Jump to content

The Real Reason Why No One Ever Plugs In Their Plug-In Hybrid Vehicles


Recommended Posts

36 minutes ago, dmpaul said:

I understand that it's fairly simple to install a 240V outlet, which is what I told salesman that downplayed PHEV. But I've wired entire houses in the past and am not intimidated by DYI projects. But if the average person has to hire an electrician, it could be pricey. And the charging station and cable Ford sells to homeowners is around $1300. So there are costs involved even if you do your own install.


Installing a charger is pricey for sure and prohibitively expensive if you also have to upgrade electrical service.  And in rural areas older houses are much more prevalent.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/25/2023 at 12:02 PM, dmpaul said:

My daughter-in-law doesn't like PHEV because she sees it as "dirty" with lots of maintenance.

 

Your daughter-in-law is correct in her impression of PHEV compared to BEV. silvrsvt provided some examples regarding GHG emissions for Escape PHEV versus Mustang Mach-E. Additionally, criteria pollutant generation is of course higher for Escape PHEV versus Mustang Mach-E.

 

Regarding maintenance, Escape PHEV's maintenance requirements according to the owners manual are more extensive compared to that for Mustang Mach-E.

 

Escape PHEV.

image.thumb.png.396e5fd230dfc979b2419051473015f1.png

 

Mustang Mach-E.

image.thumb.png.b61399226850a32be4154ca564fcfe36.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Texasota said:

Much of this thread is over the top beginning with the absurdly false statement within the thread title:

  "No One Ever Plugs In Their Plug-In Hybrid Vehicles"

 

The thread title matches the title of the Hotcars article in the OP. The subtitle is "PHEVs are slowly becoming less relevant, as owners are almost exclusively using the gasoline engine and not touching the electrical power.

 

The ICCT white paper that Hotcars references is titled "REAL WORLD USAGE OF PLUG-IN HYBRID VEHICLES IN THE UNITED STATES" and summarizes its conclusions as follows.

  • Real-world electric drive share may be 26%–56% lower and real-world fuel consumption may be 42%–67% higher than assumed within EPA’s labeling program for light duty vehicles
  • These results demonstrate that real-world electric drive share is lower than labeled, but more data collection could provide greater precision and clarity
  • There are many potential policy tools available to increase the electric drive share of PHEVs

For the last point, ICCT recommendations are.

image.thumb.png.8c9c34feb981ee47ed9fd865d7d7b380.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, rperez817 said:

 

The thread title matches the title of the Hotcars article in the OP. The subtitle is "PHEVs are slowly becoming less relevant, as owners are almost exclusively using the gasoline engine and not touching the electrical power.

 


The hot cars article title is just plain wrong.  Even the data in the referenced study showed that the worst case scenario was driving in electric mode 26% of the time on average.  So even the worst offenders are still plugging in and using electric mode 25% and as high as 56% on average.  That is completely different than “nobody is plugging them in”.

 

The other problem with the report is it’s based on what the EPA assumes about PHEVs - that they’ll be driven in electric mode 80% of the time.

 

If I have a 20 mile range and plug in every night then I could have 2 scenarios

 

1 - I drive 20 miles per day 100% electric

2 - I drive 80 miles per day - that’s only 25% electric.

 

In both scenarios I charge nightly but in scenario 2 the study would conclude that it wasn’t plugging in.  Daily mileage makes a huge difference in the formula used by the study and the EPA.

 

You really need to try reading between the lines and look at the raw data to see if the data matches the conclusion.  In this case it clearly does not support the conclusion that nobody is plugging them in.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps wireless chargers could help some PHEVs achieve greater EV utilization provided charger costs are lowered and efficiency improved.  I expect many owners would not want to plug-in after every drive if they make multiple short trips a day.  I know I wouldn’t want to plug-in more than once daily, and predict my wife even less.  A wireless charger on garage floor that kept battery close to 100% SOC between shorter trips could be useful.

 

I often read comments here about how BEVs will improve in the future, particularly regarding greater range and lower cost, but little is mentioned about possibility of PHEV and HEV also improving from new designs or technologies.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Rick73 said:

but little is mentioned about possibility of PHEV and HEV also improving from new designs or technologies.

Because the vast majority of auto makers have decided they are dead ends and government regulations will make them impossible to develop/make a profit on

 

Not to mention BEVs apparently are much cheaper to build construction wise then ICE, which will allow for more profit. 

Edited by silvrsvt
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, akirby said:

You really need to try reading between the lines and look at the raw data to see if the data matches the conclusion.  In this case it clearly does not support the conclusion that nobody is plugging them in.


But that doesn't fit the narrative or agenda a group is trying to push which in the end is just get clicks on an article. As you point out even the data in the study doesn't align with the headline.

AEG released a paper about mid priced EV electric vehicle now costing more to power than mid priced EV ICE vehicles. (https://s3-prod.autonews.com/2023-01/EV%20Cost%20Analysis%202022%20Q4%20Update.pdf) with the headline of "Gas-Powered Cars Cheaper to Fuel Than Electric in Late 2022 " but isn't the full truth as that just applies to mid-priced ev, luxury EV are still significantly cheaper to power than ICE.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, jasonj80 said:


But that doesn't fit the narrative or agenda a group is trying to push which in the end is just get clicks on an article. As you point out even the data in the study doesn't align with the headline.

AEG released a paper about mid priced EV electric vehicle now costing more to power than mid priced EV ICE vehicles. (https://s3-prod.autonews.com/2023-01/EV%20Cost%20Analysis%202022%20Q4%20Update.pdf) with the headline of "Gas-Powered Cars Cheaper to Fuel Than Electric in Late 2022 " but isn't the full truth as that just applies to mid-priced ev, luxury EV are still significantly cheaper to power than ICE.


Exactly - there are lies on both sides.  Some politically motivated, some clickbait.  Which is why you shouldn’t believe any headline but instead look at the underlying data and how they reached those conclusions.

 

I really miss the days when reporting was just based on facts and not slanted or sensationalized.  Where is Walter Cronkite when you need him?

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, akirby said:

I really miss the days when reporting was just based on facts and not slanted or sensationalized.  Where is Walter Cronkite when you need him?


Dead, just like the idea that a Journalist or Politicians should represent everyone. Not just some demographic or small group that will get them elected in the primary election.

 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, rperez817 said:

 

Your daughter-in-law is correct in her impression of PHEV compared to BEV. silvrsvt provided some examples regarding GHG emissions for Escape PHEV versus Mustang Mach-E. Additionally, criteria pollutant generation is of course higher for Escape PHEV versus Mustang Mach-E.

 

Regarding maintenance, Escape PHEV's maintenance requirements according to the owners manual are more extensive compared to that for Mustang Mach-E.

 

 

 

Of course the PHEV has higher emissions than a BEV, that's not the point. The point is PHEV's can allow overall emissions to go down because we can put more PHEVs on the road because:

1) they are currently less expensive, and

2) due to limited battery supply, we can put more PHEVs on the road than BEV.

 

And the maintenance argument is weak. Some of those lines don't even apply (inspect rear axle and u-joints? the PHEV escape isn't available as AWD), the only real difference is an annual oil change and an occasional air filter. I don't see that as terribly burdensome.

I find a PHEV a great fit. I can do all my errands and commuting on battery (I only have a 10 mile commute one-way), yet still have a high mileage car for occasional road trips. Plus I am spending roughly 35k (after rebate) for an Escape PHEV  instead of 60k+ for a MachE. This is why I am puzzled by the enmity shown by many to PHEV; it seems a great solution for many people, and a terrific bridge to electric cars while battery chemistry and supply is worked out.

Edited by dmpaul
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, dmpaul said:

Of course the PHEV has higher emissions than a BEV, that's not the point. The point is PHEV's can allow overall emissions to go down because we can put more PHEVs on the road because:

1) they are currently less expensive, and

2) due to limited battery supply, we can put more PHEVs on the road than BEV.

 

And the maintenance argument is weak. Some of those lines don't even apply (inspect rear axle and u-joints? the PHEV escape isn't available as AWD), the only real difference is an annual oil change and an occasional air filter. I don't see that as terribly burdensome.

I find a PHEV a great fit. I can do all my errands and commuting on battery (I only have a 10 mile commute one-way), yet still have a high mileage car for occasional road trips. Plus I am spending roughly 35k (after rebate) for an Escape PHEV  instead of 60k+ for a MachE. This is why I am puzzled by the enmity shown by many to PHEV; it seems a great solution for many people, and a terrific bridge to electric cars while battery chemistry and supply is worked out.

 

Couple things:
 

  1. PHEV/HEVs are a short term solution with no future (read 5-10 years down the road)
  2. Maintenance for a BEV (MME) vs a PHEV (Escape PHEV) is extremely different...just a couple different things I can think of-No regular fluid changes, 95% of filters are removed from BEVs vs ICE, and Brakes last longer due to regenerative braking to recharge the batteries-every time you take your foot off the accelerator, the car slows down and helps charge the battery.
  3. Every battery put into HEV removes batteries from BEV, which cuts into profit for companies-they'll focus batteries going to more profitable products. If the supply wasn't an issue, this wouldn't be as big of deal, but it would also help push the costs down of a BEV also, removing the cost argument. 

Much like everything else on the internet, what YOU want or do doesn't exactly work for other people or companies selling you things. If a hybrid works for you, that is great, but in the grand scheme of things, BEVs are the future of transportation, like it or not. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A few responses:

 

1. I wish we could all tell the future like you could. But I am buying a car today, not 10 years down the road. I suspect we will have ICE cars 20 years from now.

 

2. The maintenance issue is still overblown. PHEVs use regenerative braking also. I own a hybrid, and understand the technology but thanks for the definition. I already conceded the annual oil change, but I said it is not the hurdle many say it is. This is not the 60's where we had annual tuneups and oil changes every 3k miles.

 

3. I will concede this point. With battery supplies limited (and government mandates hanging over their head) manufacturers will maximize profit and strive to look as green as possible. But I am concerned for entry level buyers. I don't think the regulators care if cars are affordable. Less cars on the road is a feature, not a bug to them.

 

I think you assume that I am an anti-electric, but I'm not. I just don't think the value is there yet. BEVs may be the future, but they don't fit my needs today. That aside, in the grand scheme of things, if the goal is to lower overall fuel consumption and GHG we should encourage more HEV and PHEV along with the BEV. Let's not let the perfect get in the way of the good.

 

And as an aside, most of my commuting is on an electric bike, so in a sense I am living the future already. Though is an e-bike considered a hybrid, as it uses human and electric power? :)

Edited by dmpaul
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, dmpaul said:

And the maintenance argument is weak. Some of those lines don't even apply (inspect rear axle and u-joints? the PHEV escape isn't available as AWD), the only real difference is an annual oil change and an occasional air filter. I don't see that as terribly burdensome.

Exactly. It's a small amount of time and burden when compared to the time and burden of trying to drive a BEV on a long road trip given today's battery technology and charging infrastructure.  With time, the battery technology will improve and so will the charging infrastructure but it has a long way to go. In the meantime, PHEHs and HEVs are an excellent solution during this transition.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, dmpaul said:

 

Of course the PHEV has higher emissions than a BEV, that's not the point. The point is PHEV's can allow overall emissions to go down because we can put more PHEVs on the road because:

1) they are currently less expensive, and

2) due to limited battery supply, we can put more PHEVs on the road than BEV.

 

And the maintenance argument is weak. Some of those lines don't even apply (inspect rear axle and u-joints? the PHEV escape isn't available as AWD), the only real difference is an annual oil change and an occasional air filter. I don't see that as terribly burdensome.

I find a PHEV a great fit. I can do all my errands and commuting on battery (I only have a 10 mile commute one-way), yet still have a high mileage car for occasional road trips. Plus I am spending roughly 35k (after rebate) for an Escape PHEV  instead of 60k+ for a MachE. This is why I am puzzled by the enmity shown by many to PHEV; it seems a great solution for many people, and a terrific bridge to electric cars while battery chemistry and supply is worked out.

 

1 hour ago, dmpaul said:

A few responses:

 

1. I wish we could all tell the future like you could. But I am buying a car today, not 10 years down the road. I suspect we will have ICE cars 20 years from now.

 

2. The maintenance issue is still overblown. PHEVs use regenerative braking also. I own a hybrid, and understand the technology but thanks for the definition. I already conceded the annual oil change, but I said it is not the hurdle many say it is. This is not the 60's where we had annual tuneups and oil changes every 3k miles.

 

3. I will concede this point. With battery supplies limited (and government mandates hanging over their head) manufacturers will maximize profit and strive to look as green as possible. But I am concerned for entry level buyers. I don't think the regulators care if cars are affordable. Less cars on the road is a feature, not a bug to them.

 

I think you assume that I am an anti-electric, but I'm not. I just don't think the value is there yet. BEVs may be the future, but they don't fit my needs today. That aside, in the grand scheme of things, if the goal is to lower overall fuel consumption and GHG we should encourage more HEV and PHEV along with the BEV. Let's not let the perfect get in the way of the good.

 

And as an aside, most of my commuting is on an electric bike, so in a sense I am living the future already. Though is an e-bike considered a hybrid, as it uses human and electric power? :)


dmpaul….stop with your logic here, it is not wanted.  Since you aren’t towing the party line that BEVs are the best thing since sliced bread you will now be castigated and labeled anti-EV.  Everyone lives where there are an abundance of supercharges everywhere, there are no issues with power delivery systems, range issues, or affordability issues, to just highlight a few of the positives, so stop being obtuse.  You can’t like BEVs and point out limitations at the same time, it’s against the rules.   You sir, should no longer be qualified to own a vehicle following these baseless public posts?

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Texasota said:

Exactly. It's a small amount of time and burden when compared to the time and burden of trying to drive a BEV on a long road trip given today's battery technology and charging infrastructure.  With time, the battery technology will improve and so will the charging infrastructure but it has a long way to go. In the meantime, PHEHs and HEVs are an excellent solution during this transition.


Nobody can conceivably exceed the range of a BEV, you are just being anti-EV.  The 42000 miles between my two 22 vehicles are imaginary because I can’t possibly be driving more than 300 miles beyond my home on any given day.  

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, dmpaul said:

Of course the PHEV has higher emissions than a BEV, that's not the point. The point is PHEV's can allow overall emissions to go down because we can put more PHEVs on the road because:

1) they are currently less expensive, and

 2) due to limited battery supply, we can put more PHEVs on the road than BEV.

 

I would not concede higher emissions argument that quickly because some PHEV generate lower CO2 than some large BEV options like the Lightning.  It depends on what vehicles are compared.

 

The US Government list “average” CO2 from electricity generation at 0.818 pounds per kWh (lowest number I found, some as high as 0.855 pounds/kWh for 2021 per eia), and Ford shows Lightning extended range at 1.93 miles per kWh.  This works out to Lightning above 190 grams per mile just for electricity to drive.  It’s actually higher than that due to electric power transmission losses and many other factors not included in EPA testing.  Energy to manufacture vehicle is also much higher due to large battery.

 

By comparison, EPA states burning a gallon of gasoline makes “about 8,887 grams of CO2”.  Since there are many HEV and PHEV that exceed 50 MPG, it’s possible to reduce CO2 below 180 grams per mile and at approximately half the cost of typical Lightning.  The best HEV should be close to 150 grams CO2 per mile.

 

Obviously an HEV or PHEV is not in same class or comparable to the much larger Lightning, but if goal is to do our part to save the planet, a smaller HEV or PHEV can achieve more “today” than large BEVs.  What’s even worse is that some BEVs (Hummer) are up to 9,400 pounds in weight, making them 3 times heavier than a Civic or Corolla.  I mention this only because heavier and heavier BEVs is a growing trend which affects not only their energy efficiency, but also raises safety concerns.

 

 

Above I used “average” US electricity at 0.818 pounds CO2 per kWh (371 grams/kWh), but if we use worse offender (coal) as I think is the correct way to forecast actual impact on environment in the short term, government data is 2.26 pounds CO2 per kWh.  At that present rate a Lightning generates over 500 grams CO2 per mile.  That’s poor by comparison to available smaller HEV and PHEV.

 

What makes this topic controversial is not the objective data, but the subjective assumptions one chooses over others.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, dmpaul said:

And as an aside, most of my commuting is on an electric bike, so in a sense I am living the future already. Though is an e-bike considered a hybrid, as it uses human and electric power? :)

 

Very nice dmpaul! e-bikes are indeed considered hybrids, as "hybrid vehicles" can be defined as those that use 2 or more separate sources of power. For e-bikes the 2 sources are human muscle and electric motor/battery just as you mentioned. :)

 

I also have an e-bike (Trek Dual Sport+ 2) for commuting and pleasure use. Elektrek said last year that e-bikes outsold BEV and PHEV automobiles combined in the U.S., and in Europe, e-bikes are on pace to outsell all types of automobiles combined (BEV, hybrids, and ICE) in the next few years. Electric bicycles now outselling electric cars and plug-in hybrids in the US (electrek.co)

 

Edited by rperez817
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...