The End of the Transitional PHEV

Agreed. Premature.
If/when autonomous vehicles become mainstream so will BEVs.

 

This article says GM is going to kill off the Volt GM axes Volt, Cruze, and Impala for North America in cost-cutting move – Ars Technica. Pretty unbelievable since BEVs ain't ready because of cost, range, charging infrastructure, too much time to charge, etc. and so on.

Wonder if Toyota and other foreign manufacturers will follow suit?

 

volt sales are abysmal. it was never a popular car, and gm never made any attempt to improve upon it because it was bleeding money. prime sales are fair, and toyota probably won't ax it unless they start to swoon.

there probably wouldn't be a PHEV at all, if it weren't for carb credits and how lanes.

bev sales are almost non existent outside of california and tesla. i'd call the article clickbait.

what is the hybrid version of the nissan rogue?

the author must have missed the '18 sales showing the prime ahead of the leaf

love the last paragraph, completely contradictory

 

I've got mine, two plug-in hybrids, and they are NOT forsale.

Bob Wilson

 

mine might be, if anyone ever comes out with a better one

 

GM, like Ford, is killing passenger cars in No. America because they are less profitable than SUVs/Pickups. It has nothing to do with BEV/PHEV vs ICE. They are keeping the Bolt since it is made in a different factory and GM does see a future for BEVs. The Japanese, OTOH, are one of the main sources of Detroit's obstacle in making profits on passenger cars since Japanese manufactures have the most volume in this segment are are therefore able to turn profits simply due sheer numbers.

 

PHEVs are the best solution unless and until batteries stop being so lousy. This has always been the case, and I've said so since the late 90s when I started studying the problem.

The root cause of this is our usage of cars. The way we use cars is generally that the ratio of our peak power demand to our average power demand is really high (like 10-20, most of the time). That fact automatically generates a situation where it's usually best to use one technology to supply the peak and another to supply the average, because the two are so far apart.

Batteries are extremely good at supplying the peak, but dismally poor at supplying the average (which is why batteries often weigh 1/4 of the total car mass).
Engines are extremely good at supplying the average, but dismally poor at supplying the peak (which is why engines often occupy 1/3 of the car's length).
Fuel cells are the same as engines in this regard (which is why they are so expensive).

Before BEVs can be a true, economic alternative for all driving, the first one has to change, and that means batteries that are about 3 times more energy dense than the best we have now, at half the cost per unit of mass (which means 6 times lower cost per unit of energy). I watch this closely, but haven't seen that happen yet. Lithium-sulfur chemistries have the capability to do this but no one has overcome all the bugs to a mass manufacturable version with the needed energy density and longevity yet.

 

Sounds like the '70s all over again when gas prices skyrocketed and Japanese cars took over; no one wanted to buy the gas eaters. All it takes if for the price of oil to go up significantly and short sighted companies like GM will relive this all over again.

 

Yes. Yes it does.

 

There has been a 25% duty on imported trucks coming into the country since 1963. Kind of helps explain why there is so much profit in trucks.


The Big Three's Shameful Secret | Cato Institute

 

I think PHEVs need a decent range to catch on. I can make it to work and back in my Prime in the summer (only 3/4 of the way in the winter) which is just enough. The 2019 Crosstrek plug-in only has 17 miles of EV range, and that's low enough that most people are going to wonder, what's the point? I don't think it's enough benefit to pay for the cost of larger battery and loss of cargo room. Of course there are other benefits like EV instant acceleration and reducing smog in cities, but those things are harder for average people to justify paying a premium for. And average people aren't going to want to deal with things like trying to get chargers put in at work or in their garage.

Hybrids and maybe PHEVs make sense for bigger trucks, SUVs, and crossovers that are popular now. It's impractical to make those full EVs because of the cost and weight of batteries. I don't know why more big vehicles aren't hybrids, other than maybe it wouldn't help that much? For example the Outlander PHEV gets 25mpg on gas, and the 2019 Crosstrek PHEV gets 35mpg on gas. An SUV or pickup that gets mileage in the high 20's or low 30's isn't that appealing I guess, when anyone who cares about efficiency is likely to drive a smaller car.

A huge downside of PHEVs for auto makers is that it's the worst of both worlds. You have all the weight and space and cost of the engine, exhaust, fuel tank, etc. plus all the weight and space and cost of a battery and motors. In terms of range it's the best of both worlds since you get EV efficiency most of the time and unlimited range when you need it.

For me having two cars is almost the ideal solution. I have a Prius as a commuter car that I drive 90% of the time. And I have a 2007 4runner for when I need to carry more stuff or go off road. The total value of the two vehicles is barely more than one larger PHEV like the Outlander or Crosstrek, but I'll use less fuel and have more capability overall. But having two cars is a hassle with limited parking.

I could have gone with an EV as my commuter car, but considering the cost and range of current EVs it makes slightly more sense to have a Prius Prime. For example a Nisasn Leaf might work for maybe 70-80% of my miles, whereas the Prime works for 90% of miles. A Bolt would work for 80-90% of miles, but it's a lot more expensive. The remainder I drive my 4runner which gets 17mpg, so I would actually expect to use more fuel in the Leaf+4runner scenario than the Prime+4runner scenario, based on my spreadsheet.

 

So when are we going to get a plug in hybrid/hydrogen fuel cell combo vehicle?

 

Mercedes might have one coming to out. In the few places hydrogen is available, that is.

 

They seem to have missed the opportunity, which is unfortunate.

 

bev's are no easier to understand than PHEVs for most people, thus the reluctance for each. although, imo, it's simpler than that: gas is cheap, why would i even consider anything else, never mind having to learn about them.

 

Because electric cars are more fun to drive. (Well, maybe not so much the Prime, although, personally, I prefer driving in electric rather than hybrid because it seems peppier and oh, so quiet.) Although Tesla's are not cheap, they really seem to have struck a chord with the younger generation and seem to have changed a lot of minds about electric cars in general.

 

it's just a micro market in cali. don't get me wrong, i love electric, but i've been driving prius for 14 years and PHEV for 6+.
the general public is not interested.

 

My opinion is that there is no right answer.

Some users really need a gasoline car, some need diesel.
Hybrids work for some, PHEVs for others and BEVs work for an increasing number.

There is no point to refusing to sell to any of these groups because it is not trendy.

Barrow, AK and Manhattan, NY will impose different needs.