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

[akirby]

5 hours ago, jpd80 said:

Thanks for posting.

As I remember when the Volt was a thing, a lot of those folks used to lease their vehicles and run almost exclusively on the electric side until the gas engine would make them use up their fuel before it got old. Most would leave the fuel level low enough that there wasn’t much fuel to use up before adding a couple of gallons ever few weeks.

Thats what my neighbor did.  45 mile commute and charged at work.  Bought 2 maybe 3 tanks a year.

[Andrew L]

Volt really wasn't a bad idea it was just in a very small package and the rear seat was compromised.  For a single person commuter though excellent.

 

ELR was very poorly packaged all around.  Same power as the Volt twice the cost and less range because it was heavier and a completely unusable back seat.

[jpd80]

12 hours ago, Andrew L said:

Volt really wasn't a bad idea it was just in a very small package and the rear seat was compromised.  For a single person commuter though excellent.

 

ELR was very poorly packaged all around.  Same power as the Volt twice the cost and less range because it was heavier and a completely unusable back seat.

If lutz had any idea that he was going to have to add an engine to volt, he would have based it on the Cruze but even with the failure to do so, Volt shows how valuable a well designed compact PHEV could be.

 

I'm imagining a Focus hatch with 1.0 EB engine and  hybrid transmission and a nice battery with about 50 miles of range.

[balthisar]

I left my Civic in a storage lot for two years when I was stationed in Germany, and it started right up when jumping it. I added fresh gas as soon as I could, of course. More impressively, I left my Expedition in the garage for five years during my assignment in China. I started it up and drove it through the neighborhood once or twice a year on home leave, and I added fresh gas when I repatriated, but the fact is, it was running on five year old gasoline to get to the gas station for fresh gasoline.

 

Small engines are another story, though. It's only Rec90 for me.

 

The PHEV will be fine for a few months.

 

[Sherminator98]

Another study saying people aren’t plugging in PHEVs

 

https://www.motortrend.com/news/toyota-plug-in-hybrid-charging-phev-game-app
 

but also the study in link seems to say people are plugging them in at proper times to keep emissions down either. 

[Rick73]

18 minutes ago, Sherminator98 said:

Another study saying people aren’t plugging in PHEVs

So they are improving on “Basically No One Plugs in Their Plug-In Hybrids” by 10%?  How many is that exactly? 😀

 

[jpd80]

Just noticed that the opening post to this thread way back quotes the ICCT’s survey

if it’s the same one I’m linking below, it was done in Europe in 2022.

 

the reason why most PHEV owners didn’t plug in back then was many lived in apartments with street only parking (no garage charging available) this is especially true in Europe and high density locations in places like inner city dwellings.

 

https://theicct.org/publication/real-world-phev-use-jun22/

Edited September 22 by jpd80

[Rick73]

5 hours ago, jpd80 said:

Just noticed that the opening post to this thread way back quotes the ICCT’s survey

if it’s the same one I’m linking below, it was done in Europe in 2022.

 

the reason why most PHEV owners didn’t plug in back then was many lived in apartments with street only parking (no garage charging available) this is especially true in Europe and high density locations in places like inner city dwellings.

 

https://theicct.org/publication/real-world-phev-use-jun22/

Another reason some people may not plug in their PHEV is that it may cost them more.  The recent Motor Trend article Sherminator98 linked shows a Toyota Prius PHEV in background, so I used that to run quick estimate.  Depending on trim, EPA rates Prius PHEV at 48 or 52 MPG combined on gas, and 114 or 127 MPGe on electricity.  On average let’s call it 50 MPG on gas and 3.6 miles per kWh on electricity.

 

At my present costs at home today, driving on gas would be $0.05 per mile and on electricity $0.06 per mile.  Obviously everyone will have different costs, but for me 50 MPG beats 3.6 miles per kWh based on latest power bill rate.  And CO2 emissions are not different enough to make a difference.

[Sherminator98]

7 minutes ago, Rick73 said:

At my present costs at home today, driving on gas would be $0.05 per mile and on electricity $0.06 per mile.  Obviously everyone will have different costs, but for me 50 MPG beats 3.6 miles per kWh based on latest power bill rate.  And CO2 emissions are not different enough to make a difference.

 

That was addressed by the Toyota style-they want to "gameify" the charging experience. Does your utility company offer lower rates at off peak hours? As long as your not working the nightshift, it might be worth it. 

[Texasota]

Given the articles and discussions about PHEVs not being plugged in, I wonder if the same assumptions/debates will apply to EREVs? If an EREV is not plugged in, then it will be considerably worse than a conventional PHEV as far as emissions and efficiency is concerned. An EREV will have a much larger/heavier battery being hauled around by an inefficient ICE power train.

[Sherminator98]

12 hours ago, Texasota said:

Given the articles and discussions about PHEVs not being plugged in, I wonder if the same assumptions/debates will apply to EREVs? If an EREV is not plugged in, then it will be considerably worse than a conventional PHEV as far as emissions and efficiency is concerned. An EREV will have a much larger/heavier battery being hauled around by an inefficient ICE power train.

 

CARB Regulations on EREVs per wikipedia:

 

Quote

• The vehicle must have a rated all-electric range of at least 120 km (75 miles). This is higher than the 80 km (50 miles) required of a zero-emission vehicle;
• The auxiliary power unit (APU) must provide range less than or equal to battery range;
• The APU must not be capable of switching on until the battery charge has been depleted;
• The vehicle must meet super ultra low emission vehicle (SULEV) requirements; and
• The APU and all associated fuel systems must comply with zero evaporative emissions requirements.

 

[Rick73]

15 hours ago, Texasota said:

Given the articles and discussions about PHEVs not being plugged in, I wonder if the same assumptions/debates will apply to EREVs? If an EREV is not plugged in, then it will be considerably worse than a conventional PHEV as far as emissions and efficiency is concerned. An EREV will have a much larger/heavier battery being hauled around by an inefficient ICE power train.

Good question.  My guess is that when PHEV do not have enough range to prevent engine from starting on a regular basis, it probably discourages the owner from plugging in as much as possible to maximize electric driving.  I expect that as all-electric range increases that owners will treat vehicle more like an EV whether it’s labeled a PHEV or EREV.  Functionally I doubt it makes any difference to buyers what they are called, unless of course government regulations provide significant incentives for one over the other; and that’s unlikely under Trump administration.

 

With present powertrain technology I don’t see how an EREV by technical definition makes sense over a PHEV.  Lines are blurred.  Why not just increase the PHEV’s battery capacity and fuel tank size and keep calling it a PHEV?  With latest 2-motor HEV/PHEV powertrain that can function in series like an EREV, the vehicle is essentially an EREV for all practical purposes when it’s advantageous, yet can operate even more efficiently at steady highway speeds when needed.  It’s a win-win if we can only get politicians out of vehicle engineering. 😀

[Texasota]

4 hours ago, Sherminator98 said:

 

CARB Regulations on EREVs per wikipedia:

The claim to fame of EREVs is that they are extended range vehicles with manufactures claiming ranges exceeding that of the best BEVs and ICE vehicles.
 

Fortunately, those CARB regulations for EREVs apply only to California. It will make EREVs unattractive (IMO) in that state which is obviously the intent.

[Sherminator98]

8 minutes ago, Texasota said:

Fortunately, those CARB regulations for EREVs apply only to California. It will make EREVs unattractive (IMO) in that state which is obviously the intent.

 

Right but also there are 19(?) other states that use some form of the CARB Regulations also. But also I'm not sure what the status is of legitimacy of it being the the rule of the land with the current administration wanting to change that.  

[Sherminator98]

51 minutes ago, Rick73 said:

With present powertrain technology I don’t see how an EREV by technical definition makes sense over a PHEV.  Lines are blurred.  Why not just increase the PHEV’s battery capacity and fuel tank size and keep calling it a PHEV?  With latest 2-motor HEV/PHEV powertrain that can function in series like an EREV, the vehicle is essentially an EREV for all practical purposes when it’s advantageous, yet can operate even more efficiently at steady highway speeds when needed.  It’s a win-win if we can only get politicians out of vehicle engineering. 😀

 

But your also ignoring packaging and weight limitations on platforms to make that happen.

 

I think the primary driver of EREV is having a vehicle that operates like an EV (Charges most of the time) and the auxiliary power source ICE just generates power to charge the battery on long distance drive, not be the primary powertrain, like it would be on an PHEV. 

[Texasota]

22 minutes ago, Sherminator98 said:

 

But your also ignoring packaging and weight limitations on platforms to make that happen.

 

I think the primary driver of EREV is having a vehicle that operates like an EV (Charges most of the time) and the auxiliary power source ICE just generates power to charge the battery on long distance drive, not be the primary powertrain, like it would be on an PHEV. 

Yes, that was the point behind EREVs over PHEVs. But it almost immediately started getting blurred when the Volt added the capability for the ICE to directly drive the  wheels.
 

The BYD Shark is another example with its planetary gear set (aka transmission) that provides gear reduction for the electric motor and the ability for the ICE to directly drive the wheels in limited conditions. The Shark transmission adds  some percentage of that weight back that EREVs were supposed to eliminate.  I think this trend will continue when EREV buyers complain about the compromised MPGs when the battery becomes depleted. And ironically, that more or less brings us back to a conventional PHEV.

Edited September 25 by Texasota

[Rick73]

25 minutes ago, Sherminator98 said:

 

But your also ignoring packaging and weight limitations on platforms to make that happen.

 

I think the primary driver of EREV is having a vehicle that operates like an EV (Charges most of the time) and the auxiliary power source ICE just generates power to charge the battery on long distance drive, not be the primary powertrain, like it would be on an PHEV. 

No.  You missed point completely.

[Rick73]

5 minutes ago, Texasota said:

Yes, that was the point behind EREVs over PHEVs. But it almost immediately started getting blurred when the Volt added the capability for the ICE to directly drive the  wheels.
 

The BYD Shark is another example with its planetary gear set (aka transmission) that provides gear reduction for the electric motor and the ability for the ICE to directly drive the wheels in limited conditions. The Shark transmission adds  some percentage of that weight back that EREVs were supposed to eliminate.  I think this trend will continue when EREV buyers complain about the compromised MPGs when the battery becomes depleted. 

Exactly, lines are blurred.  More importantly weight is not that different at all when using a 2-motor powertrain like Honda’s and now Ford too because the main difference is additional clutch that connects engine to drive wheels at higher speeds.  When clutch is open the rest of car might as well be called an EREV.

[bzcat]

1 hour ago, Texasota said:

Yes, that was the point behind EREVs over PHEVs. But it almost immediately started getting blurred when the Volt added the capability for the ICE to directly drive the  wheels.
 

The BYD Shark is another example with its planetary gear set (aka transmission) that provides gear reduction for the electric motor and the ability for the ICE to directly drive the wheels in limited conditions. The Shark transmission adds  some percentage of that weight back that EREVs were supposed to eliminate.  I think this trend will continue when EREV buyers complain about the compromised MPGs when the battery becomes depleted. And ironically, that more or less brings us back to a conventional PHEV.

 

BYD Shark is a conventional PHEV so not sure what you are trying to say. It's not an EREV.

 

Also, let's get the nomenclature right. All EREV are PHEV but not all PHEV are EREV.

 

PHEV is an umbrella term that describes all vehicles that can be charged from external power source.

 

EREV is a kind of PHEV that relies on batteries and electric motors as the primary source of propulsion. Conventional PHEV relies on ICE as the primary source of propulsion. 

 

Volt qualified as EREV because it was designed to use electric motors as primary propulsion. The ICE only directly sends power to the transmission at highway speed under certain conditions. Otherwise it only charges the battery.

 

 

[Texasota]

28 minutes ago, bzcat said:

Volt qualified as EREV because it was designed to use electric motors as primary propulsion. The ICE only directly sends power to the transmission at highway speed under certain conditions. Otherwise it only charges the battery.

From my understanding that is exactly what the Shark does. It is only under limited circumstances and speed that the Shark's ICE directly powers the wheels. At all other times the ICE is powering a generator that then supplies electrical power to the electric motors and/or the battery. I think by your definition above the Shark is an EREV.

[jpd80]

36 minutes ago, bzcat said:

 

EREV is a kind of PHEV that relies on batteries and electric motors as the primary source of propulsion. Conventional PHEV relies on ICE as the primary source of propulsion. 

 

Volt qualified as EREV because it was designed to use electric motors as primary propulsion. The ICE only directly sends power to the transmission at highway speed under certain conditions. Otherwise it only charges the battery.

 

With respect, that’s exactly what the Shark 6 does, the ICE can only connect to the front wheels over 70 kph. Conventional hybrids usually use a split cycle transmission that can blend electric and ICE power from start to highway speed. Both the Volt and Shark 6 are very different to that.

 

Honestly it’s all marketing, both Volt and Shark 6  have comparatively small batteries and limited EV range that ultimately relies  on the ICE do extend range as required.

Edited September 25 by jpd80

[Texasota]

4 hours ago, bzcat said:

PHEV is an umbrella term that describes all vehicles that can be charged from external power source.

By that definition, then a BEV is also a PHEV which is not correct.

[rmc523]

15 hours ago, Texasota said:

By that definition, then a BEV is also a PHEV which is not correct.

 

Obviously he's referring to vehicles with an ICE powertrain component of some sort for that definition.

[Rick73]

16 hours ago, Texasota said:

By that definition, then a BEV is also a PHEV which is not correct.

Except as noted above it does not include the “hybrid” portion of PHEV. 😀

 

Anyway, otherwise agree completely and it’s worth repeating lines are blurred more than ever because even hybrids (HEV) are being designed and manufactured with traction motors with plenty of power and torque to propel the vehicle on its own as long as battery has the capacity.  PHEV are also using same technology except with larger battery and means to charge from external sources; primarily grid.

 

One example that’s getting very close to what we are discussing here is the Chevy Captiva PHEV with 20.5 kWh battery that has an 80-mile all-electric range; though for clarity, that’s using a different standard.  I’m guessing EPA Combined Cycle would be significantly lower, but maybe still in the 60s.

 

What’s funny is that even if it had slightly larger battery to achieve EREV status on electric range, the fuel tank is way too large to qualify as an EREV per CARB regulations mentioned above.

[jpd80]

It feels like the politicians and automakers lost the rabbit with electrification. In their zeal (and perceived greed) for an all electric future, they missed the very important pre step of transitioning ICE buyers into a basic hybrid power train. That single step would have improved low speed efficiency with zero impact on the energy grid.
 

 

 

 

Edited September 26 by jpd80