People don't like change, but at the same time if you have a major ICE powertrain failure, it will cost you around 11K to get it fixed, going by a thread I've seen on Bronco6G with a Bronco Engine. 

Your not because if you went with an Atkinson style setup in a larger/more powerful engine, your power losses are going to be greater and not be evened out by adding a hybrid motor to help. Then add in additional weight etc and its more or less a lost cause. That is why Ford was marketing the hybrid in the F-150 as a power adder/power generation, not an increase in MPGs.   

Ford seems to be doing exactly that with the HF55 transmission (https://fordauthority.com/2025/01/2025-ford-maverick-transmissions-everything-you-need-to-know/).

Agreed. Ford struck gold with the 2.5 hybrid, they should keep building in and improving hybrid systems like that. The higher tow rating and AWD capability in the newer maverick hybrid is definitely a step in the right direction. 

Agree with EREV functional benefits in theory but IMO it’s going to take the perfect balancing act between battery capacity and engine size in order to keep price down while still providing reasonable towing capabilities.  Unfortunately every owner’s need is different so a lot of buyers won’t be happy no matter where the manufacturer draws that line.  I’d personally like to see more done to improve hybrid pickups’ capabilities and efficiency, and also additional models/sizes. 

To be clear, I was thinking and writing about buyers who just have to have the “EV” experience in their truck or large SUV; and are willing to spend more money to obtain that feature and or luxury; hence was comparing EREV against BEV option.  As I stated previously I think EREVs will have a difficult time competing against latest hybrids once technology from smaller vehicles are scaled in size and power; at least on cost basis.  Agree that pure range extender will likely be too inefficient for towing on a regular basis.  Perhaps an EREV pickup will work for someone who drives close to home 90+ percent of time and rarely tows any long distance.  The market is probably small under those conditions which may explain why RAM delayed their EREV AFAIK.

EREV is a range extender, not a PHEV.  You still have to charge the batteries just not as often.

EREV seems to be the way to go with larger vehicles. As for towing, that's really only an issue with large EVs because charging on a road trip is a pain in the ass. With EREVs where the gas powertrain is what you're relying on for longer road trips, it's not a big deal because you just top off like every other ICE vehicle at a fuel station, so towing is a none issue. It's only an issue if recovering that range is a pain like it can be with an EV. 

It is going to be fascinating to see how this plays out. Initial testing results  and physical laws indicate this use case is where EREVs are going to fail miserably compared to ICE or hybrid.

If EREVs cost significantly more than hybrids, and I think they will, it will be difficult to convince buyers to spend the added premium, particularly if they get very little or nothing in return from a financial standpoint.  For cheaper vehicles where hybrids are already getting 50 MPG, there won’t be much cost savings IMO.  Some buyers will undoubtedly prefer the EV-like driving mode possible with EREVs, but I can’t imagine that many buyers paying a significant premium for it.  Where EREV makes more sense to me are for pickups and large SUVs that will be used for towing longer distances.  Even then total cost of ownership may be difficult to justify compared to latest hybrid technology.  Going beyond latest hybrid efficiency does not generate much energy savings due to diminishing returns.