Not familiar with hybrid very much, but doesn't that mean essentially carrying the internals of two different engines, and thus double the maintenance risks just "for the very occasional long trip" ?
No, it does not double the maintenance risk. Hybrid cars have one gasoline engine, and one (or more) electric motors. Toyota I believe, uses one of the electric motors to also start the gasoline engine (eliminating the starter motor on a traditional ICE engine). Toyota Hybrids are actually a much simpler setup than a modern turbocharged/direct injected ICE car.
Electric motors are essentially zero maintenance. Also, the gasoline engine in a hybrid is running less per mile (compared to a standard ICE car) extending its lifespan.
The Toyota Hybrid also uses what they call an E-CVT transmission. It's not related at all to traditional CVT transmission. The Toyota E-CVT uses planetary gear sets and the electric motor to vary the output speed. It has proven to be extremely reliable.
Toyota's Hybrid drivetrain likely makes Toyota cars the most reliable on the market. It has been refined over 20+ years and I am not aware of any significant issues with it.
I am somewhat of a car enthusiast. I don't own any Toyota products because I find their cars a bit boring. But, for anyone who just wants reliable transportation, I always recommend a Toyota.
Living on the outskirts of London it amazes me when I look for an old Prius on autotrader. You often see vehicles which aren't far away from half a million miles. They aren't even being sold for scrap value due to their demand in mini-cab service. It's a shame they didn't make a dent in private usage in the UK because there is a lot to be said for the underlying technology.
How much of that is because hybrids put an easier load on their engines and how much because Toyota knows how to build a reliable vehicle? It's both, but I imagine it's mostly because of Toyota reliability.
In fairness a Prius has no clutch, no torque convertor, no starter motor, no sliding dog clutches, no syncos, no turbo etc. It's unfortunate that people understood the Prius system as a normal car plus the electrical motive system but the reality is actually not nearly as complex.
How do you know when to change the oil on a car like this? Is there a separate odometer that keeps track of how many miles are on the ICE? It seems possible you may never use the ICE, at least in our case, so how do you know how to maintain it?
The chevy volt would run the engine on occasion to make sure oil was moving and wouldn't let the average age of gas in the tank exceed a year (if it did, it would go on a gas only mode, even if full charged until you refilled it to get the average age under a year).
The car keeps track of oil changes for you. My non hybrid car also tracks things like tire rotations and filter changes. It’s a little conservative but that’s fine IMO.
ICE wear and tear mostly is due to short trips with frequent stops when the car doesn't have time to heat up properly (ie. city driving) and when you put pressure on the gearbox
If you use the electric part in the city and the combustion engine on the highway you should get very low wear on the ICE (constant rpm/speed at highway speed = low wear and low consumption)
not every hybrid has a an electric/gas engine that can work in tandem (some do, but not a requirement0. On the Volt the gas engine wasn't attached to the wheels at all, it was just a generator for the battery.
They haven't published the fuel tank size or non-electric range (at least, I couldn't find this info easily), so I'd expect it to be similar to the BMW i3's tea cup sized fuel tank.
I'm thinking: cross town errands, 40 or 50 miles round-trip, traffic, maybe it's winter and the usual range is cut by a third... plus general headroom to reduce anxiety. ~100 miles seems like a good target for the 99th percentile of days.
I own a PHEV and it’s crazy how much it increases your quality of life. It’s so nice to be able to do local errands on electric and if I use gas, I get over 40 mpg easily which is really good for a SUV so I get about 500 mile range on a single tank. I honestly think this car fits the bill for so many families in the US. It’ll sell really well as long as dealership stops being greedy.
> many BEVs’ batteries aren't used to their full potential very often. This means BEV drivers lug around redundant capacity and weight,
And hauling around a whole ass ICE, fuel tank, cooling system, emissions and exhaust is better and also not a waste. Countries are pushing their emission standards down to 0. Where does even a tiny gas engine fit in that scenario?
In theory you are correct but the extra ICE parts are for people for whom EVs don't cut it (too expensive, no proper charging infrastructure, usage pattern, etc.). This is actually a vast chunk of the world's population. So if you can't consistently go electric a PHEV is a good mix.
But on the topic of hauling, I can detect some bigotry in the complains about some people needlessly hauling the ICE parts of a PHEV when most drivers are needlessly hauling an entire car for something a bike and public transport do just fine. The environmental difference between EV and bikes is far, far larger than between EV and PHEV.
So maybe let's just agree that some changes can't or won't happen in a single step and some intermediate, less than ideal positions are needed. Complaining about everyone who doesn't fit exactly our model of needs, likes and capabilities is usually just virtue signaling.
The vast majority of the world don’t need a car at all.
My problem isn’t with the the transition vehicles like PHEV. It’s the fact that Toyota doesn’t seem to have any strategy at all. None of the Japanese car mfgs have a ZEV strategy and 2030 is a lot closer now than it was in 2020. They won’t be able to sell their cars in China in a few years. The largest, fastest growing market right now. Where do you think they’ll be in 5 years?
Looks to me like right now they chose the best (least bad?) strategy one could choose in their position of being late to the party. They focus on a way to spread the thin supply of batteries they have while covering as big a part of the market as they can, and at the same time still letting the investments they made in ICE bring some returns. They also target a segment that's mostly an afterthought for other manufacturers.
On paper they could go all in on EVs but they'd make a pitiful number while competing with the big players who have a lot more room to maneuver with their margins.
A PHEV with 200km electric range might as well be a full EV 90% of the time but being able to cover the other 10% (every other condition and anxiety) is enough to win more people over. Don't let perfect be the enemy of good.
It could be useful for people who will basically never need gas, but are too scared to make a full switch and are happy to pay extra for the complexity.
In that scenario would you rather see someone to hold on to their car running on gas until it dies, or get one where they use the gas once a year?
> It could be useful for people who will basically never need gas, but are too scared to make a full switch and are happy to pay extra for the complexity.
No. Hybrids at this point serve the purpose of not killing the Auto industry with regulations. You have a whole industry of designers and suppliers for ICE tech both on gasoline and diesel designs.
The original intent in many countries is that no ICEs should be produced (outside farming etc.) after 2030s. Automakers cried out and now suddenly hybrids are on the table as 'not-ICEs'.
Sure it's an in between solution but we no longer have the luxury of time to be accommodating lobbies.
I have one of those hybrid models because the place I live in has a shitty EV charging infrastructure. And I live in an apartment building. Not living in a single family home makes EVs more cumbersome to have.
That said, love my hybrid. Very economical, I manage to run on EV quite often, don't need to refuel so much. Much more practical than EVs, especially considering I mostly drive in the city. Almost never drive on the highway.
But I swear, the petulance of EV fans online is sometimes so infuriating, that it almost makes me want to buy a Diesel generator and leave it running to throw some extra carbon on the atmosphere just out of spite.
this FUD is so annoying. go look it up, it requires less weight to convert ICE to PHEV than PHEV to BEV. In other words, BEV is actually the one lugging around redundant capacity. The Kiro Niro illustrates this fact perfectly as one of the few vehicles that has both an ICE, PHEV and BEV variant.
add to the fact that most miles driven for most people are within the range of PHEV electric range, BEV makes literally no sense.
You want to tell that to the Advanced Auto Parts, Pep Boys, Autozones of the world? That their business model in a few years is going to be rotating/changing tires and topping off wiper fluids?
ICE cars (including modern ones) require so much maintenance they have entire franchises dedicated to the maintenance of those cars.
BEVs almost never need new brakes. Regenerative braking means you rarely use the brake. There are only two times the actual physical brakes are applied: high speed deceleration and parking. And if you're doing the former that frequently you are a menace.
Mechanical issues are not maintenance. The drive train on a EV is so simple that manufacturers have to invent new tools and procedures. EV techs are more likely to have an electrician or computer background than a auto mechanic background.
Prius owners would like to have a talk. Their brakes got rusted and seized because they were using regen braking instead. All BEVs using brake discs will have this problem. Also the reason why VW used drum brakes in their ID.3
I think this is the right strategy. People lamenting the extra gas engine components and their maintenance must not be familiar with the reliability of a modern (ICE) vehicle.
You're probably right about them not being aware of the reliability of ICE engines.
But I don't see anyone mentioning how the ethanol-mix fuel, which is nearly unavoidable, can turn to shit in a few months of sitting and cause all kinds of engine issues. I'd be more worried about fuel issues over the long term if these truly become "a couple times a year" use cases.
There are stabilizing fluids you can add that extends the life to years. If owners can’t be bothered to do that the car could be programmed to use fuel every 6 months to prevent the negative side effects (in the case of cars like the Pacifica PHEV and Prius Prime, this is what happens)
The fuel issue is simply FUD. I’d be more concerned about BEV and range anxiety honestly. In Maine, for example, some Tesla owners reported the range being cut in half, during the winter. Simply unacceptable.
There are also, depending on the state, still gas stations that sell ethanol free fuel. The station up the street from me sells it but it is about 20 to 30 cents per gallon more expensive.
It is a strategy that is subject to being superceded very soon.
Reliability is just one part of the problems with hybrids. Efficiency and cost are also less than optimal.
A dual power train just costs more --- both initially and in terms of maintenance. There is no way around this. It is also a drag on efficiency --- for both long and short trips.
On short trips, the electric power train has to drag around the ICE components. On a long trip, the ICE has to drag around the electric components.
This strategy leaves the competition with a clear path to produce a lighter, more efficient, less expensive alternative.
Any sort of battery breakthrough will kill this hybrid strategy. Rather than promoting or leading this breakthrough, Toyota is effectively betting against it --- primarily for cultural reasons rather than technological ones in my opinion.
The same trend exists for all other cars that have both PHEV and BEV models.
> On short trips, the electric power train has to drag around the ICE components. On a long trip, the ICE has to drag around the electric components.
The same could be said about BEV and the extra weight, amounting to hundreds of unnecessary pounds being towed, which by the way weighs more than ICE components than a PHEV. (in the case of the Kiro Niro, the plug-in hybrid components add 250 pounds compared to ICE, and the Niro BEV adds a whopping 700 pounds extra compared to ICE. In other words, the BEV differential from PHEV adds more than from ICE to PHEV).
The amount of FUD surrounding PHEV every time it's mentioned really is amazing.
Based on what? A Kiro Niro PHEV is cheaper than a Kiro Niro BEV.
Based on the simple fact that battery costs are rapidly trending downward as production ramps up --- while ICE components are not following a similar trend.
ok then. I look forward to the $15K brand new electric cars in 5 years (per your other comment), lol. I've saved your comment here. it'll be nice for a laugh in 2028.
I don't need to wait 5 years to laugh --- electric cars don't have to cost $15K to be cheaper than PHEV. A Chevy Bolt EV is already cheaper than some Toyota PHEV.
ICE cars had an electric motor, a battery and an alternator since the earlier 20th century. Without those they were not very practical and required the driver to manually crank to start the engine. PHEV do not add a second power train, they just have a beefier electric system than a regular car and a charger.
no you're wrong. Tesla is cutting their prices because their margin is the highest and therefore they have fat to cut. I guarantee you the cheapest ICE will be cheaper than the cheapest BEV. Even right now the cheapest ICE is half the cost than the cheapest BEV. If you think BEV is going to go down half in cost in the next 5 years IDK what to say.
even now, after price costs, a Model 3 is more expensive than nearly all PHEVs
I don't even know if this counts as a plug-in when it has an electric only range which betters electric cars of a few years ago. Maybe a whole new category electric cars with optional ability to use petrol.
Not counting as a plug-in would mean it’s a reclaiming-only hybrid, not that it’s an EV.
The entire point of a plug-in hybrid is that you can use it as a straight EV in a non-trivial subset of cases.
> Maybe a whole new category electric cars with optional ability to use petrol.
That’s usually called a range-extended EV, but that’s reserved for “series” architectures, which is not something Toyota wants to do.
The Volt and i3 are probably the most well-known examples. The volt has a pretty short all-electric range (topped out at 50 miles on the second gen), the i3 was designed as an EV first so the range extended models had a more respectable 125mi all-electric, plus ~75 from the range extender (the straight EV model topped out at 150mi range).
It was very much a transitional model though, both successors are only available as pure EVs.
My point was that the standard of plug-in hybrids is 40 miles or less without using the engine. Which is great if you happen to have a regular 15-20 mile commute but for most people makes it more like a non-plugin / self-charging [sic] / full-hybrid [don't ask me].
100+ miles means it's, for a lot of people, basically an electric car.
Perhaps the defining line is that with 100 mile range you'd be likely to top-up the battery part on a long journey rather than just ignoring it. I do feel that makes it a different category, more like the range extended EVs.
The standard is what every other plug-in hybrid on the market offers. I'm pretty sure you are just arguing for the sake of arguing at this point. You haven't added anything useful.
> The standard is what every other plug-in hybrid on the market offers.
Ah so a strait up lie then.
> I'm pretty sure you are just arguing for the sake of arguing at this point. You haven't added anything useful.
Aside from giving you an example of a 10 years old hybrid with the kind of all-electric range you exclaim had never existed before, which you just decided to ignore entirely as you spouted a bunch of baseless assertions in not-support of your destruction of objective language?
Have you considered reading my comments? I didn't say it didn't exist before. I said it was the standard. Looking at a bunch of current PHEV models:
- Ford Kuga PHEV: 28-41 miles
- Mazda CX-60: 39 miles
- Volkswagen Tiguan PHEV: 30 miles
- Kia Niro PHEV: 33 miles
- Toyota RAV4 PHEV - 46 miles
- BMW Model 3: 32-36 miles
This whole thread started with me suggesting it needed a different moniker because it was so different to the rest of the market.
You yourself called the BMW I3 an range extended EV. Why does that deserve a different name but not a Prius with a much extended range?
A plug-in hybrid works differently. It has an engine as well as electric motors, a gearbox to make that all work together, a diff, etc.
A range extended EV doesn't have a gearbox or a diff. Just a generator attached to the battery. So they drop all that complexity and weight.
I always thought they were a brilliant design in that sense, as far back as 2010ish when the Chevy Volt was announced. I'm surprised they haven't caught on more vs hybrids.
Then you have something like the Nissan E-power range which also uses a generator attached to the engine. However, they have a very small hybrid type battery without the ability to plug in.
That is another type of car, yes. Do you understand the point of "range extended" now, though? Plug in and range extended aren't to do with how far they go on electric. They're to do with how the car works.
Your "now" implies that I didn't know before. That isn't the case.
A plug-in hybrid would hardy fit the definition if it had a 1kwh battery more typical of a conventional hybrid but with the technical ability to plug it in. No more so than the ability to run an old fashioned manual petrol on the starter motor for a few meters made those hybrids. Usain Bolt and a marathon runner both use their legs to move but they are hardly equivalent.
This sort of range is absolutely incredible; and, if they are pushing the electric motor as the primary motor, maybe the performance of the car, too, will be very good, rather than the terrible 0-60 times of a Prius.
That’s when both electric and gas motor are running. If you want to restrict to electric only and take advantage of the battery for short daily driving it will be significantly slower.
There is no 'fast moving highway' where the acceleration post 60 of any modern vehicle that has a license plate is a problem. What is a problem is other drivers that make unrealistic assumptions about the capabilities of other vehicles.
I've driven >> 1,000,000 million kilometers in 36 years of driving and to date I've never seen a single instance of the speed of acceleration being a safety issue. Even on short on-ramps - which is really the only spot where acceleration in normal traffic matters - almost every car will do just fine, and in case it doesn't you either stop or use the emergency lane (if that's allowed where you live).
Above 60 you are already in traffic and the differences required to overtake another car are minimal, you can do it faster to be out of the left lane a bit quicker but you're still limited by the speed limit and traffic that comes up from behind will just have to be patient.
What may be the case if this is a situation that you encounter frequently that the problem somehow lies with you and/or your driving style. Most people just want to get from 'A' to 'B' safely and economically, and speed of acceleration considerations don't enter into it at all. Given all the other vehicles that you share the road with, a large number of which are much slower to accelerate than a Prius ever would be the whole idea is to work together to keep everybody safe and get them home in one piece. Not to extract the maximum performance from their vehicles.
Owned one. Had the issue. You’re wrong. Maybe a result of the CVT or low torque at speed not sure but it was unsafe. When you need power to get out of a situation and you floor it and 3 seconds later still nothing…
That is simply a defect, not something structurally wrong with the Prius design.
Did you have it checked out by a competent garage? Prius is a complex machine and needs proper care or it will break. I had a similar hybrid in Canada and it worked like a charm except for when it was < -20 Celsius, then all kinds of weird stuff would happen. Apparently the manufacturer had not really thought about the range of operating conditions that their product would be exposed to. So in the dead of winter when it was super cold acceleration would be underwhelming, but once you know that it is like that you simply don't put yourself in situations where this can be a problem. I've driven 2CV with an anemic 600 CC engine (there also existed an older one with only 375 CC) and it was perfectly safe in traffic, if you worked within the limitations of the car.
In the end it is the driver that matters, not the vehicle and if you put yourself in a position where 'you need power to get out of a situation' you are most likely already at the end of a long string of mistakes. Keep in mind that there isn't a truck on the road that can accelerate as fast as a personal car and yet they are not constantly in danger because of a lack of power.
In practice it seems like if you give people one step forward in acceleration they get two steps picky about what gaps in traffic they need to do their thing (merge, left turn, whatever) resulting in a net decrease in the overall performance of the car + driver system.
Maybe someone who knows more on the matter could help me understand the efficiency problem.
Wouldn't it be more efficient for long trips to run a small generator in the car that charged the batteries?
A car engine needs to deal with variable power/torque/etc. It's got transmissions and radiators and all sorts of extra complexities. A generator runs at one speed and is efficiently tuned to that one speed. If you suddenly need more power to accelerate then that would be provided by the batteries. Batteries are like >90% efficient. So going motor->battery->wheels seems like you wouldn't loose much even in the worse case of coasting on the highway at an ICE's optimal speed.
Generators are also generally simpler and smaller. You could envision one that you could pop into the frunk when you need extra range. It would continuously recharge your batteries as you drive - even before they're depleted. Even if it didn't recharge as fast as you were using up power - you'd still drastically increase your range. Forthermore you could leave it running overnight to charge your car if you're in some remote place with no charging stations
Literally nobody has done this - so there must be some reason I'm overlooking :)
I think the Chevy Volt is what you're talking about. You plug it in to charge and when the battery runs out, the engine runs to charge the battery so you can drive until the gasoline runs out. The engine isn't connected to the wheels at all. It only charges the battery as you drive.
I didn't realize it was that separated. Would be cool if you could detach the engine entirely and leave it at home when you don't need it. Or buy the car without an engine and rent one when you want to do the annual roadtrip
AIUI the Hybrid Synergy Drive combines aspects of a series and parallel hybrid, for efficiency at both high and low speeds. I think this is the main reason that pure series hybrids are not more popular.
This change will make these models best sellers in Spain (outside of Madrid and Barcelona) as the charging structure is still massively primitive and this cover the commutes on electric during the week and the longer trips on weekends with a combination).
People with plug-in hybrids: What do you do about gasoline aging out? Do you add Sta-Bil to most tanks? Do you just stop charging it after a few months to burn through the tank? Just curious.
Gasoline doesn't go bad that fast in a modern sealed fuel system and engines with modern electronic control systems that have a lot of latitude to adjust in real time are really forgiving.
People are mostly projecting their experience with much more finicky lawn equipment to cars.
References? Because I'm seeing fairly recent discussions saying things like "gasoline starts to oxidize into varnish surprisingly quickly" and suggesting not letting gasoline sit for 6 months.
