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
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.