The U.S. market has seen Extended Range Electric Vehicles (EREVs) before. The BMW i3 was technically the first, though many consider the Chevy Volt the pioneer of the general concept. That concept being: You drive in electric mode until the battery dies, then a gas engine-generator charges the battery so you can go farther. But despite these two having existed in the U.S. market, we still have no idea how America is going to react to EREVs, which is wild to think about given that yet another automaker is looking to head that route according to a new report.
I was recently on a call with Bank of America’s senior analyst John Murphy, who was explaining to a group of journalists the contents of the company’s latest annual “Car Wars” market report. At the end of the call, I asked Murphy what his thoughts are on EREVs. Here’s what he replied:
“I think it’s an odd setup for a powertrain. I certainly think in some use cases — pickups and large SUVs, but in general I don’t think it’s going to become that pervasive.”
I’m not saying I think Murphy is wrong, but it seems to me that, at this point, it’s hard to know what’s going to happen. To be completely fair, I wrote “The Future Of The Auto Industry Is Electric, With A Gasoline Backup,” so I, too, am making guesses about how well the technology will do, but I have to admit that I just don’t know for sure.
What I do know is that the technology is awesome to live with day-to-day; I’ve been driving a BMW i3 Range Extender for years now, and it’s simply amazing. The reality is that America’s EV infrastructure isn’t good enough, and that people don’t want low-range EVs. As Murphy said on the all “[EV Range anxiety] is very real.” A Range Extender is a way to solve both problems without jamming a heavy, expensive battery under the floor.
I’m not the only one saying this; lots of automakers are heading down the EREV path. And I mean lots. Ford, Hyundai, Volkswagen, Jeep, Lotus, Scout, Ram and now BMW have indicated interest in bringing EREV technology to the marketplace.
I say “now” BMW, because there’s a new report from Automobilewoche that states that BMW — once the authority when it came to EREVs – has changed its mind on EREVs. From Automotive News:
BMW plans to revive its range extender technology, starting with a variant of the iX5 SUV, which is already in testing and could arrive in 2026, according to a report in Automotive News Europe sibling publication Automobilwoche.
The news signals a shift for BMW. In 2019 a leading executive was quoted as saying that there was “no future” for range extenders.
The comment came as BMW was looking to shift beyond its i3, which was offered as either a full-electric model or with a range extender in the early days of the transition to vehicles powered only by electricity. The aim of offering the system was to ease range anxiety.
The world watches as the Ram Ramcharger is expected to become the first EREV to enter the U.S. market since the BMW i3 bowed out in 2021. But the question is: How will it fare?
The BMW i3 and Chevy Volt were both relatively slow sellers, but we really shouldn’t draw any conclusions from that. Not only were these two vehicles part of a market segment that America just doesn’t care about anymore (small cars), but because they’re small cars they don’t really stand to benefit as much from EREV technology. Let’s be honest: The Volt and i3 would have probably been 40 MPG cars had they been powered solely by gas.
But as Murphy mentioned: Trucks and SUVs are a different ballgame. Getting an 18 MPG pickup truck to drive on electric power while offering significantly improved acceleration, plus plenty of range for towing — that’s a massive improvement for the buyer.
But at what cost?
That’s really the big question here. If I can buy a gasoline SUV for $40 grand, and — especially if EV tax credits go away as it seems they might — I have to spend $60 grand for an equivalent EREV, what’s the value to me as a consumer? Gasoline is fairly cheap, so it could take over a decade to make up $20 grand in fuel costs. Maintenance costs will help fill the gap, but it’ll take time, and I’m not sure any consumers think that far out. They want the car to bring them value now.
EREVs do promise to offer a cost advantage over full BEVs with similar capabilities (particularly in truck/SUV applications), so I can absolutely see them appealing to those who are already on the fence about buying a BEV. But will automakers actually price them below BEVs? I spoke with a Ram representative who said it’s possible they will price their EREV higher because technically it offers more performance than the BEV (basically, an EREV truck offers EV acceleration with gasoline truck-range: The best of all worlds — with maintenance being significantly less than a regular gas truck). I think not leveraging EV’s potential cost-savings over a BEV would be a mistake.
Then there’s the whole marketing element. EV diehards think EREVs are bad simply because they involve some amount of reliance on gasoline, and gasoline diehards basically just see EREVs as EVs (so many folks in the comments of Scout’s EREV social media posts say “This is cool, but too bad it’s electric!”). It will be challenging to solve that. Add to that the fact that “EREV” is just not sexy at all, and you’ve got a product with an uphill marketing battle. I’ve written about this before:
The term “EREV” needs to be out of the equation. It’s a jargon-y term, and it will not resonate with the public. I won’t pretend to know what the answer is exactly, but I’ve come up with a few fun terms. “Long-range plug-in hybrid” is one option. “Gasoline-Assisted EV” is another. The common thread between these two is: I don’t think shying away from the fact that gasoline is involved is the move. I think many people find comfort in gasoline propulsion, and using a name that implies there’s gasoline is a good thing.
We can look at the success of EREVs in China, but I don’t think we really have a great analog right now that helps us understand how EREVs are going to do stateside. Maybe we can look at plug-in hybrids? But PHEVs are not the same, and as I’ve written, their limited EV range has held them back. Toyota is still heading down the PHEV path, but it’s planning to crank up the range, per CNBC:
“We are going to grow our PHEV volume through the lineup over the next few years,” David Christ, head of the Toyota brand in North America, told CNBC during a visit to the company’s North American headquarters. “We love the PHEV powertrain. We’re working to increase, perpetually increase, the amount of miles you can drive on EV-only range.”
Company sources said Toyota plans to increase PHEVs from 2.4% of its U.S. sales volume last year to roughly 20% by 2030. However, they said that could change based on regulations, customer acceptance of electrified technologies and affordability, among other factors.
Toyota has been right about a lot of things, so I could see higher-range PHEVs catching on, and if so, I could see EREVs doing the same (note that the path to higher-range PHEVs is one that automakers, including Toyota, are traveling carefully). But there are just so many factors in play — fuel prices, EV incentives, marketing, product execution, infrastructure developments, MSRPs and on and on.
With so many factors in play, it just makes it that much more important for automakers to make a great product. Build an excellent vehicle that meets customers’ needs and exceeds their expectations, at a price that they feel is competitive with vehicles that offer similar performance, and I believe it will sell. All this potential confusion about how EREVs work and infrastructure implications and EV incentives and cost savings over gas cars and on and on can largely be thrown out the window if you can get the world to think your vehicle is extremely badass and a good value.
I’m rooting for EREVs solely because I want others to experience the unmatched combination of EV performance and gasoline convenience that I get to enjoy everyday while driving my BMW i3. But in truth, I don’t know how it’s going to shake out; I don’t think anyone really knows at this point.
Top Image: Scout
I think a range extenders should be an option on new Camping Trailers, then they can feed into an EV that would be towing it. Possible run it as a cable through the harness.
EREVs are much better than phevs. Phevs only deliver a subset of the vehicles’ hp and torque when in electric mode and rely on the extra ice to get full power. In addition, the phevs I’ve seen seem to limited to 25-50 miles EV only range on a good day. Not really enough especially when the weather is cold.
EREVs are all electric all the time. Always have full hp and torque. The EREVs I see on the way may have ~100 miles or more battery range but the battery is probably half the size and weight of a full EV. In addition the drive train simple with just the electric motor and maybe reduction gears. The ice + generator if done right will be optimized for max efficiency at best generating speed and should also be simpler than a full range ICE. ( I am hoping to see a rotary range extender like the omega one, Mazda Doritos, or some other small power plant).
The EREVs will appeal to anyone who is limited to a single vehicle that will be able to comfortably handle daily all battery commutes as well occasional longer road trips. The smaller battery would probably do just fine with level 1 charging overnight making the EREV the best choice for many more households than full EVs.
Honestly once you have an ev ( or EREV ) you WILL have an epiphany the first time you buzz past your usual gas station. That’s when it really hits. 10 seconds to plug in when you get home and 10 seconds to unplug in the morning when you drive off. Soon you’ll always be charging (ABC).
God I want a Mazda Iconic EREV 🙂
https://static0.carbuzzimages.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/mazda-iconic-sp-concept-tokyo-mobility-show-1-1.jpg
The PHEV limitations you listed are not inherent limitations, but choices. There’s no additional physical limitations preventing PHEVs from having bigger batteries or more EV power like EREVs, but they were cost saving choices that the PHEV architecture allows. In places where EV components are cheaper, long range PHEVs have appeared that are better than similar EREVs, like the Lynk & Co 900. It has a 1.5T, ~50kWh battery, and similar kW motors as its EREV competitors, but can output 710hp instead of the EREV’s 440hp due to the engine and all motors driving the wheels. It is also priced cheaper than those competitors which have equal access to subsidies.
I think it’s great transition technology and would definitely opt for an EREV over a massive battery equipped EV. I know most of my driving would be exclusively on battery, but for those infrequent longer trips or hauls, a gas generator delivers great value and flexibility.
As for what to call them, I’d go with Genny. It’s easy to remember, works as a diminutive of generator and also is a reference to a jenny – a female donkey- which is appropriate as these cars have a small donkey engine to augment the electrics. I suppose you could spell it Geni, which sort of implies a magical means to extend car range. Ram Genny (or Geni) sounds good to me.
The key word is in the second to last paragraph – confusion.
That said, if say Ford had made an EREV F150 instead of the Lightning to start, I’m guessing it would be far more successful at this point in time. I’m personally wondering if by the time the manufacturers get EREVs on the market, they will be so late to the game that a few years later new battery tech will just make them largely obsolete. Or if given current politics, everything will just stagnate.
If by “new battery tech” you mean the combination of increase battery energy density, much faster charging AND the charging infrastructure, I think you might be right about a rapid obsolescence of EREVs. Without at least the last two, EREVs will be around for longer.
Increase battery energy density may not be needed for most people. However, people towing with a BEV will still opt for an EREV simply to avoid have to stop for electrons every hour.
The thing is when Ford designed the F-150’s hybrid system they had planned to offer a PHEV version as well. Then of course the precevied consumer sentiment and looming regulations made them decide to ditch it and go all in on pure EV. I do think if they would have done a 40-50 mi range F-150 PHEV it would sell better than the Lightning and would have cost much less to develop.
I’d buy that PHEV F-150. That would be perfect for my use, the Lightning doesn’t interest me do to limited range while towing.
This.
I will say I’m totally in for an EREV for our next car, we live in Manhattan, and most of our driving is 50 miles or under, PHEV wasn’t a thing for us cause we can’t charge it but moving around 100 miles on battery then continuing on for our long trips seems ideal!
obs we would figure out the plugin part by then (new garage or something)
I would assume some people will use EREVs just like a ICE car, only using gas and never plugging them in.
That is my big question about the technology. Can one drive on gas alone for days and days without ever plugging them in. Could I take some SUV EREV like the scout. Drive to a trail on electric and then trail ride and off road for as along as my gas supply lasts or I can find an occasional near trail gas station?
Totally. You absolutely can drive one for days and days on gasoline. Whatever is most convenient; plug it in if you have a plug at home or at your rest stop, otherwise don’t.
Thank you! That was a big question because the language in the press material is about total range gas and electric and not much about the use of the ICE range extender. Thank you !!
“I would assume some people will use EREVs just like a ICE car, only using gas and never plugging them in.”
Depending on local energy costs gas can be cheaper than plugging in. Still if that person were coming off a pure ICE vehicle it’d still likely be a win for the environment.
The thing is IF you chose to pay more for a PHEV or EREV than a standard hybrid you will plug it in as frequently as you can.
As far as driving it w/o charging that all depends on just how well the system has been implemented. Something like the i3 Rex was designed to be torturous to drive on gas so you wouldn’t. The specs given so far for the RAM indicate that yes you could drive it like a gas vehicle and it would perform more or less like the V6 gas truck, only using more fuel to do so.
If you have access to a 120v ac outlet, my guess is a level-1 charger will be enough to top off most EREVs overnight (50-100 mile range). They should have much smaller batteries compared to full EVs.
The sea-change occurs when you drive an electric vehicle past your favorite gas station. That’s the moment when you ‘get it’. Once you get it you don’t want to go back to filling up the tank and you’re much more likely to plug in when you get home and unplug in the morning fully topped’ off.
I’m a big fan of the EREV concept. I think it is a much better way to go than PHEV (see my comment above), and for those that are don’t want to deal with charging issues on long road trips, the EREV provides the ease and security of just going to a gas station when needed.
We’ve had hybrids and EVs (no PHEVs yet). At first I thought the EVs would be our 2nd car but within a couple if days the EV became our much prefered go-to for any trip less than 200 miles or so. EREVs promise the efficiency and instant torque/power of EVs for MOST trips, and the ease and security of dino-fueling for longer road trips. Great for one-vehicle house holds with access to at least a 120v plug. They can’t come soon enough.
I understand the 2026/7 Rouge will offer an EREV as well as the RAM and SCOUTs. Ford needs to offer a Ranger/Maverick EREV to compete.. and the Hyundai/Kia group needs to offer some if their models EREV as well. My dream EREV is a Mazda RX VISION/COUPE or the Mazda Iconic. I’d be first in line screaming “shut up and take my money!” if they made the silver coupe into production (reminds me of an SR71)…
https://news.mazdausa.com/image/04_vision_coupe_ext_fq-325×160.jpg
Would the original Mitsubishi Outlander PHEV be considered an EREV? I am thinking it had some sort of convoluted system that actually applied engine spinning to the wheels somehow but for the most part, I believe the engine existed to be a generator for the electric motors.
Yes the Outlander’s ICE drives the wheels mechanically so it is a PHEV as they call it.
Not an EREV. A PHEV. PHEVs have a combination electric + ICE drivetrain. When in all electric mode you ONLY have the HP and torque of the (puny) electric motor. For the full spec power, you need both the electric and ICE engines driving the wheels at the same time. PHEVs are lower power and most have rather crappy all-electric range.
EREVs are ONLY electric drive. You always have all the spec’d power and all that glorious instant torque. The electric motor is the ONLY thing connected to the drive train. The ICE engine is separate and coupled NOT to a transmission, but ONLY to a generator. It nly kicks in to add a charge to the batteries w and/or provide power to the electric motor ONCE the batteries are low (after all battery 100-150 mile range).
The battery is much lighter and smaller than a pure EV, the drivetrain is simpler (no conventional transmission), and the ICE engine/generator is (hopefully) compact and optimized for best efficiency single speed RPM).
The only electric that has impressed me so far is the original Honda Insight.
Built light and efficient and very tough.
Three cylinder gas engine plus battery.
Very serviceable other than it really doesn’t work unless all batteries function.
EREV does sound weird. Just call them long-range hybrids or something.
We already have the right term – “Plug-in Hybrid”. It is a hybrid, that you can plug in. The window sticker gives the range. Very few buyers care about more than:
Battery kWh, series / parallel modes, charge depleting or sustaining – just technical mumbo jumbo.
Yup the majority of buyers don’t understand any of that and have no interest in knowing it.
EREVs and PHEVs aren’t the same thing, though. An EREV is an “electric car.” A PHEV is a hybrid.
How do you figure a vehicle that can be driven 100% on gasoline is not a hybrid?
The difference between a PHEV and EREV is a clutch to connect the engine physically to the transaxle. The rest is just a sliding scale of engine size vs motor size vs battery size. Those are details that most buyers simply do not care about.
EREV’s pickups are the ultimate solution for people who live in the city and tow on the weekends.
They’re great for people in the country too. Most PHEVs have too short a range for a lot of rural commutes to be all electric and there are a lot of places that you can get to, but not back from, with a pure EV. An EREV truck would let me consolidate my EV and old gas truck into one vehicle.
It’s likely my age, and what I’m comfortable maintaining, but I won’t even consider anything made after 2017. I have a relatively current smartphone and laptop and consider them disposable after 5 years. Any vehicle that is “software defined” strikes me the same way. One good thing about being at the very end of the baby boomers time frame is that a lot of the early boomers have stopped driving and their sweet pampered garage queens are being put on market by disinterested relatives!
You speak wisdom. I picked up a sweet Lexus for one of my grandkids at a bargain price. Had been sitting for a year as the house was cleaned out, fixed up, and put on the market.
Man I’m only 48 and this is my vibe as well
Look I really like these things as a self-professed powertrain nerd. Having so many configurations and options is cool to me from a technical perspective.
But…I think the BoA guy might be ultimately correct that they won’t be mainstream. It doesn’t change the current situation where the average person just isn’t interested in paying a premium for something with objectively less capability on the axes they care about. You’re spot on: 20k buys a whole lot of gas and oil changes.
Changing this will require some kind of charging or battery breakthrough and I just don’t see it on the horizon. These kinds of things are usually a multi-decade grind to get into production; engineering is the hard part, not the discovery or the theory. Either that or batteries getting hugely cheaper. This has, of course, been happening for a while now but again, slow and steady when it comes to automotive batteries it seems.
We’d have to get from “this does 80-90% of the things your gas car does, for 20k more” to “this does 80-90% of the things your gas car does, for 20k less”.
A lot of this was kinda talking about BEVs I guess, but the point was that the average person isn’t going to see the point of EREVs because they don’t see the point of BEVs. EREV fills in the gaps of EVs, but the average person doesn’t care because they could just buy a gas car that has none of those issues in the first place (for less money)
Indeed!
Glad you got something out of my mildly coherent rambling haha. Anyway good article DT – I’m with ya on EREVs being cool and sensible
I think that a certain number of people who experienced the 80s-10s advancement of consumer electronics seem to think that batteries are going to follow the same trajectory. There’s no reason to think they will. Li-ion tech has been in continuous development since the 1960s to get to where it is now. It took 20 years to be commercialized and 20 more to hit consumer products. We’ve seen the prices fall a bit faster in the last 10 years due to some economies of scale, but take a look at the cell and pack cost curves and it’s clear they’re moving into the realm of diminishing returns.
Volt owner here, love the car and the fact that I can commute to the office on EV power only and then drive 300+ miles and refill in a few minutes when I’m on the road doing service calls. It’s a win/win as a DD and fits all my needs, so I love EREV’s and their potential.
That being said, I’ve always checked what it would take to my road trips with ABRP and other apps and adding a full EV into my job wouldn’t be difficult, just slightly longer stops for charging (I get paid by the hour anyway!) and leaving a little earlier for same day jobs. Not the end of the world for me.
However, I know that lifestyle change would one day suck. A long day at a customer site, a 3 hour drive home, and I have to pull off the highway and hope the charger I pull up to works and wait 15-30 minutes? Yuck.
That’s why I pre-ordered the Scout with the ER engine. If I can do 200+ miles and have enough gas power to get me home? I’m cool with that! Besides, when I do rural jobs the hotels don’t have chargers and my only option might be a dealership who isn’t keen on letting me charge or moving one of their showroom models out of the way for me.
I think the Scout will be my stepping stone to the EV world with the hopes that chargers continue to grow in availability and reliability (looking at you, Walmart EV project!) across the underserved parts of the nation. I imagine buying a new Scout I can go 5-7 years, pay it off, and decide at that point if a full EV is the choice for me.
Yeah, between the bench seat and the range extender, the Scout Traveller jumped to the top of our “next vehicle” list.
In the United States, the EV is being made into the boogeyman. Most normal folk don’t consider hybrids to be anything like EV since there’s no plug. Most PHEV owners likely don’t even plug them in, so same thing there. They are not analagous.
If the Volt didn’t have a battery, it’d be the Cruze, the BMW i3 without a battery would be a higher tech Mini (I know it isn’t but you know what I mean) so yeah probably good gas mileage anyway.
Most people who like their current EVs and understand them likely have zero interest in anything with an ICE, including (or especially) EREV. They certainly aren’t interested in spending more to potentially find out that the resale market may be limited or scared of the concept. American car shoppers aren’t on the whole particularly well educated about what they are buying and American car dealers are pathetic when it comes to being able to explain stuff like this. The sales guy at Ram is likely going to be FAR more interested in just selling another Ram 2500 Cummins than explaining how an EREV works. Just like they couldn’t (or wouldn’t) explain EV.
Most people who like their current ICE aren’t likely interested in spending more to save a little in gas especially if their own charging infrastructure isn’t there and they are forced to charge not at home for more money. I’m not sure a big RAM EREV could fit into most garages to charge anyway, most trucks around here are not garaged. And if it costs more than either EV or ICE, then most people will just choose one or the other.
You guys like EREV because you understand it and are technically minded as well as being into cars and maybe have a little bit of a blinder thing going on, like with timing belts (what’s so hard about being able to preschedule a timing belt change at a specific mileage interval? You aren’t complaining about regularly scheduled oil changes). The population as a whole isn’t techy and just wants a good value and an affordable monthly payment. And nobody “in charge” has any real interest in changing the status quo much, never mind which party, Biden did just as much damage a few years back when he simply ignored Tesla and called GM the EV market leader because he was pandering to the union and extracted more oil than anyone else in the US ever.
I wouldn’t trust RAM, VW, Jeep, Scout, Lotus (really?), or BMW to really be able to create an efficient, reliable, and durable EREV that combine two full-fledged expensive systems the way they do. Your BMW already has several severe “gotcha” issues that don’t need to be there (the AC system killer?) and anything else from BMW won’t be affordable.
EVs work for many people, gasoline/diesel for others. Neither is interested in spending more for a bit more perhaps niche capability. People who tow are already decently served, but far more people do not tow and are also well served. Your i3 is perfect for you as an EREV only because the battery is so small and it’s a commuter car for you. For what you do with it you could easily find a used EV with good range, so no need for a range extender in the first place. If you want to drive to Seattle for example you’ll just take your wife’s car, no way are you taking the i3.
The ONLY way they might remotely work is if they don’t cost more (but why wouldn’t they?) The only reason PHEVs are a semi-success is because of the tax credits that often make them cheaper than pure ICE or regular hybrids, many (most?) people are just buying the cheapest option. Once the credit goes away, you have to be a real believer or understand the math and do the calculations for a PHEV to see if any increase in price is worthwhile.
It’s a band-aid dead end with more cost, more maintenance, and more potential failure points.
I appreciate the comment; there are some good thoughts there, but the blinders thing wasn’t necessary. My job as a journalist is to be able to see beyond my own personal interests, and I think I do that well, addressing your very point in my linked article:
I’m well aware of the challenges, and have enumerated them multiple times.
I don’t agree about the maintenance thing being a major issue, necessarily. My i3 has been wonderful; I change the engine oil every 2 years and that’s it. And every CARB state has a 15 year, 150,000 mile warranty on the major components, which is unmatched in the industry. Some companies will screw it up, I’m sure, but relative to a full ICE car with a transmission and driveline, an EREV is a theoretical improvement and shouldn’t require a ton of maintenance. Again, if done right. Someone will screw it up, I’m sure.
I absolutely could just buy an all-electric i3 and it would work, but I’m not interested in one, because — like many of the people driving expensive 300+ mile EVs around when they really need a much cheaper battery 1/3 the size — I want that extra padding there. Car buying isn’t rational, and people want more capability than they need; ignoring that is an automaker’s downfall.
EREVs are great to live with and relatively easy to maintain, but if the price isn’t right, and if you can’t get the market to understand them, and if you can’t break into those EV-Only/Anti-EV groups, yeah, it’s going to be tough. Plenty of roadblocks here, as you note.
I apologize if you took the blinder thing too seriously, I did temper it by saying “a bit of a…” 🙂 My impression and perhaps it is incorrect is that overall you guys believe that of all the various ways to power a vehicle, the EREV is the best and most obvious way to do things. But maybe I’m reading it wrong, I believe the cost thing is going to put a big damper on the party and perhaps simply don’t understand how or why it would be on par with what’s currently available. Batteries ARE getting cheaper every day, and EV maintenance couldn’t really be any lower. Yes I do understand that the ICE part is more a generator than a full second drivetrain but it’s still a major expense that has to be physically accommodated in terms of space, weight, cooling etc and carried around and if never used will atrophy. Not everyone is good about maintenance schedules or following them especially if they don’t really make use of the component in question. The opposite is more true really, most people do what they need to do but usually ignore stuff until it breaks..
The second part is something I do hear regularly, the “expensive 300 mile range EV”, I don’t see low to mid 30s as overly expensive (more and more EVs (Equinox etc) fall into this bracket especially if considering OTHER markets besides ours, not when normal ICE cars are often FAR more than that (and EVS can be too, I know), but I see it as a bit of a canard, as I don’t really see many EREVs coming to market under $30k. You yourself likely don’t need 300+ miles of range almost ever, you need what you need plus maybe double it AND while charging can suck, if its only ever used in an emergency, i.e. a couple times a year, then it’s not a big deal, so in your case if you commute to Galpin or wherever and back home across the hill that’s what, about 75 miles RT. 200 miles of range fits you probably very well, and if you have a super heavy day where you took the EV you CAN charge it, just prefer not to have to.
The long warranty is great, and if it pays out excellent, the problem (at least in part) is people trade their cars in, the used car is now cheaper and a lesser investment for the new buyer, and not everyone is going to do whatever maintenance may be required for an automaker to honor that warranty without quibbling. I fully expect that automakers will soon add a clause (just like Mopar I believe has with their “lifetime” extra warranty option when I looked into it some time ago) that states that if the market value of the vehicle is below the repair cost of any covered issue, the maker has the option to just pay you for the car and take it. GM is unlikely going to want to replace a $20k battery on a $5K market value 2017 Bolt with 140,000 miles on it. Sooner or later they will all wise up and add verbiage, then it becomes more of a crapshoot, not a golden ticket to perpetual motion. Ram may have just changed their truck warranty to 10yrs/100k miles, but now some of those components are going to be forced to be covered for another 5 years/50k on top of that in an EREV situation, Ram is going to have to do some hard math and isn’t going to want to be uncompensated for that risk.
You are absolutely correct that people want and do buy more than they need. I’m not convinced that people will necessarily PAY for that though when there is something else that does it as well today available for likely less money. In the end it probably will be heavily price related as to success or failure. People buy more than they need but they don’t often pay more than they need to to get the same result, in which case an EREV Ram shouldn’t cost more than a regular gas or diesel Ram which for all intents and purposes already has unlimited range. And I’m VERY much pro-EV in case that wasn’t clear.
Thank you for your answer, I do appreciate the conversation!
Our staff has various opinions on powertrains; as for me, I do not believe in a “best and most obvious” powertrain, as I think it’s entirely application/customer dependent.
For me personally? A Rex is perfect. I can charge at home, which means I really don’t need a range of more than 150 miles in any given day, but I want more range to cover edge cases. For that, I’m happy to have a relatively light, cheap little gas motor compared to an extra 50 kWh of battery. That rex comes in clutch when I walk outside in the morning and see I forgot to charge the night before, or for the rare time I have to drive more than those 150 miles and really don’t want to plug into a sometimes-finicky and expensive fast charger. I think it’s a great setup for lots of people, but BEV and ICE and hybrid also works great for many.
As for the cost-savings potential of an EREV, that becomes clearer when looking at larger vehicles with high Vehicle Demand Energies and especially towing capabilities. As you look at smaller vehicles, and as you consider advancements in battery tech, that potential benefit of EREV tech fades.
As for maintenance, an EREV will be significantly easier to maintain than a gas or hybrid vehicle, especially if the driver is able to charge at home or at work and thus not use the Rex often (if designed properly, it’ll run itself to avoid problems associated with infrequent use). I do agree that many people will not follow maintenance schedules.
I also agree that the Equinox EV, which starts at $33,600 before incentive, is impressive.
^Agreed 100%.
I don’t agree with this bit^; people pay lots of money for the extra range in their Rivian R1Ts and F-150 Lightnings — range that they basically never use.
The reality is that EREVs can be better for the environment than BEVs, in part because they are theoretically more palatable to a larger number of people (many of whom have concerns about EV infrastructure or are otherwise just not ready to rely entirely on the plug), in part because EREVs need fewer battery resources to cover customers’ “edge case” range wishes, in part because they can theoretically be cheaper in some instances, and in part because they can theoretically be lighter (and thus offer a lower VDE if you use AGS properly to counter the added cooling drag).
A lot of it is theory, and it’s going to come down to execution/pricing/ marketing, else this technology could find itself in no-man’s-land between EVs and ICEs.
It’s going to be interesting to see how it shakes out. I think it’s an uphill battle for sure.
Thanks, I think we are closer on opinion than I originally thought. I’m just more of a pessimist, mainly based on seeing how a minority (if very vocal) can easily drag things down with untruths and negative spin. I also don’t know if the current players working on this are best positioned to make it succeed at scale. Toyota or Honda may have a better chance of mainstreaming it if they were interested simply based on their reputation for their stuff generally working well for a long time with minimal maintenance and unscheduled repairs.
In regard to paying for range, both the Rivian and Lightning with extra range though are quite expensive, i.e. quite above the “mass-market” which is where this needs to succeed to have a chance of taking off. Just like EVs (and anything else really) need to be more affordable rather than less to succeed beyond the early adopters that can swing the cost.
I was interested in your statement that EREV is less beneficial in smaller vehicles, precisely the vehicles where it’s really been used (i3 and Volt) to date. I hadn’t really noted that before. Yes there is surely a better use case for it on larger (and tow) vehicles and the comments here show lots of people that say they would go for the EREV over the EV, none of them though said if they would go for it over the gas or diesel version if it were more expensive than those currently are. I.e. would they pay more for a large EV over a large gas or diesel truck (while there have obviously been some sales, I think we agree that for various reasons, EV trucks have NOT really taken off as manufacturers hoped for or expected), perhaps not, but would they pay more for an EREV version of the same, nobody said so. But there were a few (logical) arguments that any way you look at it, an EREV does offer more capability than a pure EV, so why would any maker price it on par or even less than an EV or an ICE only vehicle.
It will be interesting to see when (if?) these make it to market and how they are positioned. My fear is partly in that they will hold back EV development in this country to an even greater degree, but I suppose that ship has sailed for at least the next half decade no matter what happens.
“what’s so hard about being able to preschedule a timing belt change at a specific mileage interval? You aren’t complaining about regularly scheduled oil changes”
Some of us do our own maintainance. I change my own oil in about 15 minutes for about $25. There’s only two self lubricating bolts to remove (the filter is basically a bolt) they’re never rusted or overtorqued on and I don’t even have to jack up the car. I buy the oil/filter at Wal-Mart as part of my normal shopping and put the used oil and filter out by the curb for pickup. There’s not much to complain about.
The last time I did a timing belt was almost 20 years ago. It wasn’t too bad but it took a few hours, cost a lot more and there were a lot of awkward bolts, belts, gaskets, etc to remove. Since then I’ve had cars with timing chains and haven’t had to mess with the timing systems at all, even at mileages where I’d have had to replace 2 maybe 3 belts.
So put me in team timing chain.
Good for you! The point was, which you knew, is it’s hardly an unanticipated repair/procedure. You know about it from day one, can plan and budget for it and if necessary take it into consideration from a budgetary perspective when purchasing the vehicle and comparing costs to another.
I change my own oil as well on the cars that need it done. As you said, not difficult, not expensive. Still time I’d rather spend doing something else or nothing at all. Probably like you in regard to timing belts.
Thanks. My point was I did plan for it by buying cars with timing chains so I could schedule belt replacement for “never”.
“Most PHEV owners likely don’t even plug them in, so same thing there.”
If the person made a conscious decision and actually payed more to get a PHEV they likely plug it in. However there are a lot of exceptions, for a while you had to custom order non-PHEV versions of some Jeeps in some states. That meant people bought them because it was what was on the lot. In CA a PHEV used to be a free ticket to the car pool lane and for some people that could save a lot of time. That meant people bought them that didn’t have the ability to charge at home, so yeah a lot of those PHEVs weren’t regularly if ever plugged in. Ditto for those euro company cars that were purchased as a tax break and the employer provided a gas card and no chargers at work.
The Tesla sports car was built on a modified Lotus Elise chassis, in spite of denials by Tesla of the obvious.
They should have been bragging about using Lotus engineering.
True, but the Lotus Elise itself didn’t even use an engine made by Lotus, dropping in Rover and Toyota engines depending on the market they were sold in and when. I’ll give Lotus credit for lots of things including overall engineering and chassis knowledge expertise, but not for historically creating a complete and reliable package using all in-house components which would include a powertrain. Perhaps the newest generation of Lotus EVs are different in that regard, but I think are still too new to tell as of yet.
Tesla did all of the electric components.
I think using the Lotus was the only brilliant thing Tesla has done.
That’s why I’m so baffled they denied it.
The Lotus version was gas powered.
Didn’t stop someone from asking a Lotus owner how they liked their Tesla, WHILE they were filling it with petrol!
I think this works better in the context of looking at all of the potential drive train design benefits. A lot of heavy equipment like ships, locomotives, earth movers etc. already employ electric drive supplied by generators. The benefits are many, including motor control, torque, running the ICE component at a constant efficient RPM, etc.
This might be hard to scale down sensibly for most passenger vehicles, but for work trucks would actually be a benefit. For instance, hub motors have their good and bad characteristics. The good being individual control of power delivery at the wheel (i.e. simplicity, torque vectoring, different surface conditions, even manoeuvrability like crab walking). These are desirable features for many work vehicles. The downside to hub motors is unsprung weight and size, but since buyers in this class are already fully erect for the biggest heaviest wheels and tires that’ll make em’ look like a real man, it’s probably not that big an issue.
Like Project Farm like to say.. Let’s Find Out! Get the product to market and let the consumer decide if it is worth it.
Most people – and frankly, it’s “most people” that drive drive the market – don’t know or care about the mechanical bits of their vehicles.
Is it a CVT or a conventional, geared automatic transmission? They don’t care, they just move the shifter to “D” and drive. How often do you see used cars for sale with “V-4” engines? Et cetera.
I also have to believe that “most people” don’t want to change the way they think about fueling their vehicles. Put gas in, and drive until the needle says “E”. That’s why “regular” hybrid vehicles sell in droves. As soon as you tell them they have to do something outside of “normal”, including plugging it in, their eyes glaze over.
Tis true.
I would historically like to say this might have been true with motorcycles but the significant population of large parallel twins seems to tilt the balance that people care less about what engine configuration have – and more about the overall package. Otherwise we’d still see more VFRs on the road.
But once this comes to V8s, it seems there’s a rabid and vocal group of people that take it as a personal assault not to have the option (whether or not they actually own a vehicle with the requisite number of cylinders). Ford, however, is showing that group isn’t actually all that large.
I don’t know about Ford. I think (at least anecdotally) I’m seeing FAR more SuperDutys than I used to and they ONLY come with V8s, gas or diesel.
Add to that that Ford doesn’t break out F150 vs F-Series as a whole sales so who really knows if those people have moved to the heavier trucks just or at least partially because of the V8s.
I think EREV is just too wonky to work. I’d like to see something that your average customer can easily understand. IMHO, something that leverages present terms like “PHEV+” seems ideal.
Disagree. Couldn’t be easier. If you have access to a 120 (or 220v) outlet at home just take 10 seconds to plug it in when you come home and 10 seconds to unplug it when you leave. Anyone who has a EV will tell you it’s great to ‘top off’ at home every night (for us it’s about 1/3 the cost of equivalent gas) and it’s a no-brainer once you do it you won’t want to go back. The EREVs still have a gas gauge and like any ICE if you run low on gas to tank up conventionally.
I believe that a practical EREV (not a PHEV) with at least 100 miles of range is going to be the PREFERED vehicle for most drivers with access to a plug.
We have an EV and an ICE Hybrid here at home (Bolt, Maverick) – that’s 2 cars to insure. If I could have gotten a EREV Maverick I’d gladly sell off the Bolt and use it for all our local and road trips. EREVs are the best of both worlds, especially if you don’t drive more than 100 miles a day.
I was entirely talking about the term “EREV”. Electric would be the ideal motivator for an off-road vehicle, with its instant torque, etc. as long as it doesn’t run out of spark.
I’ve seen electric golf carts used extensively off-road with the light Honda eus strapped to the front or back.
Love that! Sounds like a blast
The Ram Ramcharger: The only truck available with Freedom Power! From the oil fields of Texas to the coal mines of West Virginia, the Ramcharger is the only truck that can run on any type of American energy!
The marketing campaign practically writes itself.
But the vast midwest plains and PA mountian wind farms are taboo. I’m strongly considering installing solar when I need a new roof. Honestly, it’s the roof holding me back.
They can publicly feel good about their truck running on corn ethanol and electricity from natural gas fracking while secretly enjoying the wind farm electricity.
It’s gold.
EREV (not its real name).
I definitely think public acceptance hinges on not being too tech-forward. Manual door handles, minimal styling distinctions-without-a-difference from IC and “normal” hybrid and even an analog speedometer should all be on the table for any foray into this.
A lot of this, I daily a 2014 Camry hybrid. I get phenomenal fuel milage, but it acts like a normal car. My daughter just bought a 2008 Prius. This thing is a little space ship, a step above a Corolla in quality but with a lot of unique features for no actual benefit.
The 2008 Prius is a “space ship”. I had a 2005 and a 2009 and thought of them as just a basic economy car. They were anvil reliable, roomy, got great fuel economy, and were dog slow and boring to drive. The only thing odd I can think of was the little joystick to shift.
The little joystick shifter comes to mind first. It also has screen based climate control, my Camry has a seperate manual display.
I have my reservation in for a Terra with the range extender. I see that as the best option for the way the Mrs. and I take road trips.
I have a reservation too. The two groups I think will be the happiest are road trippers and mountain athletes.
I’d love a truck right now—but I can’t justify a pure recreation vehicle and I can’t justify the inefficiency of trucks when most of what it’s doing is commuting. So I have an Outback, which is I think is about the center of the efficiency/capability curve. Electric only won’t do in the mountains, it drains too fast going up and there will never be charging at the trailhead. I am very hopeful about the series hybrid scout.
I wish GM was more serious with electrification and brought us PHEV across the board, at least for their bigger models. Voltec was the perfect technology for this, thats the reason my Chevy Volt will be driven until the wheels fall off. They did fall once when they stole my wheels, insurance totaled it, it went to copart and 6 months later was available for sale and I bought it back lol
I think range extenders are a good happy medium and could lead to more widespread EV adoption. Ideally, it would be nice to see them capable of using more alternative fuels, like bamboo-based ethanol. Bamboo requires much fewer resources to produce and has rapid growth and yield.
I’ll take mine in a martini glass with a splash of olive brine and call it a dirty, filthy panda.
The plebeian models will tell us a lot, especially if Toyota can get more of the new PHEV RAVs into the hands of the general public without all these supply shortages of the current RAV and Prius Prime models.
The reason I say this is that so many pickups fall into the category of emotional or irrational purchase, even lifestyle accessories. But if you have a big enough sample size of everyday people who are able to choose between hybrid, EV, and PHEV models of very similar cars, then we’ll at least be able to take the temperature of the market as a whole. People are collectively pretty rational, and normal/boring cars are bought with a lot more concern for cost/benefit.
Smart.
I never really understood this forced division of “hybrids” from “EREV”. EREVs are the ultimate hybrids.
Creating this artificial line based on “what moves the wheels” is mkt bs that hurts more than helps
Yeah, it always struck me as weird, too. It’s just an extra, redundant marketing name for plug-in hybrids. If you want to be super-specific, they’re plug-in series hybrids. But the end user doesn’t care much if it’s a Prius-like series-parallel implementation, or the Volt variant of that with extra clutches, or a through-the-road implementation, or a series-only implementation… it’s a car that you can plug in and charge, which can drive for a while with no gas and then use gas when needed.
Thank you, most people can’t tell you if their car is front or rear wheel drive, how many gears are in its transmission, etc.
Trying to differentiate PHEV from EREV is foolish IMO.
“Hybrid” and “plug in hybrid” are common terms that make sense and no more complication is necessary for the lay person.
Yeah, I think maybe just calling them plug-in hybrids is the move.
The only downside is that crappy PHEVs (i.e. the vast majority of today’s PHEVs) have soured the name. And the significant maintenance benefits of EREVs get lost in the naming, but it’s probably still the move.
I’m not as up on things as you guys are, but is the plug in hybrid name tarnished? Curious for your thoughts as to why? It seems like Toyota sells the most and they are pretty good products?
I know the article in your link mentions low EV range, but is that really stopping people from buying them? Again, my experience is that Toyota can’t keep stuff like the RAV4 PHEV on lots.
Ultimately I think the distinction is lost on people if it’s a car you mostly plug in but fill with gas occasionally. And whatever is ultimately driving the wheels will be lost in the sea of normie car ignorance. A 100 mile EREV will be seen as an improvement on a 40 mile PHEV but ultimately the “same thing”.
I thonk the reason why their name is ‘tarnished’ is that most PHEVs can’t comfortably complete daily driving on a single overnight charge, as the RAV4 has 42mi EPA which is roughly the average commute length in the US. Additionally, PHEVs can be too slow for some in EV mode since their full peak power output is ICE+EV, but this definitely varies by vehicle; the RAV4 is fine in this case but something like the CX-90 PHEV only has 91hp in EV mode. EREVs are guaranteed to solve the latter issue because the power output is only from the motor and battery (ICE power doesn’t stack on top of battery output). I also think
Personally, I think PHEVs are slightly better than EREVs *assuming the manufacturer can build a competent & reliable transmission*. Current PHEV’s limitations are cost related choices, not inherent issues. EREVs are arguably a bit wasteful because the ICE and generator motor cannot contribute to total peak power, and have worse transmission efficiency. I think the poor reputation is mostly in the eyes of car enthusiasts in general, plus the random average person who once got curious about a Ford Fusion Energi 10 years ago at the dealership and balked at the price and range.
I think there’s a few reasons why Toyota PHEVs are perpetually sold out:
– They’re the best PHEVs available
– Toyota only supplies enough PHEVs to meet their CAFE numbers & other requirements
– Toyota models have low average inventory in general because they sell very well
– Normies assume Toyota does ‘unknown’ new tech well due to their good reputation; people are quite surprised to learn that Toyota EVs aren’t very good, for example
Don’t be modest, David. He’s some guy working for a bank, but you’re a guy whose whole job is to know cars. Your perspective is probably better informed than his.
What the guy working at a bank has going for him and his opinion though is that he is a regular guy, not a tech/auto nerd like many of us. He represents the overall market and he’s still better informed than the vast majority of the general population. David (and us) lives in a different bubble, a MUCH smaller bubble.