Diesel-electric trains have no battery, though. The Chevy Volt hybrid was pretty close in that the gas engine acted only as a generator to charge the batteries and could supply enough power for the motors in case the batteries died. I’m not sure why Chevy killed it.
General Motors (GM) has a longstanding issue where what they care about most is global platform sales. They tend to only prioritize platforms that can be used to sell as many vehicles as possible. Regardless of how brilliant and well-engineered it might be, if it's not one of their better sales vehicles (or a halo car like the Corvette), they kill it. Often, they are just impatient, and if they'd take some of these great platforms and developed them and nurtured them, they could've expanded them into one of those global top sellers, but they tend to keep a close eye on shorter timelines.
The Volt was an _incredible_ piece of engineering, but it was also an incredibly expensive architecture that was basically mandated as part of the government bailout of GM. Sadly it was perceived as a money loser and that was that, traditional hybrids just hit lower price points.
Honda's hybrid system is a bit closer to that, but in practice it's not as reliable or efficient as Toyota's - they haven't been iterating on it for as long.
> Honda’s two-motor hybrid system can operate as either a series or parallel hybrid. The majority of the time, the system operates as a series hybrid. Its electric propulsion motor drives the wheels directly, while the gasoline engine connected to the electric generator/starter motor functions as an electrical generator, supplying power to the hybrid battery and/or the propulsion motor. Under certain driving conditions, such as steady-state cruising at highway speeds, the system switches seamlessly to parallel hybrid operation, with the gasoline engine connecting to the front axle via a clutch, and vehicle speed is proportional to engine speed (rpm).
Diesel electric trains need extreme amounts of torque to pull all that weight. There is no reason at all to assume what works for a train would be a good choice for a car.
In principle I really like it, use gas for long distance and electric for the other 90%. However aren't you really just getting the worst of both worlds? Under-powered gas engine and limited range ev? Wouldn't it weigh a lot more and have twice as many parts to break down? All the maintenance of a gas engine with the additional cost of a battery/electric?
They usually turn out more reliable (if built right) because you can remove the transmission entirely, which is a major complicated piece of mechanical engineering that is prone to failure.
They are more reliable because Toyota sells a large fraction of the hybrids. Non-Toyota hybrids are less reliable than both gasoline cars and EV's. Maybe that's circular because a large fraction of the non-Toyota hybrids are Stellantis...
They also get to run the engine at a lower duty cycle while it is warming up, which is a big source of wear and tear for a gas engine. They also never have to run a rich mixture because the power gap is made up for by the electric motor.
These hybrids should be 100m EV range, that is plenty for most trips. The RAV4 Prime gets about 42m from each charge, which is a bit short for my commute but cuts by gas consumption by a whole lot.
There's nothing under-powered about the gas engine. F-150 daily drivers may cringe, but that's a cultural problem not a problem with the vehicle.
That's pretty good for the Rav4. From what I can tell though the highlander only has a 5 mile range at a max of 25 mph when in EV only mode. It's very limited and clearly you are meant to run the gas engine most of the time along side the electric motor.
Call it a cultural problem if you want, but a F-150 is damn useful even if it is not utilized all the time. When you do need it though, it's there and ready to work. There is a reason it's the best selling car in America.
I call it a cultural problem because in forums I am active in EVs are derided as some sort of crazy plot to take away our freedom. I totally agree a truck is useful to have.
Also keep in mind that the electric tends to handle low speed movement which it's just great at (instant torque), while the gas engines tend to handle highway / steady state driving which they are just great at. And overall they are each getting less usage than if they were the only powertrain.
The reason they are efficient is something like this:
A cars engines efficiency/fuel economy is constrained by its max output. Ie when you have an engine capable of very rapid acceleration, that engine is going to be too big across all other scenarios - ie two cars of the same weight going the same speed , the one with the bigger engine will consume more fuel.
The hybrid lets you take advantage of this in two ways. First it allows you to have a smaller engine because the electric motors kick in when you need the acceleration. So it lets you get away with a smaller engine that is more than enough for your driving and that gives you efficiency.
Then it also uses the fact that even the smaller engine is still oversized for things like coasting or going steady so it uses the extra engine output to charge the battery at the right times. Regenerative breaking is another efficiency play
Curious what will happen to the battery over time but for the past few years the hybrid highlander is great.
Hybrids are very reliable, especially plug-ins like the Volt that essentially have redundancy and will operate with one of the engines completely disabled. Generally speaking it’s far less wear and tear to drive an electric motor with a generator than it is to have a crankshaft / belts / pulleys / transmission / air driven throttle / complex cooling loops / etc, even with the additional parts.
Studies show that there's enough studies to claim any type of car is more reliable, usually by (not) adding in people who complain about bluetooth etc. Or lumping expensive EV sports car tyres in with everyone else
A plugin hybrid can have a smaller range battery (as long as the range meets your daily driving needs). Ideally it would give you at least 60 - 80 mile per day range, not the 20 something miles that a lot of them provide.
A full electric on the other hand, needs a very huge battery as it need to give you about 300 mile range, to cover the edge cases. That is a lot of battery weight (and expense) you are carrying around. So the tradeoff is do you want to lug around a huge battery that you will mostly not use, or lug around a gas engine that you will mostly not use? About an equal tradeoff (esp. since the gas engine only needs to be enough HP to maintain cruising speed, acceleration can be handled by the battery, or have it set up as a serial hybrid).
Personally I'd rather have the gas engine as my range extender, instead of the larger battery, since I can quickly fuel up in about 3 minutes vs. 20 - 30 at a minimum. But once battery tech improves and recharge times are in the 10 minute range, I'd say that would be the end of gas engines.
The new Prius puts down horsepower on par with a Civic SI and does 0-60 in 6.4 seconds. I don't think "underpowered" is a given. Turbohybrids have been the state of the art for F1 racing for a decade now too.
> Turbohybrids have been the state of the art for F1 racing for a decade now too.
I don't think "state of the art" is the word when there's no variability or development because that is the engine style mandated by regulations for that time.
The designs of some hybrids are able to remove a lot of parts that normal ICE-only cars have.
The design of most Toyota hybrids is quite simple, there are two electric motors and one gasoline engine coupled by a simple planetary gear set. This eliminates the need for a mechanical transmission -- varied wheel speed is accomplished by simply varying the relative speeds of the electric motors. Contrary to a popular misconception, there is no mechanical cone-and-belt CVT in Toyota hybrids, like people might be familiar with in other CVTs. Also, because the engine is linked to the drive motors, this eliminates the need for a starter motor. And because all of the engine accessories are electric on most Toyota hybrids (because they need to operate when the engine is off) there is no accessory belt.
These components (drive belts, transmissions, starter motors) aren't uncommon issues in ICE-only vehicles, so this does translate to improved reliability and lower maintenance.
Hybrids really are nice, Toyota just doesn't have any stock at all in the vehicles I was looking for.
The key is they have hybrids at "normal car" prices - the basic Sienna is hybrid and comparable in price to the Kia Carnival and other non hybrid minivans; and much cheaper than the plug-in hybrid Pacifica.
The basic model Sienna just doesn't actually exist anywhere for purchase.
My local dealer seems to have a scheme going that leads to them having a lot of very low km (like <2000) Siennas listed for 1.2-2x MSRP. I hope they choke on them.
From the article: "In the U.S., hybrid demand significantly exceeds production capacity, leading to tight inventories at dealerships, Miyazaki said."
I'll further my point about hybrid being such a low-hanging, realistic solution.
The core technology has been there since the late 90s. Every single major manufacture can quickly produce them. This doesn't have to be just daily family cars, the luxury market (Ferrari) and the 4x4 segment can also take advantage of this. There is already a hybrid Tundra available.
Lets take London for e.g. there are about 2.5 Million cars, lets assume if all of all them were to be hybrid, you would have SIGNIFICANT reduction in fuel consumption and costs to the owners, without ANY lifestyle change. You are not giving anything up as there is something available for everyone's taste.
No range anxiety.
I seriously do not understand why governments don't take this seriously.
Plus you can linearly ramp up the BEV powertrain as tech and scale progresses over time while diminishing the ICE side. And eventually swapping in a hydrogen fuel cell is a possibility in the long term. (Not in the same vehicle, of course)
Preface: I drive a hybrid, and I have since 2002, before they were cool.
The reason government incentives aren’t pushing hybrids now is that government policy is driven off of idealism instead of practicality. In the ideal world, a brand new hybrid is too little too late. A 2024 hybrid will almost certainly still be operating in 2040. By then we really need to be at near-zero carbon emissions if we want to have any hope of avoiding climate catastrophe. On the other hand the status quo means people are just buying gas guzzlers since they can’t afford/can’t practically use BEV.
It's exceptionally disappointing, because there is no reason why you couldn't have a vehicle of type X (whatever type you believe is good and holy or whatever) that is a plug-in hybrid with a certain size battery.
But you could make it so it has different size batteries installable, either by end-user or dealer.
You sell the car with a 30 mile battery, and a year or two later it pops up a note that says "for only $Z you could upgrade your battery to one that would have meant you only filled up on gas once last year".
Maybe I'm the outlier (mostly newer cars?) but I've never had to do more than take cars in for regular maintenance at service intervals. Most of the costs were for wear items like tires, brakes, wipers, cabin air filters etc. or for suspension things alignment. None of that is any different between ICE and electric cars.
I don't think I've ever had an actual drive-train issue.
IME, dropping off cars for service is a huge hassle, from either waiting a couple hours at the dealer or 2x shuttle pickups / or having someone drop/pick you up.
I did this every 6 months for my Tacoma, which was the required schedule for a new car to maintain the warranty.
I've taken my Bolt in once for a battery recall / cabin air filter in 6 years of ownership.
I often see less maintenance listed as a benefit of EVs. But according to Hertz at least, who have real world experience running large fleets of EVs and ICE cars, EVs end up being more expensive to operate due to lower residual values and higher repair costs. [1]
I think the Mitsubishi Outlander looks like a pretty compelling PHEV. I wouldn’t really call it a competitor to the Prius though, since it’s got a significantly different body style.
Ford Escape PHEV and Hyundai Tucson are solid, but lower end, PHEVs than the Prius Prime.
They are compact SUVs however and are arguably more of a RAV4 competitor but come in at under Prius Prime prices.
-------
The Lincoln Corsair PHEV is the luxury version of the Ford Escape, but is well cheaper than the Lexus equivalent.
I've been told that Ford/Lincoln is using licensed Toyota drivetrain technology too. I'll have to double check that claim but the Ford Escape/Lincoln Corsair drivetrain is RAV4-like for sure, albeit lower powered / inferior. But I'm hoping it's still got similar reliability.
But it's very hard to compete vs the Prius / Prime / RAV4 hybrid. But the Ford models have the tax credit AND lower MSRP.
------
I'm personally still strongly considering the Prius. But the other vehicles could feasibly come in at the right price point and turn me away from Toyota.
> I've been told that Ford/Lincoln is using licensed Toyota drivetrain technology too.
I heard that too but couldn't find a recent source that they still did when I researched that a little more than a year ago. From what I remember, they're using something simpler now; one axle is gas and one is electric and it'll just switch between the two automatically.
I have the Corsair and it's great. If you're careful about putting it in EV mode every time you start the car (it defaults to hybrid) and charge at home, it doesn't use any gas for daily stuff that's within range.
Edit: This may be different for the Escape. The PHEV Escape seems to be front wheel drive while the Corsair is all wheel drive.
New Honda CR-V is PHEV if you want it. We have previous hybrid model and I tested the new one. It's amazing. The only minus point is that it became even bigger.
Try living in an apartment in a small town a good drive from a city. I dream everyday of a pure BEV, but the range and charging infrastructure are just not there. Oh and winters and hot summers exist.
Where are you going to plug in, and how often? The Prius is $7,000 cheaper than the Prius Prime; I don't think many would pay the premium for the Prime unless they had a convenient place to plug in.
Hybrids don’t support fast charging, and need to be plugged in way more frequently to stay on the electric powertrain (regen is only a small incremental improvement and not a power source itself, so a hybrid not charged is just a gas-powered car).
Hybrids only make sense when you can charge at home. Otherwise it’s better to get a BEV with 10x larger battery, that needs to be plugged in 10 times less often.
Most people with EVs charge at 6W/hr or less (mostly at home). Fast charge is only needed for road trips (which is not an issue if you have a 2nd car).
If you're not buying till the 2025 model year, almost every automaker is adopting Tesla's charging port meaning you can get Tesla charging without having to get a Tesla.
At which point charging will take longer because of the lines involved. Hope they're building out. I hear and see no chargers being built. And they totally could be.
Along my long destination driving routes through rural areas, the charging stations rarely have a car in them. So yes and no to this. Obviously urban and near-urban areas are always packed.
They are building out rapidly. I'm not sure why you would "hear and see" them being built. But every day multiple new ones open. https://supercharge.info/
In the last few days two people told me they are not happy with their EVs. One already changed back.
I really want an EV but reading all the forums and what kind of issues people have really puts me off. I love our hybrid and when it runs on battery it's such a nice and smooth ride and I'm dreaming of 100% electric now. I guess the next step will be PHEV but I really, really want 100% electric. Unfortunately experience of other drivers, like I said, is putting me off for now.
I like my EV6. Zero issues. Of course I have a house and installed a charger so makes my life easy. I actually would always recommend an ev where it makes sense
Toyota reliability is unmatched, but their design and interior tech certainly leaves something to be desired. I wish they would take a more modern approach like how Hyundai has with the 2024 Santa Fe that looks like a Ranger Rover with the latest design like a BMW but at a more affordable price point. While also reliable, the idea of a Toyota but with the new design of say the Santa Fe would seem to be the perfect mix. But perhaps part of the reason Toyota is so reliable is because they put such a relative little focus on design/tech enhancements? Love that Santa Fe is Hybrid in US, but also surprised the new model doesn't offer a plugin hybrid (in US) this year which would think would be quite popular. But perhaps they want to wait to 2025 incase any major issues in the new 2024 model before expanding the lineup.
Part of why I purchased a Toyota Tacoma last year was b/c the tech isn't the "latest and greatest" on the market. I can expect this vehicle to drive for 500k miles (more realistically, 10 years at 250k miles before I'm ready for a change, we'll see) and I can expect for the tech to last just as long.
I have zero faith that a tesla's tech will hold up for 10 years, or have any resale value in 10 years.
I also feel confident I can fix most of the issues that will occur with this vehicle. Sure, it's still a modern car and fixing anything will require a few hours of removing other parts to get to the broken bit - but that's still easier to fix than something going bad on some of these super tech'ed up vehicles.
I can’t stand the look of a single BMW nor the other SUV you mentioned. To each their own, and toyota styling does have fans. (Wish the Lexus front end was more aerodynamic though)
Same. Recent BMWs look increasingly garish. Why would you make the "grill" ("nostrils" some call them on BMWs) bigger on EVs? And then when you get close to them you see there is actually no opening there - they're like fake shutters on a house.
Toyota reliability is unmatched, but their design and interior tech certainly leaves something to be desired.
Our household used to exclusively drive private party used Corollas. We've switched to Teslas. If your time is valuable and you factor time and money together, the savings on hassles is already worth it in spades.
I don't get it. If your time is money (and your money is money) why would you switch from Corollas to Teslas? Corollas have a reputation for reliability.
No oil changes. No smog inspection. No visits to the filling station. No timing belt. No transmission fluid. Also, Corolla tire pressure gauges seem to be designed to break after several years, and are seemingly designed to be too expensive to repair. (Pretty much take this as a given for many years of Corollas.) I don't see that as being a problem on the Teslas.
There's just far less to go wrong on an EV. Corollas have a reputation for reliability? The Teslas following the S/X super luxury models, the 3 and the Y, look to beat them at this game.
More objective looks at reliability put Teslas as a class very far down in any ordered ranking. Not as bad as Jeeps or Chevys, but below Ford, Dodge, and Lincoln.
What's interesting is the despite this Teslas often rank near the top for owner satisfaction.
More objective looks at reliability put Teslas as a class very far down in any ordered ranking.
[Citation Needed]
There's a long history of such rankings being gamed by the auto industry. If you follow Tesla closely, it's quite obvious that so many of the rankings are simply designed to exclude or disadvantage them.
What's interesting is the despite this Teslas often rank near the top for owner satisfaction.
I can believe that both are true.
In automotive history, when there's disruption and car adoption shifts so massively, has it ever turned out that large numbers of people were deluded? Has it ever turned out that large numbers of people saw real value where complacent incumbents dropped the ball? (Example: Japanese imports disrupting the US market.)
That answer to both is yes. However, the 2nd has been more often the case. Also, the instances of the 1st simply don't last multiple years.
So if you consider automotive history, it's far more likely that loyal Tesla owners are onto something, and you simply want them to be deluded.
More objective looks at reliability put Teslas as a class very far down in any ordered ranking.
Really, you should look more closely at automotive industry rankings. This is basically fodder for the legacy media, which has deservedly lost a lot of credibility. For that matter, take a close look at media covering these things. So many of these things are gamed. Also look up what Peter Thiel says about incumbency, ossification, and lack of true innovation in today's industry. It's not that the emperor has no clothes, but things a lot skimpier than they're supposed to be.
I broadly agree with you on your points, and as a Tesla shareholder with a slightly embarrassing amount of money tied up in them, I have nothing but self-interested desire for them to do well.
What seems to happen often with owners of the vehicles is that they are so enamored with many of the benefits of them, that they overlook some issues -- sometimes to the point where they don't or won't acknowledge them. And use this very biased point of view to extend their positive feelings and anecdotes towards the entire brand.
I also personally believe that things that were issues with traditional ICE cars simply aren't the same kind of problem with electrics, or of the same magnitude. So even similar sounding problems are more a matter of degree than equavalency. In addition, there are benefits to electrics that have no real equivalency with ICE cars.
What I do know is that if you do even the most cursory research on the overall large-scale and longterm reliability of the vehicles...which because Tesla isn't forthcoming with their data has to be accumulated voluntarily by survey...the cars don't do well.
However, it's really not that important to most owners as the vehicles as again, the benefits simply overwhelm all of that. Things that would be unacceptable to an owner of a Toyota really does just get a free pass with a Tesla.
> Toyota reliability is unmatched, but their design and interior tech certainly leaves something to be desired. . . . But perhaps part of the reason Toyota is so reliable is because they put such a relative little focus on design/tech enhancements?
Yes, maybe the two are related in some unseen way. Like, for all its power, the eye of Sauron at the top of the corp tower can't focus on all things equally.
I semi-anticipated a hybrid to be the worst of both worlds, but after 13 + 6 years that hasn't proven the case for my Prii.
Toyota is seeing record profits because Toyota is heads and shoulders better quality than all non-Japanese brands, and their competitors have tried to cozy up to their price point, driving more sales to Toyota.
Personally, I don't think the added cost of hybrids make sense right now unless you are driving an extreme amount of miles per year. The supply chain crunch has added a hefty premium to the hybrids that's just not worth it for most people. The Corolla/Corolla Hybrid is the one scenario where it makes sense to get the hybrid, but they're un-obtanium.
This is the forbidden maths that EV manufacturers are scared of. I will risk my life to write it here. Let’s assume a generous 4.17 miles per kWh[1] EV efficiency and a 57 mpg [2] hybrid efficiency for a comparable nice Prius 2023.
57mpg/4.17mpkwh = 13.67 kWhpg. At the current average gas price of 3.15$/g [3], you need electricity rate below this price to beat hybrid: x < 3.15 $pg / 13.67 kWhpg
x < $0.23 per kWh.
Good luck beating hybrid with Super charger rates. With charging at home, your mileage will vary. In Southern California, where electricity rate at the top usage tier is closer to $0.50 per kWh including transmission, you are better off buying almost anything else but an EV.
Now, I will have to go into hiding to protect my life.
Most people buying an EV don't buy because of efficiency. One is ideological (I don't want pay the gas tax), another is performance (EVs have full torque at 0 rpm).
Then there's Tesla's (successful) war against dealerships. Some people simply don't want to ever talk to a dealer ever again.
Honestly, I'd prefer more mass transit and less cars but I don't think that's going to be solved in the US any time soon.
Agreed charging network evolution is required for people who don't have capability to charge at home or work fully. Right now EVs are great if you own a home + solar which means you don't pay for fuel at all, and fine even without solar if you have decent electricity rates.
Please tell all the EV YouTubers to stop being so smug about their fuel savings. Their collective delusion could fuel the Death Star (6.25 * 10^28 WH) [1].
According to the prices from the chamber of commerce [1] that means everywhere but california, new england & new york it's cheaper for electric as long as your charging at home (which you should be doing as much as you can anyways for convenience/battery health)
Additional Notes
- diagram maxes at $0.15, so some of those states may be lower than the $0.23 cut off
- you're taking national average gas prices and comparing to highest price of electricity, but so-cal also tends to have higher gas prices in comparison so I imagine the math ends up working more often than first glance may indicate.
- Your also ignoring the convenience/time saving of charging electric, I've maybe spent an hour waiting on my car to charge in the last year, but I would have been stopping at those points for meals anyways so there was very little "waiting" on my part whereas with gas I had 10/15 minutes a week of time going out of my way to fill up with gas. Just pull in at home plug in and I'm topped up next time I go someone was actually my #1 reason for going electric.
Oil is generally not so cheap in countries that don't have their own oil production. Oil (like natural gas) is also a strategic risk. You can't change geology (unless you invade a place with oil). Electricity on the other hand is something most countries can do something about, it can be self produced.
For efficiency and arguably aesthetic, a $28,000 Prius 2023 is a much better choice than a $39,000 Model 3. The amount of time it takes to break even on any fuel saving is probably longer than the life of the vehicle. To get to about half the range of the Prius, you can also dole out an extra $8,000 on the long range version.
A base Prius is not nearly as well equipped as any Model 3. That's if you could even get a dealer to sell you a barebone base model at MSRP. It's really not worth comparing unless you at least option up the Prius.
I beg to differ because the fit and finish on a base model Prius is head and shoulders better than the base Model 3. The much greater reliability cannot be overstated. After 200,000 miles a well maintained Prius has no worries about $20,000 replacement battery cost like a similarly driven Model 3.
Even for gas vehicles, new-car buyers famously under-value efficiency (mpg) at a pure economic level. (This is part of the justification for using manufacturer regulation to induce higher car efficiency rather than gas taxes.) So why would we think the efficiency of electric cars factors much into consumer's decision to buy them vs gas cars?
Assuming you're going to use your car over a period of years, buying any vehicle is also a bet on the energy markets. For a three year lease, that's probably a pretty safe bet, but for people who're looking to buy a car outright and drive it for 10 or so years it's a bit riskier.
That being said, I think hybrids are still the idea car for most people today.
Your calculations are interesting and indeed makes you wonder why EVs are selling in USA.
I can tell you that the numbers here in Europe are dramatically different. And in particular Sweden with comparatively cheap electricity.
1 liter gas = 1.9 Euro means around $6.7/g
1kWh electricity is on average maybe $0.1 to $0.13 but fluctuates a lot between summer and winter. With solar panels you become self sufficient.
FWIW the reason I stayed away from a Hybrid is the extra burden of maintenance and care. You get two different systems that can have troubles in their own way. In particular the gasoline part is much more sensitive and complex I'd say.
Where I live it is a) very sunny almost all year round and b) very common to have PVs on your roof. I currently have 5KWH installed on my roof, I have a Nissan Leaf which I charge every day whilst I am working for home and I've paid 70euros total for electricity in the last 2 months, whilst running the underfloor heating constantly.
In support of your point, I would add that here in the US, electricity rates don’t matter to high-density renters — EVs are only relevant to those who rent or own low-density housing.
My apartment complex, built in 2020 on a commercial power grid in a region with many EVs on the road, has 600 units, 10 reserved chargers, and a waitlist of 50. This is an unusually high number of chargers, relative to the single one my previous medium-density housing had. None of an hundred apartment listings has a charger when I search.
High density EVs are inconceivable to cope with given the American power grid and parking zoning laws as they are implemented today, and until changes made by force of law and compulsory upgrades occur, EVs will remain inaccessible to 90% of the US population.
Comparing worst case kWh pricing with highest mpg and average gas prices seems a bit unfair, no? If you’re going to compare California power prices, why not compare to average California gas prices which are more like $4.50/gal?
OP might be asking about hydrogen-combustion cars. I think Toyota is making one. The thing is, hydrogen combustion really makes no sense if you're worried about efficiency, compared to a hydrogen fuel cell. The only reason they do it at all is because of ICE nostalgists.
121 comments
[ 2.5 ms ] story [ 219 ms ] threadThe above link is an older version of the article. Here is a paywall free link but I think you will have to enable JS for it to work.
https://www.wsj.com/business/earnings/toyota-motor-reports-r...
> Honda’s two-motor hybrid system can operate as either a series or parallel hybrid. The majority of the time, the system operates as a series hybrid. Its electric propulsion motor drives the wheels directly, while the gasoline engine connected to the electric generator/starter motor functions as an electrical generator, supplying power to the hybrid battery and/or the propulsion motor. Under certain driving conditions, such as steady-state cruising at highway speeds, the system switches seamlessly to parallel hybrid operation, with the gasoline engine connecting to the front axle via a clutch, and vehicle speed is proportional to engine speed (rpm).
Source: https://hondanews.com/en-US/honda-automobiles/releases/relea...
There's nothing under-powered about the gas engine. F-150 daily drivers may cringe, but that's a cultural problem not a problem with the vehicle.
Call it a cultural problem if you want, but a F-150 is damn useful even if it is not utilized all the time. When you do need it though, it's there and ready to work. There is a reason it's the best selling car in America.
Also keep in mind that the electric tends to handle low speed movement which it's just great at (instant torque), while the gas engines tend to handle highway / steady state driving which they are just great at. And overall they are each getting less usage than if they were the only powertrain.
The reason they are efficient is something like this:
A cars engines efficiency/fuel economy is constrained by its max output. Ie when you have an engine capable of very rapid acceleration, that engine is going to be too big across all other scenarios - ie two cars of the same weight going the same speed , the one with the bigger engine will consume more fuel.
The hybrid lets you take advantage of this in two ways. First it allows you to have a smaller engine because the electric motors kick in when you need the acceleration. So it lets you get away with a smaller engine that is more than enough for your driving and that gives you efficiency.
Then it also uses the fact that even the smaller engine is still oversized for things like coasting or going steady so it uses the extra engine output to charge the battery at the right times. Regenerative breaking is another efficiency play
Curious what will happen to the battery over time but for the past few years the hybrid highlander is great.
Generally. But that bigger engine might be producing more power at a lower RPM and there might be some cases where the difference isn't as noticable.
99% of my daily local trips are under 40 miles, so short range isn't a factor.
I mean, that's just me, but for me it's a near-perfect fit.
Until batteries and chargers get better, anyway.
A full electric on the other hand, needs a very huge battery as it need to give you about 300 mile range, to cover the edge cases. That is a lot of battery weight (and expense) you are carrying around. So the tradeoff is do you want to lug around a huge battery that you will mostly not use, or lug around a gas engine that you will mostly not use? About an equal tradeoff (esp. since the gas engine only needs to be enough HP to maintain cruising speed, acceleration can be handled by the battery, or have it set up as a serial hybrid).
Personally I'd rather have the gas engine as my range extender, instead of the larger battery, since I can quickly fuel up in about 3 minutes vs. 20 - 30 at a minimum. But once battery tech improves and recharge times are in the 10 minute range, I'd say that would be the end of gas engines.
I don't think "state of the art" is the word when there's no variability or development because that is the engine style mandated by regulations for that time.
The design of most Toyota hybrids is quite simple, there are two electric motors and one gasoline engine coupled by a simple planetary gear set. This eliminates the need for a mechanical transmission -- varied wheel speed is accomplished by simply varying the relative speeds of the electric motors. Contrary to a popular misconception, there is no mechanical cone-and-belt CVT in Toyota hybrids, like people might be familiar with in other CVTs. Also, because the engine is linked to the drive motors, this eliminates the need for a starter motor. And because all of the engine accessories are electric on most Toyota hybrids (because they need to operate when the engine is off) there is no accessory belt.
These components (drive belts, transmissions, starter motors) aren't uncommon issues in ICE-only vehicles, so this does translate to improved reliability and lower maintenance.
The key is they have hybrids at "normal car" prices - the basic Sienna is hybrid and comparable in price to the Kia Carnival and other non hybrid minivans; and much cheaper than the plug-in hybrid Pacifica.
The basic model Sienna just doesn't actually exist anywhere for purchase.
From the article: "In the U.S., hybrid demand significantly exceeds production capacity, leading to tight inventories at dealerships, Miyazaki said."
I'll further my point about hybrid being such a low-hanging, realistic solution.
The core technology has been there since the late 90s. Every single major manufacture can quickly produce them. This doesn't have to be just daily family cars, the luxury market (Ferrari) and the 4x4 segment can also take advantage of this. There is already a hybrid Tundra available.
Lets take London for e.g. there are about 2.5 Million cars, lets assume if all of all them were to be hybrid, you would have SIGNIFICANT reduction in fuel consumption and costs to the owners, without ANY lifestyle change. You are not giving anything up as there is something available for everyone's taste.
No range anxiety.
I seriously do not understand why governments don't take this seriously.
The reason government incentives aren’t pushing hybrids now is that government policy is driven off of idealism instead of practicality. In the ideal world, a brand new hybrid is too little too late. A 2024 hybrid will almost certainly still be operating in 2040. By then we really need to be at near-zero carbon emissions if we want to have any hope of avoiding climate catastrophe. On the other hand the status quo means people are just buying gas guzzlers since they can’t afford/can’t practically use BEV.
But you could make it so it has different size batteries installable, either by end-user or dealer.
You sell the car with a 30 mile battery, and a year or two later it pops up a note that says "for only $Z you could upgrade your battery to one that would have meant you only filled up on gas once last year".
Range anxiety? Nonexistent.
Upsell? Present.
Improved mileage and emissions? Golden.
I don't think I've ever had an actual drive-train issue.
I did this every 6 months for my Tacoma, which was the required schedule for a new car to maintain the warranty.
I've taken my Bolt in once for a battery recall / cabin air filter in 6 years of ownership.
[1] https://arstechnica.com/cars/2024/01/hertz-is-selling-20000-...
Plug-in is where it gets interesting as you can go mostly without fillups for commutes/shopping if you have access to charging at home/work.
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_Prius_(XW10)
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_Prius
Given my driving habits, I'd only use gas for infrequent long trips.
And Toyota has it priced right. I'm not surprised they're making a killing.
Kia has the Niro PHEV, and Hyundai has the Tuscon Prime PHEV, but discontinued the Sonata PHEV in 2020.
Then you've got a decent amount of "luxury" options like the XC60 Recharge - that don't really have that impressive of MPGe.
Is there anything else on the roadmap or currently available?
They are compact SUVs however and are arguably more of a RAV4 competitor but come in at under Prius Prime prices.
-------
The Lincoln Corsair PHEV is the luxury version of the Ford Escape, but is well cheaper than the Lexus equivalent.
I've been told that Ford/Lincoln is using licensed Toyota drivetrain technology too. I'll have to double check that claim but the Ford Escape/Lincoln Corsair drivetrain is RAV4-like for sure, albeit lower powered / inferior. But I'm hoping it's still got similar reliability.
But it's very hard to compete vs the Prius / Prime / RAV4 hybrid. But the Ford models have the tax credit AND lower MSRP.
------
I'm personally still strongly considering the Prius. But the other vehicles could feasibly come in at the right price point and turn me away from Toyota.
I heard that too but couldn't find a recent source that they still did when I researched that a little more than a year ago. From what I remember, they're using something simpler now; one axle is gas and one is electric and it'll just switch between the two automatically.
I have the Corsair and it's great. If you're careful about putting it in EV mode every time you start the car (it defaults to hybrid) and charge at home, it doesn't use any gas for daily stuff that's within range.
Edit: This may be different for the Escape. The PHEV Escape seems to be front wheel drive while the Corsair is all wheel drive.
> Given my driving habits, I'd only use gas for infrequent long trips.
Why do you need a "fast charging car"? Lack of overnight charging setup?
Hybrids only make sense when you can charge at home. Otherwise it’s better to get a BEV with 10x larger battery, that needs to be plugged in 10 times less often.
I really want an EV but reading all the forums and what kind of issues people have really puts me off. I love our hybrid and when it runs on battery it's such a nice and smooth ride and I'm dreaming of 100% electric now. I guess the next step will be PHEV but I really, really want 100% electric. Unfortunately experience of other drivers, like I said, is putting me off for now.
Same. Recent BMWs look increasingly garish. Why would you make the "grill" ("nostrils" some call them on BMWs) bigger on EVs? And then when you get close to them you see there is actually no opening there - they're like fake shutters on a house.
Our household used to exclusively drive private party used Corollas. We've switched to Teslas. If your time is valuable and you factor time and money together, the savings on hassles is already worth it in spades.
There's just far less to go wrong on an EV. Corollas have a reputation for reliability? The Teslas following the S/X super luxury models, the 3 and the Y, look to beat them at this game.
What's interesting is the despite this Teslas often rank near the top for owner satisfaction.
I can believe that both are true.
[Citation Needed]
There's a long history of such rankings being gamed by the auto industry. If you follow Tesla closely, it's quite obvious that so many of the rankings are simply designed to exclude or disadvantage them.
What's interesting is the despite this Teslas often rank near the top for owner satisfaction.
I can believe that both are true.
In automotive history, when there's disruption and car adoption shifts so massively, has it ever turned out that large numbers of people were deluded? Has it ever turned out that large numbers of people saw real value where complacent incumbents dropped the ball? (Example: Japanese imports disrupting the US market.)
That answer to both is yes. However, the 2nd has been more often the case. Also, the instances of the 1st simply don't last multiple years.
So if you consider automotive history, it's far more likely that loyal Tesla owners are onto something, and you simply want them to be deluded.
I'm pretty sure that's not what I said.
More objective looks at reliability put Teslas as a class very far down in any ordered ranking.
Really, you should look more closely at automotive industry rankings. This is basically fodder for the legacy media, which has deservedly lost a lot of credibility. For that matter, take a close look at media covering these things. So many of these things are gamed. Also look up what Peter Thiel says about incumbency, ossification, and lack of true innovation in today's industry. It's not that the emperor has no clothes, but things a lot skimpier than they're supposed to be.
What seems to happen often with owners of the vehicles is that they are so enamored with many of the benefits of them, that they overlook some issues -- sometimes to the point where they don't or won't acknowledge them. And use this very biased point of view to extend their positive feelings and anecdotes towards the entire brand.
I also personally believe that things that were issues with traditional ICE cars simply aren't the same kind of problem with electrics, or of the same magnitude. So even similar sounding problems are more a matter of degree than equavalency. In addition, there are benefits to electrics that have no real equivalency with ICE cars.
What I do know is that if you do even the most cursory research on the overall large-scale and longterm reliability of the vehicles...which because Tesla isn't forthcoming with their data has to be accumulated voluntarily by survey...the cars don't do well.
However, it's really not that important to most owners as the vehicles as again, the benefits simply overwhelm all of that. Things that would be unacceptable to an owner of a Toyota really does just get a free pass with a Tesla.
Perhaps my experience is atypical, but I had way more issues (not just hassles) with my last Toyota Corolla.
Yes, maybe the two are related in some unseen way. Like, for all its power, the eye of Sauron at the top of the corp tower can't focus on all things equally.
I semi-anticipated a hybrid to be the worst of both worlds, but after 13 + 6 years that hasn't proven the case for my Prii.
Personally, I don't think the added cost of hybrids make sense right now unless you are driving an extreme amount of miles per year. The supply chain crunch has added a hefty premium to the hybrids that's just not worth it for most people. The Corolla/Corolla Hybrid is the one scenario where it makes sense to get the hybrid, but they're un-obtanium.
x < $0.23 per kWh.
Good luck beating hybrid with Super charger rates. With charging at home, your mileage will vary. In Southern California, where electricity rate at the top usage tier is closer to $0.50 per kWh including transmission, you are better off buying almost anything else but an EV.
Now, I will have to go into hiding to protect my life.
[1] https://insideevs.com/news/597460/tesla-efficiency-depends-o...
[2] https://www.caranddriver.com/toyota/prius-2023#
[3] https://web.archive.org/web/20240205144433/https://gasprices...
Then there's Tesla's (successful) war against dealerships. Some people simply don't want to ever talk to a dealer ever again.
Honestly, I'd prefer more mass transit and less cars but I don't think that's going to be solved in the US any time soon.
Agreed charging network evolution is required for people who don't have capability to charge at home or work fully. Right now EVs are great if you own a home + solar which means you don't pay for fuel at all, and fine even without solar if you have decent electricity rates.
[1] https://www.rakuten.com/blog/how-many-batteries-star-wars/
Additional Notes
- diagram maxes at $0.15, so some of those states may be lower than the $0.23 cut off
- you're taking national average gas prices and comparing to highest price of electricity, but so-cal also tends to have higher gas prices in comparison so I imagine the math ends up working more often than first glance may indicate.
- Your also ignoring the convenience/time saving of charging electric, I've maybe spent an hour waiting on my car to charge in the last year, but I would have been stopping at those points for meals anyways so there was very little "waiting" on my part whereas with gas I had 10/15 minutes a week of time going out of my way to fill up with gas. Just pull in at home plug in and I'm topped up next time I go someone was actually my #1 reason for going electric.
[1] https://www.globalenergyinstitute.org/2022-average-us-electr...
While I know anecdote isn't data my cost last year in Western WA for charging my car was ~$300, it would have been closer to $2000-2200 for gas.
... is heavily taxed in the same countries.
You hardly have to stretch to tip the numbers back towards EVs (a ~35mpg sedan and $4/gal fuel prices).
That being said, I think hybrids are still the idea car for most people today.
I can tell you that the numbers here in Europe are dramatically different. And in particular Sweden with comparatively cheap electricity.
1 liter gas = 1.9 Euro means around $6.7/g
1kWh electricity is on average maybe $0.1 to $0.13 but fluctuates a lot between summer and winter. With solar panels you become self sufficient.
FWIW the reason I stayed away from a Hybrid is the extra burden of maintenance and care. You get two different systems that can have troubles in their own way. In particular the gasoline part is much more sensitive and complex I'd say.
My apartment complex, built in 2020 on a commercial power grid in a region with many EVs on the road, has 600 units, 10 reserved chargers, and a waitlist of 50. This is an unusually high number of chargers, relative to the single one my previous medium-density housing had. None of an hundred apartment listings has a charger when I search.
High density EVs are inconceivable to cope with given the American power grid and parking zoning laws as they are implemented today, and until changes made by force of law and compulsory upgrades occur, EVs will remain inaccessible to 90% of the US population.
!remind me after 5 years.