I just spent a week in California, and every time I visit, I understand why the people there fight so hard to preserve their environment. Few other states have been endowed with such beauty and so many natural resources. The entire country owes a debt of gratitude to California, as well, for pushing stricter emissions standards that have resulted in better outcomes for everyone. At the same time, state leaders are ignoring technology they’ve long popularized in exchange for a pipe dream.
Today’s Morning Dump is going to be all about dreams, both realistic and unrealistic. BMW and Mercedes have long pondered a tie-up, but it’s never quite happened. Now we’re one step closer to that coming to fruition, and it has a lot to do with gasoline engines. Volkswagen has long dreamt of supplanting Tesla with its electric cars, and that actually is happening (at least in Europe).
Mitsubishi hopes to regain some of the luster it had in the 1990s, when it was briefly the fastest-growing Japanese car company in America. First, it’s going to have to get over some persistent recalls, including one over sagging liftgates.
California’s Plan To Counter Feds Mentions Hydrogen Eight Times, Hybrids Zero Times
The modern electric car was born in California. The proliferation of catalytic converters, the creation of some of the earliest controls on emissions (thanks, Gov. Reagan!), and an aggressive framework to protect the environment from climate change all have roots in the Golden State.
You know what else California was instrumental in proliferating? Hybrids! The second-gen hybrid Toyota Prius became the unofficial mascot of the State of California around the turn of the century. Using a small battery and clever engineering, the Prius dramatically increased the fuel economy, and that’s a big deal!
You know what California is buying a lot of, right now? Hybrids. According to a report from the California New Dealers Association, hybrids are the cars driving the market in the first half of 2025:
Hybrid sales in California are up more than 50% year-over-year, and that’s in a place that already buys a lot of hybrids. Any time someone gets out of a regular gas-powered car and into a hybrid, it’s a victory for the environment. Is an electric car better? Absolutely. Should California do things to continue to incentivize electric car purchases and charging so that consumers, especially low-income ones, can afford to buy them? Also, yes.
I personally think that it’s a net bad thing that the Federal government is backtracking on the progress we made in electrification, and I understand why Californians are upset that the Trump Administration has pulled the waivers that allowed the state to set a higher standard for automakers. Even with all the work the state has done, approximately half of the most polluted cities in the United States are in California.
Electric cars are a great solution for many Californians, which is why the state still has the highest adoption rate of EVs anywhere in the country. EVs are also expensive, and will continue to require some level of subsidization for the near future, which is why the California Air Resources Board (CARB) is stating in its strategy letter that it might try to replace the expiring federal tax credits:
Federal clean vehicle tax credits will end after September 30, 2025. Subject to available resources and scaled to match our resources and policy goals, funding could provide point-of-sale rebates, vouchers, or other credits to keep new vehicle sales robust and expand the availability of used ZEVs on the secondary market. Incentives should support new and used vehicle purchases and leases and be available for individual vehicle purchases as well as bulk purchases by fleet operators.
These incentives should probably have an income component (how efficient is it to help millionaires buy Teslas?), and the catch here is that the state needs to be able to afford the subsidies. I also appreciate that California is suggesting that more work needs to be done to expand charging access, reduce charging cost, and utilize Vehicle-Grid Integration, which could be a huge win for a state with more-than-occasional grid issues.
At the same time, shifting more of the fleet (57.5% of sales so far this year have been traditional ICE-powered vehicles) towards PHEVs, hybrids, EREVs, and electric cars is likely the cheapest, easiest, and most direct path towards reducing air pollution in the short term.
Does California’s strategy document mention hybrids at all? It does not. It does talk a lot about hydrogen:
Leverage private investments to bring down the cost of hydrogen. Explore opportunities for state-connected projects to buy hydrogen fuel facilitated through ARCHES (for use cases in buses, trucks, rail, ports, power sector) with the goal of providing demand certainty for hydrogen producers and infrastructure providers and driving down fuel costs
There are, by my count, eight references to hydrogen. While there’s maybe a possibility that hydrogen can be used at some point in the future to power large trucks and buses, the technology has not seemed to mature or to gain any kind of traction. It’s energy-intensive to produce and difficult to transport. I am not implying that hydrogen has no place for certain applications, nor am I saying there should be zero investment in the technology, but the best-case scenario for the wide commercial adoption of hydrogen technology is decades away. Hybrid technology is here, right now, and it works.
In an ideal situation, most Californians would switch over to electric cars immediately. There would be abundant, affordable charging and a market full of cheap electric cars. That hasn’t happened yet. I think the day is coming, and it is logical for California’s government to continue to push for it, but there also needs to be a reality check. There aren’t enough affordable EVs being built today to make that possible, nor is the charging infrastructure able to support everyone owning an electric car.
As society builds towards that future, the idea of incentivizing and encouraging hybrid purchases is not giving up. It’s not forsaking the future. It’s not a failure to meet people where they are today as you prepare for tomorrow. It’s just common sense.
[Ed Note: As a California resident, I still think the infrastructure isn’t good enough, to the point where I wouldn’t recommend an EV if you can’t charge at home or at work. Offering a hybrid means folks who aren’t ready to deal with the costs/inconveniences of an EV don’t have to keep driving a guzzler. Hybrids are a huge deal, and will be for some time. The “they’re a stopgap solution” argument against them makes literally no sense; that they’re the best solution given our current circumstances shouldn’t be considered a bad thing. -DT].
BMW And Mercedes Might Tie Up On Engine Technology
After years of battling one another for market share, Mercedes and BMW are reportedly looking at the state of the world and deciding that perhaps it’s better to work together to survive than to perish separately.
According to Manager Magazin, a potential partnership is centered around the one thing Mercedes boss Ola Källenius didn’t think he would need anymore: Gas engines.
Källenius’s offensive was initially surprising. He intended to build almost no combustion engines after 2030. Instead of investing too heavily in his own drivetrains, he ordered four-cylinder engines from the Chinese Geely Group. Owner Li Shufu (62) is also a major shareholder in Mercedes.
But the situation has now reversed. Källenius suddenly appears to be as open to new technologies as his BMW colleague Zipse; moreover, he needs significantly more engines than he thought for plug-in hybrids, the combined electric and gasoline powertrains. The conclusion is: If Mercedes wants to build the best cars, Källenius also needs state-of-the-art combustion engines. As fuel-efficient and powerful as possible.
The engines from China, currently being installed in the first models, are apparently not enough. Moreover, they could pose a political problem in markets like the US .
BMW CEO Oliver Zipse, on the other hand, has never given up on the combustion engine. He apparently has the capacity for the required engines; in 2024, almost 1.2 million three-, four-, six-, and even a few eight-cylinder models were produced in Steyr.
BMW makes money and keeps its plants open, both companies can reduce development spend, and Mercedes can keep its gas-powered cars running a little bit longer.
Volkswagen Is Finally Finding Some EV Success In Europe
Post-Dieselgate, the German automaker we mostly refer to as Volkswagen tried an aggressive shift into electrification and software. It was a very VW approach that involved spending a metric crap ton of euros on engineers, with extremely mixed results.
A new round of vehicles with revised software and some annoyances smoothed out is starting to get more traction in Europe, with more on the way, according to Bloomberg:
In September, Volkswagen plans to unveil the first of its next-generation EVs, the compact VW ID.2all, a €25,000 hatchback meant to kick-start an era of fresh growth. Blume speaks of what he calls a “model offensive,” with 30 new cars in 2024 and the same number expected this year. “The current environment is extremely challenging,” Blume says. “And we’re holding our own.”
The group’s vehicle sales increased in the second quarter, driven by a 38% gain in global EV deliveries from the previous year. VW’s updated ID models—a hatchback, an SUV crossover and a full-size sedan—have garnered praise for fresh interiors and revamped software. In Europe its latest battery-powered cars have outsold Tesla’s in recent months, benefiting in no small part from Elon Musk’s political antics, but also from improved quality. The group is on track to be Europe’s top EV maker for 2025, ahead of Tesla, Stellantis and Renault. And in China the first models tailored to local tastes, developed with a Chinese partner, are due to hit showrooms next year.
CEO Oliver Blume and the company he leads still have a long way to go, of course, but Tesla’s fall from grace might provide a nice lift for the automaker.
If You Have An Outlander, You Might Want To Watch The Liftgate
I have hit my head on any number of liftgates and hatches over the years, both because I tend to buy five-door vehicles and because I rarely know where my body is in space. The numerous blows to my noggin are probably no surprise to anyone who regularly reads TMD.
Perhaps it’s a good thing I don’t own a Mitsubishi Outlander built between 2014 and 2022, because according to NHTSA, the 92,000+ vehicles sold have tailgates that might fail and fall on your head:
The cylinder of the tailgate gas spring, which contains high pressure gas, could corrode due to salt water penetration. The high salinity of water promotes corrosion. If significant corrosion occurs over time, the wall thickness of the cylinder could be reduced, causing the gas spring to rapidly lose pressure.
Well, that’s not good. [Ed Note: “Wall thickness of the cylinder to be reduced” is a weird way of saying the cylinder is going to rot out and the hole is going to release the gas pressure. -DT].
What I’m Listening To While Writing TMD
I don’t think I’ve ever seen the video for “Bad Dream” by Cannons, but I love the song. It’s super weird and ’80s in a way that perfectly fits the Italodisco synth sound.
The Big Question
Do you own a hybrid? Would you consider buying a hybrid? If so, which one?
Top photo: Depositphotos.com
Civic Sport Hybrid this year, it’s a damn good car. Easily get high 40s, and you don’t sacrifice acceleration. A PHEV sounds nice if our charging situation was different.
IF I buy another car, it will almost certainly be a PHEV. But, a Honda with <70K miles on it is probably going to last a long time and not need replacing any time soon.
I have a Chevy Volt (gen1) PHEV. Would I consider buying a standard hybrid? Depends.
Two scenarios:
I currently fall into scenario 2. Looking at cheap Chevy Bolts ($12k) and possibly a Highlander Hybrid for my next vehicles. Won’t buy until I need to, or the Volt has a catastrophic failure (knocks on wood)
How can you grift off a hybrid? There’s not space for it. The grift is over with electric. Now its time to finally support Hydrogen, where billions and billions can flow and disappear without a trace to their friends and families.
That’s what your missing, you are thinking like an honest man, not a politician.
While I support EVs and am a fan on them, I think that the US should focus on bending the fuel consumption curve using any tech which delivers the best bang for the buck. Long range plug-ins could shift a majority of miles traveled to electric.
EREVs would deliver massive benefits to commercial fleets and anyone driving a large amount of miles a year. Selling 100 EREV pickups to replace 100 gas ones is way better than only selling 10 EVs with 90 gas only ones.
When “analysts” were beating the crap out of Toyota in the press for not going all-in on electric, I said wait and see. Toyota’s cautious approach has proved to be wise.
The automotive “news” media has really fucked over the industry and us consumers. And they’ve been doing it for years. I fully blame “journalists” for the ever-increase size of cars and for a lot of the other stupid shit going on in the industry.
I’ve seen countless reviews where a seemingly better car loses a comparison test simply because one had more trunk space or more rear seat space. Its a compact sports sedan, dumbasses, it doesn’t NEED to have a massive interior.
Similar deal with the every increasing size of screens in cars. If car makers kept then reasonably sized, they get less interest from the media or they might be labeled as behind-the-times. No car maker wants that kind of label attached to its products, so they game the system by giving journalists what looks good in photos and in video so they get more coverage.
Your Toyota example is perfect. Toyota was taking a cautionary approach to electrification and the press was hounding them for being slow. No, it’s not slow, it’s waiting for the technology to mature, prices to come down and for the public to be more accepting. While everyone else was scrambling to dumb their ICE vehicles and go EV, Toyota was selling millions of hybrids each year and laughing all the way to the bank.
As someone who works in vehicle development, thank you. Modern cars are effectively rolling McManshions now, and every automaker is convinced if they don’t eclipse all competitors in every category it won’t sell at all. It’s a never ending bench race that only serves to drive up costs, while quality and robust engineering is less important.
When today’s hyper-interconnected vehicles hit their third owners, they’ll be so outdated on the ‘flashy tech’ nothing will work right or the vehicle will become electronically totaled.
I also work in engineering/product development but I have worked very hard to stay OUT of the car industry because I’ve been seeing this shit-show unravel for decades now.
It is an utter mess and since all car companies are publicly traded, they are at the whims of fickle investors that “need” share prices to move on par with the likes of Google or Facebook. And then the media turns it into an even bigger mess by acting like consumers want all these stupid gimmicks, when we really don’t. Yet without those gimmicks, your car will get shunned by the press. Look at how many good, solid brands have honestly great vehicles that just languish just because the press is blindly focused on shiny things and chasing the next fad.
It is so infuriating watching my most favorite hobby turn to shit. I give you props if you are willing to see this all go down from the inside – you must be much more patient and tolerant than I am.
Appreciate the comments. It is infuriating, especially as you’re forced to make arguable junk for the sake of checking a box on a feature list.
Patient I’m not, but at least I have a reputation for speaking my mind and being objectively correct the majority of the time. Gives me the ability to vent here and there when a program is adding more electronic junk no one cares about.
Luckily the hobby is honestly better today than 10 years ago. Automotive electronics have trickled down to the aftermarket, so it’s never been easier to swap a V8T or V8TT into a car and make serious horsepower.
That last part is really the only saving grace I see. There are enough clever folks out there that know about the shit show of adding dated electronic shit to everything that many have started to find work-arounds to right at least some of the wrongs for older cars.
It was nice to see that the tiny, shitty and fairly useless infotainment screen on one of my cars (9 years old) can be replaced. But not just replace the LCD panel itself, but instead you replace the whole integrated unit with a larger, more powerful system that can do modern things. I’m trying to copy that idea for using newer parts on older cars with my 60 year old car that predates any kind of ECU. Looking to design new headlights that use modern units to get better light output. And for music, I made a phone mount that wirelessly connects to a hidden BT adapter – looks stock when I hide the phone, but I have all the modern conveniences that I want.
Problem comes with the current generation of cars. The screen and its controller is so deeply integrated and vin coded that you won’t be able to replace it. Modern cars will be more or less stuck in factory form, unless the aftermarket can figure out how to jailbreak/replicate OEM systems. If they do, the resulting product will probably be cost prohibitive, if they aren’t sued by the automaker.
On the drag & drive car I’ve been building with a buddy, we use a MS3 Gold Box ECU to run the car, and a puck computer + USB powered HDMI display for tuning and gauges. It’s really handy to be able to grab a bluetooth keyboard, edit the dash in Tuner Studio, and add/modify whatever gauge you want. Engine running lean on a long drive section? Pull up fuel temp. Wondering why MPG seems to have spiked? Check ethanol content. Speedometer hard to read? 3 clicks and you can enlarge it. At the track it’s also our datalogging system and tuning interface. We even made a dedicated low light dash so you aren’t blinded at night. If we really wanted to, we could integrate a cellular modem and speakers to stream music or swap the display with a touchscreen.
That sounds like a great set up. And your first point is dead-on. That is why right-to-repair is so bloody important. I feel that if a company goes out of business, their IP should immediately be open-sourced. Can’t think of a better example than the Fiskar Ocean. (Seemingly) perfectly good vehicles with shitty software that are now the equivalent to ewaste to whoever took a risk and bought one. Luckily some taxi company (I think) bought thousands of them which I can only assume will lead to a small community that might give support to owners, but it all could have been much worse.
A similar deal should be allowed after X years for all these locked-down systems. I can understanding IP and locking people out for business reasons. OK. Fair, you spend the money to develop it so now you should make some money off of selling parts. But after a certain amount of time (maybe a decade or so), there should be ways to access key features. A universal system that lets someone replace entire components – like say, the ECU, with a more modern one is a pipe dream, but there should be more standardization if the industry is going to computerize every last possible thing.
Agreed 10000% on right to repair. It was becoming incredibly onerous on my family’s auto shop to work on used vehicles in the mid 2010s, when we sold the business. 10 years later it’s much worse.
5 years from sale date or when that system is no longer used it should be publicly disclosed, and you should be required to sell what we think of as dealer specific tools today.
One of the big arguments made by manufacturers is they’re fighting auto theft, but in reality, they’re just committing financial theft.
Lol. Toyota spent a lot of money working to derail the EV train because they wasted the lead they had from the Prius, and they’re benefiting greatly from the US in particular “electing” a fascist who’s rolling back environmental initiatives.
In short, they got lucky that humans are irrational creatures who are easily swayed by their baser instincts.
A ton of things in life get drastically easier when you realize and accept that humans are irrational-emotional beings first and foremost. As far as luck, that didn’t play a significant part here compared to solid product planning IMO.
The Toyota board even dumped Akio Toyoda as CEO over the choice. They were all-in on BEV. He was playing correct game all along.
Since I already have the charger and solar setup at the house, I’m disinclined to get anything that’s not a BEV or PHEV as a daily driver. For a secondary or tertiary car, sure, I’d consider a straight hybrid, if I were shopping for something like a road trip car.
As an added note, 4000+ miles into the lease experience on the 500e, and zero problems. The little thing’s been dead-nuts reliable and remains super-fun to drive. I’d consider keeping it after the lease is up if the residual were more like $14K instead of $19K.
We own a ’21 Highlander Hybrid AWD and a ’24 Hyundai Ioniq5 BEV. We fight over the keys to the Hyundai. It’s punchy, quick, smooth, etc. The Highlander gets great gas mileage (~31 mpg with aggressive all-season tires on it), but lags, lurches, and stumbles on the hills and roads around here, like driving a motorboat. Can’t wait to replace it with an AWD/4WD PHEV/EREV which drives so much better.
I’m generally a fan of BMW and especially of their engines, but Mercedes getting engines from BMW just feels icky, like someone really lost the plot somewhere. Has anyone tried rebooting the market recently? Seems like we’ve had a lot of glitches lately.
It’s hard to say hybrids are suffering, considering their sales trends, but they’re not likely to get much attention from either side of the energy & climate debate. That’s an utterly polarized world where “common sense” has no clout. You’re either for the EV transition, right now, or you’re dead set against it. There’s a generation of progressive activists trained to push EVs or else, and legions of oil influencers and petrosexuals on the opposite side. Who will speak for those two-faced hybrids? Me, but few listen.
If you own a PHEV, you notice the scorn aimed at them on forums. ALL this scorn comes from EV owners, mostly the Teslarati. “The worst of both worlds,” they say, and I reply no, it’s the opposite. A “half-assed solution,” and I say yes, I agree. But aren’t these half-assed times. Some regions have good density of charging stations, and but some don’t. Half of us live in single family homes, and half in apartments where charging is difficult. Hybrids save significant amounts of fuel while demanding no operational compromise. It’s all good- but hybrids don’t move the score marker towards either goalpost.
Nothing stupid about it. Hybrids are better for some pollution but they still dump CO2 which is pollution that is creating a global climate crisis. The reason the focus is on EVs is to get to net zero carbon emissions. Hybrids are side show.
Are they better than nothing? I guess. But they’re already popular and affordable. Not sure why the government should spend limited attention (dollars) on hybrids that can be spent on EVs and charging infrastructure that checks all the boxes.
Yep. Hybrids are a bandaid on a sucking chest wound. They’d have been great in the 8os while we worked toward full electrification, but Reagan convinced everyone to fuck around and make money without thinking about the future.
At this point, we’re the kid who skipped class all semester and will get cut off by his parents if he doesn’t get at least a B. If we have any prayer of making up for lost time, we have to go all-in, working our asses off on full solutions, not half measures.
Of course, with Cheeto Jesus and his merry band of fascists running things, we’re screwed anyway.
California’s short-sightedness is not so much in not doing enough, but in thinking anything it does can fix the planet with the federal government fully in the “drill baby drill” camp.
How do I feel about hybrids? Read on. How many of you were so bored during Covid you actually had time to watch or read things that you never would’ve had the time to do before? One of the things I was re-introduced to, because I had forgotten I’d read about it, was a number of years ago the CIA admitted it made a mistake when it was instructed, at the behest of powerful US oil interests, to overthrow the democratically elected premier of Iran and replace him with a dictator, the US oil industry friendly Shah. What did we get us for our troubles? They took hostages for over a year and then developed into one of the most fundamentalist religious regimes on the planet, funding terrorism. The oil industry has pulled a lot of shit in its existence. They’ve started wars, engaged in coups, likely even assassinations, denied climate change. Hybrids give the oil companies a seat at the table for a few more years. One I do not believe they should have for all the crimes they’ve committed. The event makes for interesting reading if you’re into history and politics.
I have a ’22 Ford Maverick hybrid. I did not buy it as an intermediate step to EV. I bought it because it was the vehicle that suited my needs, the hybrid was the lower priced version at the time, and I like saving money on gas, though I don’t drive that much these days, so the savings aren’t that significant.
I don’t actually believe that EVs are the solution to pollution issues. Most pollution comes from our wasteful, consuming lifestyles, not the cars we drive. The solution to pollution is for everyone to take stock of how they live their lives, simplify and consume less. That’s never going to happen on a large scale. I fail at it on an individual scale and I believe it’s necessary for the long-term survival of humanity. What incentive is there for someone who disagrees with me (as most do)?
Anyway, I don’t want to stir anything up. I just think there are a lot of spaces where we can make a bigger difference than our choice of auto will make.
Isn’t it the most American thing in the world to believe that our choice of a vehicle will be life-changing, or even world-saving?
For most of us, twenty or thirty thousand worth of solar panels on the roof will do more good than an equal mount invested in an EV. It’s about the utilization factor. The average auto sits undriven for 23 hours a day, or 95% of the time. The rest of the time, the EV battery has no benefit; indeed, it consumes grid energy to heat and cool itself in extreme temperatures. Meanwhile, solar panels produce all day long, even on cloudy days. If you drive more hours than you see sunny days, the EV might be a better choice, but that’s certainly not my lifestyle.
I am still torn about hybrids. They’re a half assed solution. Practical, but expensive and too complicated. So on one level yes it makes sense to take the wins. On the other hand, settling for a compromise could delay or kill real progress.
51% pro-hybrid and I say this because I don’t want better to be the enemy of good.
‘Expensive and too complicated’ seems like scapegoating when you can get a Corolla hybrid for just under $25k and early Priuses are known for going 200-300k miles without a battery replacement.
At this rate I think I’d rather bet on a hybrid for longevity with its understressed ICE powertrain and solid eCVT instead of a stressed pure-ICE 1.5T with a wet-belt.
Very true. My pair of Ford hybrids have needed ZERO repairs over 150,000 miles of service. So many stress points in the drivetrain have been eliminated; there’s no geared transmission, no starter, no AC belt, no power steering belt, and no turbo. Many of my past car repairs went into these components. In a hyrid, the ICE never lugs at low speed. The ICE does what it does best, while the EV side gives torque on demand and stores regen energy on braking.
I mean , we use a quarter-trillion gallons of oil per year just to fuel the US vehicle fleet. Converting that to electric *would* make a difference.
I need CA to extend the HOV lane program. Without it I’ll only get four months out of the sticker that I received in June.
I would love a hybrid again. Would have gotten a hybrid CR-V had they depreciated enough to be in my price range when I was shopping this year.
Can we look at the facts and get an article that would tell us if properly maintaining our vehicle and driving it until it was no longer economically sound to run it is far more ecologically and healthy than buying a new anything and selling the old car to continue being used? IMHO
If you sell it it’s not like the car disappears someone else will keep using it.
I find it impossible that anyone would credit California for the creation or invention of better vehicles or other equipment. I think it is the equivalent of crediting a child abuser for laws that make abusing children illegal. They did absolutely nothing and those same laws make rebuilding your house after the Forrest fires a 30 years long adventure. Cleaner air and water is a great and necessary goal but ignorant laws that just require results with no guidance is the same as requiring peace on the middle east but siding with either side of the conflict
You might want to research emissions equipment, the push to begin equipping cars with catalytic converters, and other pollutant reducing devices pretty much started in California and spread across the world. If you have a problem between the business arrangement between homeowners, who’ve lost their homes and the insurance companies, that insure them, maybe you should direct your complaints at the insurance industry. Why are they still ensuring any homes in any areas where they may face major losses?
I live in CA and hate 95% of what carb has done, but carb invented and mandated obd and obd2, which is one of the top 10 automotive inventions. The fact that I can use a $20 code reader to communicate with my car and do my own repairs is incredible. If not for carb, every manufacturer would have its own proprietary Communications protocol which required a $50,000 per year subscription to communicate with.
Too bad OBD2 is only required for cars and not motorcycles. I’ve got a couple of KTMs and they have proprietary connectors and I’m left guessing when the check engine light comes on
Right, because the only thing better than lawmakers setting up standards for automakers to meet would be for them to create their own R&D department and start selling golf-cart motors to Ford to provide them with ‘guidance’.
A. The statement mentioned hybrids 48 times as ZEVs include plug-in hybrids.
B. I have owned two hybrids – a 2005 and 2009 Prius. We drove each for more than 10 years, they were almost flawlessly reliable (3-way valve to the coolant thermos failed at 110K miles in both) and very economical. They were also dreadfully boring.
The 2005 was sold when I leased a 2016 Spark EV for $99 a month. The Spark was replaced with a 2017 Bolt that I drive today.
I would absolutely consider another hybrid paired with an EV. The EV charge network isn’t quite there yet for us to go 100% EV.
I don’t own a hybrid, but would be open to one. I actually would love if my GR86 was a hybrid with a motor built onto the input side of the manual transmission, helping with the lack of low end torque and providing for better mileage around town.
I own a 1st gen insight with this arrangement. It turns and otherwise boring economy car into something interesting. It would not be my first choice for a gr86 motor – that would probably be a Porsche Flat 6, but given that the Subaru boxer motor in that car is fairly uninspiring I see no harm adding a hybrid as you describe. No way would I want that added to I Cayman GTS or a S2000 however.
A high-revving NA motor is my first choice in a sports car, but a manual equipped hybrid is perfect for the daily driver / commuter car
I’m the opposite—I hate high revving motors unless they also have low and mid range torque, which they usually don’t. I also have no interest in anything Porsche, though I agree that a 6 would be ideal and I’d prefer a late EZ30 or maybe an EZ36 Subaru engine with a decent exhaust and the dual injection setup the FA24D has. That’s not the world we live in, though, so I think some EV assist would help with the torque and emissions around town and I’m thinking it would have to be more advanced than that old IMA system. If it could run on EV alone, the driver might not even need to use the clutch in traffic, though that might require a battery a bit too large.
Do I own a Hybrid? No. Would I buy one? Yes. CRV Hybrid will likely be my wife’s next car to replace…you guessed it, her old CRV.
People will only change their ways if:
1) The product is better (offers value or utility) that outweighs the old product
2) If the government forces it
As a proponent of capitalism, I prefer option 1. In my specific case, the CRV hybrid offers a lot of value in that it will do everything my current CRV does, but with more room, rear AC, safety, and 40MPG (with the added reliability of the NA powertrain that won’t have the issues that the 1.5T has).
With EV’s, for most people, the value is a harder proposition. Yes, it might be convenient to fuel up at home, but many people don’t have a garage or a space to fill up. Range anxiety is a thing. The depreciation, my gawd, the depreciation. For some people, they are peak daily drivers. For most, the infrastructure has to improve. Once they reduce the fill up time of an EV to 5-10 mins, they will take off in popularity.
Hybrids are a huge deal, and will be for some time. The “they’re a stopgap solution” argument against them makes literally no sense; that they’re the best solution given our current circumstances shouldn’t be considered a bad thing. -DT].
Of course they are a stop-gap solution. Issue is that the gap is still about 10 years until EVs catch up in all costs — prices and electricity costs in CA where the current (hah!) electricity rate (for me) is $0.25/kWh during off-peak Time-of-Use for vehicle charging (not sure how they figure out which watt-hour would go into my car and which won’t).
We have a hybrid, the Lexus ct200h (the “fancy Prius”). I see plenty of them around and the one we have is 12 years old. My wife drives it, though for her 2-mile commute she gets only 36mpg or so (electric won’t kick in until the engine is warm, so half the trip). Longer trips we get around 40mpg. At $4/gal, that’s $0.10 per mile. And it’s paid off. Next car might be a used EV so she can drive it to work while I drive the ct200h as a “daily” and road-tripper, and keep my Matrix for fun times and large/long-item hauling.
That sounds ideal. My Subaru’s mileage is meh, and my fun car’s reliability is currently questionable.
Good gas mileage daily and reliable fun car? Very nice.
I love hybrids! I’m on my 3rd Prius.
I think the portion on hydrogen in California is a bit misleading.
The quoted portion appears to be in reference to ARCHES, which is a federal-state program that creates a “Hydrogen Hub” in California that combines research and investment to foster growth in the hydrogen industry.
— This does not necessarily mean consumer cars. —
The part that Matt quotes specifically calls out more industrial and heavy transport applications. This is not a short-sighted pipe dream, either. In the Bay Area they already operate fuel cell buses (https://blog.bayareametro.gov/posts/ac-transit-secures-144-million-hydrogen-infrastructure-and-zero-emission-bus-fleet).
As someone who commutes via motorcycle behind these buses I can personally attest that they massively improve my quality of life. I don’t have fumes blowing right into my face or loud diesel engines ruining my hearing (I’d prefer my high-revving I4 do that thankyouverymuch). Bringing down the cost of fuel for these buses by investing in higher production benefits riders, townships that can’t currently afford FCEV buses, and the environment.
Matt, I think it would be better if your portion on hydrogen in CA considered more of this context.
Agree.
For high power demand applications hydrogen can make a lot more sense than batteries.
And diesel.
Yes, a 2004 Honda Insight with the 5 speed manual.
As much as I hate to admit it, probably a 2 Door Wrangler 4xe Rubicon.
To be frank the drivetrain setup is crap, and the fact you have to attach what amounts to an industrial sized power strip to the charging port to use the inverter to use 120v things is horrid, and it’s a Stellantis product.
That being said, If Jeep made it with the same range or better I’d seriously consider buying a 2 door 4xe Rubicon optioned with the factory Warn Winch, remove the doors and replace them with fabric ones, and drive it up the Rubicon Tail.
Besides a Wrangler 4xe every other hybrid I’d consider today would be a EREV.
That one Bronco Sport that China is getting would be pretty slick here in the US provided the little engine puts out enough power to meet the electricity needs of driving at US highway speeds. Whether we’ll get it in the US IDK, but EREVs are my preferred way to go.