competition for a while.

      Before PHEVs and EVs, our government subsidized diesels in the form of lower taxes. We all know how well that went. It was also motivated by eco-consciousness, but that policy was more or less based on politicians not being able to read research papers all the way through (“I take particles for 500!”). Diesel owners who were suddenly labelled big polluters, and taxed accordingly, facing a potential steep loss in investment value (that never materialized though), were pissed.

      Reply
  5. Scoutdude Avatar
    Scoutdude

    I’m sorry but that study is seriously biased, heavily distorts the facts and fails to consider why they “don’t get charged as much as they should”.

    Yes a PHEV can get slightly lower MPG than the HEV version of the same vehicle, once the battery pack it depleted into the hybrid range. Even then they still use less fuel than a standard ICE powered vehicle version of the same vehicle. Go to fueleconomy.gov and you can use their compare vehicles tool to see the difference between the best pure ICE, HEV and PHEV versions of the 2020 Fusion. Combined ratings are 27, 42, and 42/103e So the HEV and PHEV burn about 65% as much fuel as the ICE version when operating on gas.

    So no they are not worse than the cars they are replacing even when they aren’t plugged in.

    If you do plug it in and your typical trip is ~20 mi per day then you wouldn’t burn any gas. Even if your daily use is 100mi if you can do 20% on EV then your emissions are 80% of 65% or roughly half of what a pure ICE would do. Now if you never plug it in then you are stuck producing the same amount of emissions as the Hybrid, but still significantly less than the pure ICE version.

    So the question becomes why are people not plugging them in? Because incentives. I’m not sure exactly what they are in Europe but in the US if you bought that PHEV Fusion you could have got a $6800 federal tax credit and in some cases local incentives that make it as cheaper to purchase than the Hybrid version and in some cases cheaper than the standard ICE version. So easy to see why people might purchase a PHEV but why don’t they plug it in? Probably because those buyers don’t have any place to charge them at home and using a public charging station may make it more expensive than just using gas. Which of course is why EVs will be a big failure in much of Europe. Large swaths of people won’t be able to charge at home and will have to rely on public pay charging for all of their driving.

    I know that is the case with our PHEV a C-Max Energi. EA charges ~3x the cost of electricity used at home, or more expensive than running it on gas. With our 2013 with a degraded battery we are showing a 52mpg average over the 2 years we have had it and in the standard hybrid version that preceded it we averaged 38 mpg. So roughly 25% of our driving has been in EV mode.

    Which is why the new Escape is high on our shopping list once the PHEV version is available. In my state I won’t have to pay sales tax so a net tax savings of over $10k. The 37 mi EV range will do the majority of our M-F driving and a good percentage of the weekend miles. But when it comes time to take a road trip it will be less expensive and frustrating than an EV. Hopefully we will be taking more road trips in the future.

    Reply
    1. bhtooefr Avatar
      bhtooefr

      Part of what’s going on in Europe is an extremely lax test cycle, and national-level incentives for “50 km” charge depleting range that becomes about half that in practice with the terrible European PHEVs (some of which make it to the US). And, the European PHEVs are often positioned as a relatively high performance option, so you might get, say, a BMW 330e replacing a BMW 318d, and that combined with horribly inefficient hybrid systems is where higher CO2 can come in.

      And, these incentives as I understand are especially oriented towards company cars (which are much, much more common in Europe than in the US). What I understand happens is, companies often will lease a car and provide a fuel card as an employment perk… and with incentives to lease PHEVs, they do so. The problem is that many of these employers then don’t install charging equipment at the workplace, and charging at home ends up being on the employee’s own dime, where using the fuel card is free to the employee.

      Reply
  6. Zentropy Avatar
    Zentropy

    I’m not interested in EVs until:
    1. the batteries get smaller and cheaper
    2. the infrastructure is in place for convenient recharges (as common as fuel stations) and
    3. the technology allows for a 90%+ charge-up in the time it would otherwise take me to refill a 20-gallon fuel tank.

    Until then, PHEVs are the only way to go, IMO.

    Reply
    1. Maymar Avatar
      Maymar

      So, you want something that acts exactly like a gas-powered car, with the added bonus of refueling at home? Leaving with a full tank every day buys basically no accommodation?

      Reply
      1. Zentropy Avatar
        Zentropy

        I don’t want to be restricted to a local commuter car, and I don’t want to have to plan my longer trips to specifically accommodate limited-location recharging stations and long recharge times.

        Reply