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 also don’t know how the market will respond, but this article does clarify something: some of these car companies are going to shoot themselves in both feet and then take aim at the knees. Ram pricing the Ramcharger above even the EV is exactly the kind of behavior that will make even a great truck with the best powertrain I can imagine for trucks (all semis should be series hybrid. Gonna keep pounding on this drum), and completely destroy its market viability. I can’t wait to hear them wail that nobody wants a series hybrid truck, which they absolutely will, because they’re putting in the work to make it happen.
My opinion the issue of “acceptable range” for an BEV doesn’t matter because at three or four hundred miles range, you are wasting that expensive and heavy battery most of the time. The advantage of the EREV AND the PHEV (>50 miles electric) is that you are essentially using an electric vehicle 95% of the time.
I think a big part of the adoption issue with both techs is that consumers, particularly Americans, key on MPG and neither of these can really translate to that metric. It’s really just about savings on operating costs.
You’re either lugging more battery than you need daily, or a whole engine/fuel tank. Either way, there’s dead weight.
BEVs are catching up so fast in cost and charging speed to ICEVs that EREVs will remain a niche IMO.
I mean a 2026 Silverado EV with 400 mile range can be had for $70k. At that point EREVs are only really needed if you tow long distances.
As far as charging infra, I’d argue it’s already good enough for a majority of drivers, but in a few years it’ll be even better once the Ionna network is ready.
BYD cars come in both EREV and PHEV form. The EREV is the cheaper one with electric motors in the back. The PHEV has the same electric motors in the back, but in the front it has a eCVT. The PHEV version is both faster and has AWD. The take rate is higher for the EREV in China, but this is also the base model.
Do I think that EREVs are going to catch on in the US? I think that Americans like driving 80 mph and like having AWD even if they do not need it. So no I do not.
I don’t think someone who still claims range anxiety will be convinced by any amount of electrification at this point, so these aren’t for them. Coal-rolling big truck Neanderthals won’t touch them. EV people will probably stick to EV because mainstream EVs are good enough for most buyers at this point. And normies who really don’t care are increasingly well served by hybrids.
This is complicated in-betweener tech that only really appeals to engineering stans. It’ll never be cost-competitive with ICE or hybrid, never as clean as EV, never as capable as full ICE on a per-$ basis. The i3 and Volt failed in the marketplace and I don’t see EREVs ever being a segment beyond super niche use cases.
I wrote this on the last article about the subject, but I basically agree with Murphy entirely.
We’re already getting close to “acceptable range” out of mainstream EVs for largely the same cost – or we’re there already.
Add in a couple years of improvements and an EREV will only be relevant for trucks/towing. It’s admittedly a large and important segment, so EREVs may see some relevance.
But, you’ll never see mainstream cars/crossovers adopt this. Too complicated, poor packaging, more maintenance – for literally no gain vs. current and especially future BEV tech.
Which is why I think we may actually see some EREVs in the USA as the Detroit 3 make the bulk of their profits on large gas-guzzling trucks. However, this depends on either fuel economy rules requiring them to innovate or gas becoming expensive.
Left on their own I think both automakers and buyers are good with the status quo of 20 mpg trucks.
Until gas hits $8 due to the next Middle East war….
True but US buyers have short memories. Remember the panic when gas hit $4 a gallon in 2008? Suddenly people were trying to unload their 15 mpg Ford Explorers or buy a scooter to commute to work. Then gas prices dropped and people went right back to buying trucks and SUVs.
(My car made the front page of the local paper back then because I had a 50 mpg sticker on the back hatch of my 2003 TDI Wagon and the local reporter was at the gas station doing interviews)
I love my EV, but I’m genuinely not sure if pure battery EVs are the future. What I am certain of is that for passenger cars, the future of propulsion will be electric; motors just provide so many advantages over an ICE+transmission combo, whether if its passenger comfort, responsiveness, efficiency, reliability etc.
EREV tech has matured really quickly too, I’ve driven EREV hybrids that can generate 3kWh of electricity for every litre of gas (so 11kWh per gallon), and generation efficiency won’t be affected by vehicle speed or load. From what I’ve seen on YouTube only military diesel gensets can beat the 3kWh/L figure, and your typical Harbour Freight generator would barely reach 2kWh/L.
A big EV like a Model X uses 0.3KWh per mile on the highway, so if we turn it into an EREV (shrink the battery and keep weight identical, ballpark figures here), we would be getting 36MPG. Not a really outstanding figure, as some mild-hybrid SUVs can already achieve that, but that’s the mileage you can still achieve when the juice runs out; commute as an EV, or do long trips with the convenience and mileage of a typical ICE car.
So I really agree with the marketing angle, manufacturers should find ways to make people interested in EREVs, maybe EREV RVs could be a thing (unlimited electricity on demand, keep the AC on 24/7) or how an EREV could keep your house (and maybe your neighbor’s) powered in an emergency. Geely’s about to launch an pickup with optional 21kW three-phase bed power; you could literally run a DC fast charger in the bed!
Harbor Freight? Yikes!
You want a Honda EU on petrol, or there are pricier better models in gas and diesel.
Army mechanics recommended anything over military surplus.
Fischer Pierce may be an exception, with an exceptional price.
Electric cars need transmissions.
Another reason they aren’t competitive.
Take it from someone who recently traded a PHEV for an EV and a gas car. The PHEV was great in theory, but cumbersome in practice. You mean I have to carry around a big, heavy, expensive battery, and I still have to do oil changes (and all other ICE maintenance)? No thanks!
Worse still, in an EREV (unlike a PHEV) the gas engine is not able to directly drive the wheels, not even when that would be the most efficient option (like on the highway with a dead battery).
I see EREV confined mostly to heavy duty / towing applications.
EREV is perfect for anything that tows. Which is why I want it.
Abd the fact that with V2H capability, I have a vehicle that can be my home back-up generator, instead of investing 15k in a standalone unit. For someone like me that lives rural with an unpredictable grid, this is a boon.
(Mind you, I’m actively looking into solar and a battery backup for my house, so this point may become moot)
You’re in Ontario right? Hydro One recently installed a power wall in our friend’s basement as it was cheaper for the utility than making the grid improvements for guaranteed uptime. Might be something to look into.
I will definitely look into that. Thanks!
So something like “Gas-E.” Comfortable, like after a big meal when you loosen your trousers and let everything out.
It seems like there must be a continuum between PHEVs and EREVs. What is the dividing point? When does one become the other?
That’s the million-dollar question. You’re right that it’s a continuum, and much like the AWD vs. 4WD distinction, the dividing line is often drawn by marketing departments rather than engineers.
From a purely mechanical perspective, the traditional dividing point is:
In a “pure” EREV (Extended-Range Electric Vehicle), the gasoline engine only acts as a generator to create electricity. It has no physical, mechanical connection to the drive wheels. The vehicle is always propelled by electric motors. Think of it as a series hybrid.
In a PHEV (Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicle), the gasoline engine can be mechanically clutched in to drive the wheels directly, usually working in concert with the electric motor(s).
The line is blurring because automakers are building vehicles that are philosophically EREVs (marketed as EVs with a backup generator) but might have the technical ability to clutch the engine in under very specific circumstances for efficiency. So, is it what the hardware can do, or what it usually does? Marketing picks the more appealing story.
So in a lot of cases, Toyota’s hybrid drive for example, software can make it act like a parallel hybrid, series hybrid ( essentially an EREV ) or an EV.
Other cases like the BMW i3 are series hybrid (EREV) or EV modes with no possibility of mechanical connection between the battery and the wheels. I think I read about a recent Honda that falls into this category, but can’t remember which one. Honda has sold so many different systems, https://hondanews.com/en-US/honda-automobiles/releases/release-1503019bd8a757ea08267d7944378955-honda-two-motor-hybrid-electric-system#:~:text=The%20majority%20of%20the%20time%2C%20the%20system,the%20hybrid%20battery%20and/or%20the%20propulsion%20motor.
That’s it is hard th keep them straight. Good for Honda if you don’t mind being a lab rat, but it makes my head hurt.
It seems like the systems with the option for a mechanical connection could be optimized for the electric motor being adequate for 90 percent of the use cases with the ICE pitching in when needed.
Slightly off topic, it sure seems like a two speed high low range transmission on an EV would make sense. Electric motors can’t spin infinitely fast and don’t have infinite torque.
Nothing really new about that honda system. Toyota has been making 2 motor hybrids for 25 years and Honda for a decade. In general they have just been making the electric motors more powerful over the years.
The Toyota and Honda systems are very different, and the various Honda systems embody a lot of different designs. For example, as far as I know the Toyota systems don’t involve clutches, and most of the Hondas do. Honda seems to be trying lots of very different stuff out.
Saying that they are all two-motor hybrids is like saying that most cars have springs in their suspensions so all suspension designs are the same.
Lot of detail variation to the Toyota systems as well. Some have clutches and others do not.
I was thinking of the front wheel drive versions.
Some of the rear drive transmissions use brakes to lock various planetary gear sets, much like in an old fashioned torque converter transmission, to give up to ten gear ratios, but those are strictly series hybrids with no mechanical connection between the ICE and the wheels at all.
In any case, as far as I know, none of the Toyota hybrid synergy drive systems have a clutch to disconnect the combustion engine from the transmission or to connect it directly to the wheels.
I guess the parking brake could fit the definition of a clutch, and I have seen it used in repurposed 1960s car drivelines used for ski lifts and cranes, so there is that.
In an EREV, the engine is purely a generator and serves no other functions. It doesn’t connect to the wheels or power any auxiliary functions.
A range extended EV is my preference. That’s the main reason I was close to getting an i3.
I think PHEV will be dominant in the US. PHEV makes sense in a country with lots of high speed driving. The direct-drive gas engine can help move the car at high speed. Also, the limited range of a PHEV is not an issue because the default assumption is that every new car buyer has a place to charge at home.
Whereas China is a different use case. The speeds are lower there, so the EREV’s inefficiency of converting from gasoline to electricity and then electricity to driving energy, is less of an issue. And there are quite a few apartment dwellers in China who don’t have a regular place to plug in. So the larger battery of the EREV makes sense there.
I’m not sure you’re correct here. We’ve got a lot of experience of PHEVs in Europe and they are ideal for shorter range and slower roads. Want to go to your local store 10 miles away under 50mph? EV only power. Great. Need to commute 20 miles to the city with only a few miles on the motorway or bypass? Mostly EV with some ICE at motorway/freeway speeds. Also great. Recharge at home on your driveway in your garage.
Oh, you have an apartment? Might get a bit expensive at public chargers then.
Once you get into longer distance or higher speed driving (60 – 70 mph), the battery is depleted fairly quickly and the ICE is dragging along a fairly heavy dead battery, a motor and its associated electronics which pulls mpg right down.
PHEV is for people who mostly do shorter journeys or drive predominantly at slower speeds, with the very occasional longer/higher speed one where the cost penalty won’t matter so much. If you regularly do longer journeys or travel mostly at freeway speeds, a PHEV will have less electric range than a pure electric vehicle and worse gas mileage than an equivalent ICE.
In America, with current technology, I think you have to pick pure EV or ICE. I don’t think PHEVs will work for the majority of you right now. Mild Hybrids and Full Hybrids (like the Civic) are the ones that I think will sell.
As an aside, the terminology and acronyms around hybrids are really unhelpful for non-enthusiasts at this point.
I considered a PHEV until I saw the typical range on electric power alone. It was so terrible it made me wonder why anyone would ever put up with the impracticalities of daily use + complexity and cost.
The golf has about 90 miles range. Lots of people drive less than 90 miles most days. For the occasional multi hundred mile round trip, gas stations are fine. The alternative is a 300 mile range EV with the weight and inefficiency of moving all that weight for no reason most of the time, or have two cars. A Leaf and a beater pickup, or a Leaf and some some transcontinental superslab cruiser depending on your 5 percent needs.
A PHEV is simply a hybrid with a larger battery and the ability to charge. Not much extra complexity there. The advantage is the much lower operating cost when charged at home and the $7500 tax credit paying for that larger battery.
I honestly genuinely do not understand the general enthusiast community’s (and the general public’s) love affair with PHEVs. They’re an absolute worst of all worlds technology.
There’s the common bugbear of having the extra weight of carrying around both a big battery and an engine. But on top of that, there’s a study out there that looked at the price delta between an average ICE, an average BEV, and an average PHEV (guess what: the PHEV was the highest), and then calculated that if you just min-maxed it so that you only use the PHEV battery as much as possible to try to see fuel savings vs an ICE… it is literally impossible to make the extra money you spent on the PHEV back over a normal seven year ownership period.
Then you get to the fact that PHEVs still require all of the maintenance work of a traditional ICE and still require you to go to a gas station on occasion. And that it’s still producing greenhouse gas emissions. So what exact problem does it solve? You may as well just get a mild hybrid and just call it a day.
True. But PHEVs typically have a smallish battery. Whereas EREVs have a significantly bigger battery and more dead weight to drag around.
In general, EVs are great at local and stop and go traffic, and less great when it comes to freeway driving (especially with a large vehicle). So PHEV’s are sort of a half/half mash-up solution with both drivetrains. Whereas EREV, you can say , is favoring the EV part of the drivetrain.
We’ve been driving EVs for over 10 years now (wow…those went by fast), first with a FIAT 500e then with a couple of Teslas (bought before Elon broke bad) and now with one of the Teslas replaced by an Ioniq 5. So, I should hate this idea because pure EVs are the One True Religion. But I don’t hate it – I think it makes complete sense. What I want is enough battery for a 200 miles or so and then a small gas engine that will offset some of the “steady state cruising” power drain on long trips. When I enter a far away destination in the nav system, the car should fire up the gas generator and charge the battery so that I get to my destination with whatever range I specify.
I’m fine with some constraints (like the gas engine might not have enough capacity to let me drive 80 uphill for 500 miles and arrive with 100 miles of charge remaining). But what I don’t want is the “drive until the battery is almost dead and then start to charge” model that the early BMW i3 had. That leaves you with a car that is effectively in “limp home” mode if you have any hills on your route. (And yes, that was a regulatory requirement implemented in software – not BMW’s fault.)
I think you’ve hit on the main issue holding erev back as a widespread technology choice in our vehicles: regulation.
Because they don’t want people just driving them around as gas-powered all the time they are hamstringing the technology to the point it’s not viable. Between the charging limitations you point out and the ridiculous requirements on the size of the gas tank, I don’t see this as a viable choice for me. I’m sure it works well enough for many use cases but I just can’t choose something so disabled by regs.
CARB changed the rules on fuel tank size, etc in Advanced Clean Cars II. They also upped the minimum EV range to 50 miles.
So many people I know could definitely make an EV work. But it’s that 5% problem where people buy a vehicle for what it can do 5% of the time. That 5% also tends to be times where failure isn’t an option such as on long trips. For towing I could definitely see gas-electrics having a big role. Electric acceleration without needing to stop quite so often for a long charge.
Even going from 7 mpg to 14 mpg halves the fuel consumption every hundred miles. Getting 20 mpg would reduce fuel consumption by close to 67%. 14.3 gallons every hundred miles to 4.8 gallons. That’s a worthwhile effort.
I don’t think the average consumer sees a difference between EREV and PHEV.
They just want to hit the start button and press on the skinny pedal and have the car go.
I don’t have a suggestion for a more marketable term than EREV, but hopefully someone on Madison Avenue gets a good bump and comes up with something.
The appeal of a EREV to me is more than as a means of energy efficient transportation but also the potential to be an efficient, powerful source of both heat and power for camping, blackouts and remote worksites. A typical small generator turns maybe 15% of the energy of gasoline into electricity and dirty hot air while a cutting edge EREV can manage over 50% with at least some of the waste heat being recoverable in the coolant and IMO with a little more effort a lot more can be recovered in the exhaust.
Doubly so if the vehicle will also run on alcohols, natural gas, propane, hydrogen, whatever fuel you have handy. Triply so if the engine uses tricks like cylinder deactivation and hit/miss operation to remain in the operating sweet spot over a far greater load range.
All good things. But can’t a Rav4 Prime do all of those things and also turn the wheels with the engine? Maybe the 1500W outlet is not enough?
It looks like people have done LPG conversions so that is definitely possible. Toyotas in Brazil can run high ethanol so that is possible too. The idea that you could hook up an external propane tank at a campsite and burn it in generator mode is really cool though.
Does the engine need to use tricks if there is a large enough buffer battery? It can just run all cylinders in the sweet spot and then turn off when the battery is full.
“Maybe the 1500W outlet is not enough?”
Nope. I’m talking full V2X, enough to run an entire typical house during an extended blackout. Refrigerators, vacuum cleaners, HVAC, electric ovens, etc with enough power to run at least the two biggest loads and lights simultaneously. For that kind of load Level 1 1.5 kW won’t do. Level 2 at 12 kWh max might do the trick.
As to heat I’m proposing the coolant system have taps to transfer engine heat from the cooling system to home hot water heater and HVAC. Many vehicles already have water/oil/ATF heat exchangers so mine would be similar to those. When hooked in it would circulate hot water through the home’s water heater or the home HVAC system. This is a pretty common setup in commercial buildings with generators. If one wanted to get ALL the heat one might enclose the vehicle in a non-airtight insulated space, say the garage and duct the exhaust through a heat exchanger to get every bit out, then duct the chilled exhaust out a hole in the wall or chimney. I think the engine pumping action would suck in and burn off any leaked exhaust emissions so it should be safe enough.
Who would this be for? Anyone who’s lived through a Texas winter bomb cyclone, a PG&E extended summer outage or areas with sketchy power. And the military.
You might well ask “why not just buy a generator for that?” Because typical home generators are crude, very inefficient, loud and dangerously filthy compared to a range extender. Gasoline powered generators can also foul if they sit too long, are air cooled so no easy hot water and most need to be started/stopped manually. A range extender already has most of these issues solved AND has a large battery to buffer power whereas a typical small generator does not. They aren’t cheap either. I think my add ons will cost a lot less than a 12 kWh battery buffered mobile generator and won’t take up much more room than the vehicle already does.
Yes to circulating coolant through the house. No to exhaust gas heat recovery. There is less heat coming off of a small engine than a commercial building generator, and the cost of the heat exchanger equipment will be the same. Coolant heat recovery already makes it efficient enough that burning a little more gas will be cheaper than increasing the efficiency slightly more.
I think it depends on the situation. If it’s cold enough and/or fuel is precious enough (e.g. too dangerous to drive to a station or the apocalypse has wiped out filling stations) you’ll want to harvest every erg you can get. I think a decent amount of that exhaust waste heat can be used to heat a closed garage if the tailpipe emissions are ducted outside. I think most of the exhaust heat bleeds through a standard exhaust system into the ambient air by the time the exhaust makes it to the tailpipe anyway. If so no additional heat exchanger equipment would be needed other than a length of ducting to get the exhaust outside safely. If the garage is attached to the residence some of that heat will make it inside or at the least keep the garage from being a cold(er) sink for the HVAC.
If it’s summer and hot air is a liability you’ll probably be only too happy to shed that surplus heat.
The thing I like least about this is the safety hazard of needing no leaks in the exhaust system and ducting or you could accidentally suffocate.
I wouldn’t worry too much. Lots of people have gas water heaters and gas dryers in garages with no ill effects and the exhausts on those are far jankier. Besides there is an inherent safety factor in the engine taking the ambient air of the garage and pushing combustion products out the duct.
Any leaked fumes will most likely be recycled through the engine rather than inhaled. Garages tend to be poorly sealed compared to living spaces so fresh air should be drawn in through various leak points to replenish the volume lost out the duct. If not it’s easy enough to raise the garage door an inch or so to ensure an adequate supply of fresh air while maintaining security and keeping most of the heat.
“Does the engine need to use tricks if there is a large enough buffer battery? It can just run all cylinders in the sweet spot and then turn off when the battery is full.”
Good question, maybe, maybe not. A house has far lower power demands than a car, like 10-15 hp max so I’m thinking 1-2 cylinders could yield plenty of steady state power while also making hot water and keeping the engine block and emissions systems warm. That would also minimize cycling on the battery.
Those tricks could also be useful for regular vehicle use, also to keep the emissions systems at peak efficiency, minimize battery cycling and minimize cold starts.
Average household electricity usage is 30 kWh per day, so with 15 kWh usable battery we are already looking at less than 2 cycles per day. If this is for a backup system that is probably good enough. If you are off grid, they do make liquid cooled diesel or natural generators that are cheaper than a car.
“If you are off grid, they do make liquid cooled diesel or natural generators that are cheaper than a car.”
That assumes you wouldn’t otherwise have a car. I don’t live off grid but I think many folks who do have cars (and tow pigs), since AFAIK off grid living is often antithesis to urban areas with convenient public transit. So why not have a vehicle that can also power up the battery bank and keep the house warm when the sun isn’t shining and/or the wind isn’t blowing? Doubly so if the house can’t use renewables or a generator because of trees, terrain, NIMBYS, etc.
The competition for this is coming from home fuel cells. Fuel cell micro-CHP with a solid oxide fuel cell is fuel flexible. They also convert a much higher percentage of the fuel into electricity, which is the expensive product compared to the heat. Less maintenance and noise as well.
Which will be amazeballs if those can be sold cheap enough to enter the discussion. Right now a 10kWh fuel cell starts at $35k:
https://www.horizoneducational.com/8-types-of-fuel-cell-by-price-point/t1418?currency=usd
I think to really compete with what I’m talking about those prices need to be $$$, not $$,$$$
As to efficiency you’re talking about 63% max TE for a fuel cell* vs 50%+ for my hypothetical EREV.
*IIRC this is what Bloom energy stated for their system a few years ago
Price for these is a valid concern. They are only sold today to the backup power for your mansion crowd. No maintenance for 60,000 hours sounds pretty nice. If this was doubled and the price were cut in half 10 years from now, at that point they would be very competitive.
$3,500 would still be a significant amount and even 60k hours of maintainence free service is gross overkill (although welcome gross overkill) for something most folks might only use a handful of times*.
Of course if that SoFC generator were in a NGFC car where it’s primary function would be personal transportation while also being available as a powerful backup generator, heater, battery bank and fuel supply….
* That said I think a lot of folks in places like the SFBA with stupidly expensive energy costs might do well to power and heat their homes these, preferably using a smaller, cheaper models for baseline heat and power in conjunction with rooftop solar and a decent sized battery. Something akin to a 3kWh unit for $1000.
I sincerely hope your optimism on pricing and longevity proves to be prophetic.
On pricing, a 3 kW unit would currently get $3000 residential clean energy credit capped at 30%. So it would cost $10k, $7k after incentives.
This incentive is probably going away. But who knows because increasing natural gas demand with home SOFC is something that the gas companies definitely supports. Price probably will not be lower by 2032 in any situation, which is when the incentive currently expires.
There may be a situation in the future in northern regions the utility company subsidies the installation of these in exchange for remote control. Being able to turn on 10k customer’s units at a moments notice does have value. Would definitely a firm virtual power plant and could probably do voltage support and frequency control as well.
I did find this comment from the seller of those fuel cells interesting:
“Toward the more expensive end of the spectrum, we have the 65kW Liquid Cooled FC fuel cell stack. This system is capable of some serious power. Able to power everything from a small community of homes all the way to a Class 8 truck, this fuel cell stack is rated to generate 65kW of power output. Using this also possible to convert existing heavy-duty construction equipment to zero emission.”
65kW works out to 87 HP and they think that’s enough for a class 8 truck. If that’s true then it wouldn’t take much of an ICE to make even an EREV F-550 happy.
I used to wonder why people don’t think about maintenance more until I read a recent report that said the 2/3rds of new car buyers have their vehicle for 5 years or less.
When I was shopping new cars a few years back one of the local dealers was advertising an original-owner “lifetime powertrain warranty” included with each sale. I asked the guy what the catch is. Surely that doesn’t pencil out.
His response: about half his buyers trade their cars before the manufacturer’s warranty is even up. “Essentially zero cars coming through our service department with 100k miles are with their original owners. And modern powertrains are pretty reliable to 100k. We rarely pay claims on this deal.”
That’s like a guitar maker that advertises “the guitars I build have a lifetime guarantee, but bear in mind that I’m 70 years old”
They would loose money on my family, we typically drive cars into the ground.
Generally on mass market cars since the late 90s the powertrain lasts far longer than the rest of the car. Stuff falling off, rust and interior disintegration are bigger factors.
Very true.
Back when I was a kid the conversion van craze was going and my parents bought 3 of them. The first 2 they kept for 5 years until the loan was paid and then traded. The last (a 1991 Econoline) they kept until 2009 and 300K miles. All the vans were bought from the same conversion company with lifetime warranties. That company got to hate my father as every year he bought the 1991 in to have them fix things that had broken. Finally they were like “come on man, this van is more than a decade old”. My dad said: Lifetime warranty means lifetime. I’m alive and you are in business…..
I know I’m probably not a typical case, but I managed to take a 340 mile 1-day business trip this week in my Mini SE, which has an average range rating of about 110 miles. Sure, I had to stop three times to charge, and it added time to my trip (luckily one of my stops overlapped with a work zoom call, so no time wasted at that stop.)
This trip was in northeast Michigan, not exactly a hotbed of EV chargers. But they’re out there. And if I can manage with my short range EV, it seems like the stable of modern 250-350 mile range EVs should serve most people’s needs.
And I never, ever have to worry about changing the oil, or sparkplugs.
340 miles in my Model Y would need one or two quick charges depending on speed and weather. Just not a big deal!
It’s not that you’re wrong. It’s that the average driver would hear “have to stop three times to charge” and “340 mile trip” in the same sentence and react “aw hell no”. Even if they only do such a trip once a year. There’s a huge hurdle into retraining the knee-jerk response to considering that a totally reasonable thing, especially given the no oil changes, etc.
Meanwhile, the industry leader leads. A range extender would never be needed in a world that looks like this.
https://electrek.co/2025/06/20/byd-tests-solid-state-batteries-seal-ev-with-1000-miles-range/
Exactly, it’ll either be very niche applications or none at all. Battery tech is moving too fast to make this cumbersome solution worth it.
One of the biggest arguments against EV’s is that no one has a place to charge so this will be people just tooling around in gas powered EV’s since allegedly EV’s are too hard to charge which makes EREV’s dumb and expensive since most people (it’s argued) will never charge the BEV portion.
I also think the fact that RAM is doing it first just gives this a big chance of becoming a high-profile failure that will besmirch all EREV’s that come after it.
We hear nobody has a place to change but the reality is that 60% of the US public lives in single family homes with dedicated off-street parking. That argument is either made in bad faith or from people that have never lived in the suburbs that surround every major US city that are packed with single family homes with 2 or more cars in the driveway / garage.
If that 60% figure is correct, then try looking at it from the other side: 40%, nearly half, of people can’t make effective use of a BEV or an EREV. That is far too many for a manufacturer to ignore. They are looking at having their market halved at the outset, before even going up against competitors in that reduced market with whatever merits their vehicle may have.
Not only that, but I suspect the typical envieonmentally-conscious EV buyer is overrepresented in those areas without easy access to chargers, I.e. denser cities where apartment living or street parking don’t make overnight charging easy.
Not exactly. That 40% are apartment / Condo dwellers and people that live in single family homes but street park. Not all apartment dwellers don’t have access to EV chargers. As EVs become more popular more and more apartments are adding chargers. This is already happening even with EV market share below 10%.
This will be accelerated as more and more cities add charger requirements to their apartment / condo building codes (as has happened where I live)
Even under the most aggressive timelines we are looking at 25 years for a transition from ICE to EV and a lot will change in those decades.
This certainly could be a GM diesel moment with RAM and Scout (VW) leading the way who may very well release them very underbaked, just like GM did with the Olds Diesel.
To put a positive spin on the situation, it looks like RAM and Scout are approaching the REEV challenge with two very different formulas, so consumers will get a chance to try what makes sense for them.
Ram’s bet is a mega-capable, heavyweight super truck, that does everything it’s EV and ICE platform mates do, and more. It’s going to be expensive.
While I’m still highly skeptical that Scout will actually meet their claimed price point (based on other V.A.G. EV prices, and the fact that the Harvester still comes with a significant 60kWh battery) their lightweight approach makes significant compromises in capability to reach their goals.
Not a bad match up.
It will definitely be interesting to see how this all plays out, both with how well both vehicles are executed and the public acceptance. Scout Motors has claimed that they have more reservations for the”Harverster” than the EV. Ram is delaying the EV only version so it will take longer to see which one of those will have a higher take rate.
EREVs seem to be coming with smallish batteries and ~100 mile range. That’s probably going to be able to be fully charge on a common 120v 15 amp circuit so anyone with a level-1 home charger could probably top-off their EREV every night.
Doesn’t help if you don’t have a plug you can use, but probably no need for a level-2 220v dedicated circuit which is what most pure EV users will want.
I remember studies indicating people buy PHEVs and then promptly fail to plug them in at home. :shrug:
In my location, reg gas is $2.79/gal and electricity prices are climbing 10-20% per year.
I can’t see any reason to make the jump unless gasoline increases substantially.
I feel for the poor product planning folks at OEMs and suppliers trying to figure out the next decade.
There’s more to buying an EV than saving money…(there’s that nasty climate change factor, too.) ; )
I figure with Musk having a megaton SpaceX explosion every month or so, any change I could make would be inconsequential.
I am still waiting for any science that hints that anything we do will affect the climate in a meaningful way.
Over population is a more critical issue.
I expect it will self correct.
Middle class americans going from modern emissions equipped 30mpg cars to an EV (while the rest of the world scoots around on 2-stroke mopeds building new coal plants) does effectively fuck all for the environment.
Regular gas is $2.79 today, but who knows what it will be tomorrow. It’s a very volatile (har har) commodity.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/204740/retail-price-of-gasoline-in-the-united-states-since-1990/
I remember in the 1970s shortage when my 275 lb work associate dumped his Buick Electra 225 for a panic price and jumped into a Vega.
Did the Vega’s suspension survive that jump?
Southern California, where EVs are currently most chargeable, has gas hovering near $5 for the past few years. Although depending on what part of Southern California you’re in, might also have some of the most expensive home electricity rates in the country, so… tomayto tomahto.
In 2024 China exported more than 2 million new energy vehicles and I think that number is only going to go up. I used to be skeptical about PHEV’s and EREV because I heard an argument that they were inherently inefficient because when the car is running off of the battery the ICE engine is dead weight and when the car is running off dinosaur juice the battery and electric motor are dead weight. Now I am seriously thinking about purchasing one in the future.
Which is why it needs to be as small, light and as efficient as possible. Something like a small motorcycle engine. Better efficiency means a smaller gas tank too.
A properly done PHEV is truly the best of both worlds, and it means less dead weight than an typical “300 mi” EV. For most people’s usual everyday driving they might use 10-20% of the batteries capacity meaning most of the time you are lugging around a lot of dead weight, and it is expensive dead weight. Meanwhile a properly done PHEV will get the daily driving down for far more people with the same amount of battery capacity and you are not lugging around a lot of expensive ballast, that degrades whether you use it or not. Meanwhile yes an ICE does weight a bit, but at least it is cheap weight and it doesn’t degrade unless you actually use it.
Done right a PHEV can get better MPG when operating in hybrid mode, thanks to that extra battery size. It can accept a higher amperage regen charge and makes the motor capable of doing more of the work, reducing engine use.
The gas engine also helps the EV side of things. One thing an ICE does well is produce waste heat. On our PHEV in really cold weather I will put it in “EV later mode” and run it just long enough to get the engine to the shut down temp. That will usually get me to my destination in comfort. Doing the same on the return trip as well. On a trip near the warm weather max range that will use less gas that letting the battery run out earlier.
That said a lot of the PHEVs currently on the market are not done that well.
The cost for even a well-done PHEV, though, is that it’s more expensive than even a BEV option and you still are required to do all of the maintenance and effort of maintaining an ICE powertrain. You’re trading money up-front for a slight improvement on a mild hybrid… or you can trade less money up-front and just go all the way to a BEV, or just stick with a mild hybrid and get the vast majority of what a plug-in hybrid can do for wyou.
Full sized trucks are already a kind of extender, so I think officially adding the word to their description will help buyers.
The market has been asking for EREVs for a long time and few people have bothered to listen.
There are a lot of people who would never consider a BEV, but would jump on a EREV in a heartbeat. Some of it has to do with their actual driving situation. Some of it has to do with political brainwashing. But EREVs is what we should have led with. Get people used to the idea of EVs without the major limitation of EV range. Instead, the system screwed it all up, and as such needs to now embrace EREVs to get people onboard.
Well. Bluntly put. EREVs will be priced significantly higher than their equivalent BEV. You are naive thinking otherwise.
A lot of the savings in the smaller battery are offset by the increased cost of manufacturing the EREV. Heck they may be more expensive to manufacture due to the complexity of both a battery system and an engine.
The Scout EREV will definitely be more expensive. Scout BEV range 350miles. Scout EREV range 500 miles. There is no way the longer range more capable vehicle will be cheaper. Zero chance.
This. EREVs will be more than either a hybrid gas car or an electric car. You can’t put two complete drivetrains in a car and make it cheaper.
EREVs are also a nightmare for engineering and manufacturing when you have to cram all of those components into a limited space. They do make sense for some applications like large trucks but they won’t be cheap.
Hybrid cars are more complicated than EREVs.Hybrids have a relatively large ICE, one or more electric motor/generators and a transmission. An EREV has a smaller ICE, one or more motor/generators and no transmission (although maybe a clutch as was the case with the Volt)
The difference between an EREV and a PHEV is the clutch that connect the engine to the transaxle.
A 2-motor hybrid like the one use by Toyota in the Prius or Honda in the Accord does not have a transmission – just a single gear set and clutches to engage / disengage the motor/generators and the engine.
Even a pure EV still has transaxle with a reduction gearset and a differential.
Here is the latest Honda hybrid:
https://hondanews.com/en-US/photos/photo-738212678b96ed3a76e7285afd05312a-2023-honda-cr-v-2-motor-hybrid-system?firstResultIndex=80&channelsConstraint=channel-b78eda2bb9cd0c20d69c0a2382000037
“The difference between an EREV and a PHEV is the clutch that connect the engine to the transaxle”
Its my understanding the difference is the EREV has no transaxle (or transmission) at all. The ICE only drives a generator and the wheels are only driven via electric motors so there is no need for a transmission. By this definition the Volt was an EREV but the addition of a clutch at that time shifted the definition to PHEV but its still really an EREV:
https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1096942_2016-chevrolet-volt-powertrain-how-it-works-in-electric-hybrid-modes
EREV, PHEV, 2-motor hybrid – most do not have multiple gear ratios but they all still have a transaxle with reduction gears, differential, mechanical park.
I’d just call that a gearbox with reduction gears, differential, mechanical park instead of transaxle but that’s me. Otherwise the ring and pinion gears in all differentials also count as a transmission/transaxle. Then we have transmissions inside transmissions and everything goes pear shaped.
So how about instead we go with EREVs don’t use a multiple speed gearbox/transmission how about that?
Fine with that. Neither does the 2-motor Honda hybrid I linked above or my old 2005 Toyota Prius.
(We will leave out the EVs that do in fact have multiple speed gearboxes like the Porsche Taycan and Audi e-Tron)
It’s not two complete drivetrains, and multiple manufacturers have stated that indeed EREVs offer a cost-savings versus an EV of similar range.
But no doubt they introduce challenges.
Range is only part of the picture though, especially for pickup trucks. Is a truck with 5000lb towing capacity really comparable to a truck with 10,000lb?
Is a truck with 5000lb towing capacity really comparable to a truck with 10,000lb?
As far as towing goes? Yes if like way too many pickup truck owners you never actually tow anything.
Fair enough, lol
Well they are using an entire EV drivetrain. Then an engine and generator. So they are saving with no transmission or differentials(s).
I can’t think of anything else they would save in costs versus an entire ICE drivetrain? I think the engine is the most expensive part for an ICE drivetrain so you still have that.
As a complete aside. Do EREV require a one speed transmission to get the generator spinning at an RPM at peak efficiency? I guess the engine will have one RPM to run at peak efficiency. With a one speed to convert the engine RPM to whatever is most efficient for the generator output? So many questions….
Some generators vary rpm under load.
Cool. Is the range of RPM wide or quite limited for various loads? I understand the rpm for a gas generator will go idle when there is no load. But in an erev gas engine it would just shut off when load is low? So many question!
Honda EUs can be paired, and can be quieter with two paired than one, as they throttle down.
Idle will power a lot of stable loads.
They can be locked in high rpm for steady loads, but response is fast enough to power a microwave in seconds.
Often valued more for quietness, I get 6 to 12 hours per gallon.
When my truck failed to crank recently, I hauled in my generator – 50 pounds and Rizk charger – 50 pounds, and charged everything up off grid, but starter circuit had failed somewhere.
It would definitely shut off when not needed. I mean most new cars auto stop-start their engines at stop lights for gods sake!
I’m going to guess no transmission. The vast majority of gensets are direct drive, with the generator directly attached to the engine’s output shaft. There are a ton of variables to the sizing of the generator that would allow it to be ‘tuned’ to the engine’s ideal rpm, and of course the electrical load is variable.
The difference between a EREV and a PHEV is the clutch to physically connect the engine to the transaxle.
Cheaper than an EV of the same range – that depended on the target range and the vehicle size. EREVs can make sense for something like the Ramcharger especially for towing applications. Is a 100 mile EV range EREV going to be cheaper than a 300 mile EV – Nope.
Cost-savings to who? Them to build? The owner to operate and maintain? Guessing not both since it sounds like they plan to charge more for EREV vs EV versions of the same thing.
It really boils down to whether you can make it cost-neutral to take out some battery cells and stick a small engine in the vehicle, doesn’t it?
I’m certainly no expert and there may well be price distortions because of various government incentives/disincentives, but pricing in China suggests it may be possible at the moment. Look at the pricing of the Avatr 07 for example: https://www.avatr.com/en/configuration?car=07
The top-of-the-range EREV variant is priced a smidge lower than the top-of-the-range BEV (￥279,900 vs ￥289,900). The battery-only range for the EREV is only one-third that of the BEV, but total gas+electric range is higher.
According to Scout Motors it will cost them less to build the EREV than the EV version. The ICE has a definite economy of scale that batteries still can’t match.
Here’s the thing though- The Scout Terra EV is rated at 10,000lbs towing capacity, while the REEV model cuts that down to 5000lb. The range may be impressive, but that’s a significant hit to reach the price point.
Yeah. People forget if they want their vehicle to tow 10000 lbs you can’t magically just use a small 4 cylinder in the EREV. The gas motor/generator must be able to provide enough electricity to tow 10000 lbs. That requires a big powerful engine.
With the towing capacity cut in half with the Scout EREV they are definitely undersizing the motor to meet a price point.
So maybe the EREV will be cheaper. But it will also mean a vehicle with much worse performance when the battery is drained.
Agreed. And We all know how popular that ‘reduced performance’ situation was with the i3.
A lot does depend on how they program it, see the i3, but I’m not so sure they are undersizing the engine just to meet a price point.
It was not conceived as an EREV from the start, they decided to add that option after the program was well under way. So I suspect packaging it in the available space limited their options, both for the engine/gen itself but also their cooling systems and electronics. They might be able to crank up the engine HP but w/o upsizing the generator and support systems it does no good.
Yes, to meet a price point they had to use an existing engine family, that also fit in the hole.
The RAM on the other hand was designed to be available as an EREV from the get go, so they were able to protect the needed space for that big engine/gen combo and all of the equipment to support the desired output.
VW found a square peg they could ram into a round hole, while RAM built a truck around their much larger square peg.
“The gas motor/generator must be able to provide enough electricity to tow 10000 lbs. That requires a big powerful engine.”
Not always. The M35 truck had an on road tow rating of 10,000 lbs and a 130ish hp engine:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/M35_series_2%C2%BD-ton_6%C3%976_cargo_truck
It wasn’t very fast but it got us to Berlin.
7.8 L 6 cylinder turbo charged 130hp 330 foot pounds of torque.
Turbo and resultant torque helped a lot. It also “only” had a cargo capacity of 10000lbs.
I don’t think it would sell well to the general public. Top speed 56mph with cruising speed of 47.
But I suspect lots of folks at this site will put their hands up saying they want one! Used, of course, after the depreciation. They aren’t fools. ????
Perhaps it took 7.8L then but I’m pretty sure you could match that output with even a 3 cyl 1.0L EREV system today. Electric motors are great at making torques.
“I don’t think it would sell well to the general public. Top speed 56mph with cruising speed of 47.”
Well yeah. The M35 was a massive 6WD 13,000-16,000 lb aerodynamic cinderblock. Put the EREV in a F series and I’m sure you’ll get a more acceptable top speed.
The military OTOH would be fine with that slow speed:
“Half a century after World War II, the remanufactured 2+1⁄2-ton M35 trucks still met 95 percent of the performance requirements at 60 percent of the cost of a new FMTV vehicle”.
Outside of the hyper 3 cylinder engine for the Yaris GR, none meet the torque output of that old lumbering DIESEL 6 cylinder. Not even close. Very few go above 150hp/150pount foot.
There is also the issue of NVH. Sure the Yaris GR 3 cylinder might have enough power output when it is screaming at wide open throttle, but sitting in a car with the engine screaming at full throttle continuously would not exactly be pleasant for most folks.
There is also the issue of how such a small engine will handle being run at wide open throttle with a constant load for hours on end when the battery is depleted.
I maintain you can’t make EREV truck with high towing capacity without a large honking motor like the v6 being used in the Ram 1500 EREV.
But its not the ICE that drives the wheels in an EREV system, its electric motor(s) with copious torques.
“There is also the issue of how such a small engine will handle being run at wide open throttle with a constant load for hours on end when the battery is depleted.”
If that’s what it’s designed to do it will be fine.
I wonder how much of that tow range difference is due to having that 4cyl gen set hanging out behind the rear axle and limiting the tongue weight and how much is due to the fact that the gen set is not capable of delivering as much power as the larger battery pack.
Good question. Maybe or maybe not? The motor is going to go where there are batteries with the Scout EV. In the same volume of cubic feet I would think the batteries would actually be much heavier than the gas engine/generator.
To avoid having to rework the rear suspension tuning they might be working to ensure weight at the back is similar between the EREV and EV.
So the tongue weight might not be affected by the engine.
Only time will tell.
See the top shot, the engine is going to be behind the rear axle of the Scout where the spare would normally go.
Yes. So say the BEV battery removed weighs 500lbs is under the rear axle. The engine package put behind the axles is 200 lbs. This weight redistribution disparity and some complicated math will determine which one puts more load on the rear of the vehicle.
Only time will tell. But it is fun to discuss and speculate. One of us might be completely right but I suspect it will end up somewhere where where a portion of the tow loss is because tongue weight has been impacted (which I did not consider initially) and because the engine is not powerful enough to pull 10000 lbs.
I don’t think the engine being used is known yet outside of it being an existing VW family 4 cyl. I think it is non-turbo so output will be low. Will a 200hp low torque 4cyl have enough generator power to tow 10000lbs when the battery is dead? Given a 200hp 4cylinder ICE can’t tow 10000 lbs the physics seem tough.
Yup all just speculation until the release more specifics. Once they do release the final specs, most importantly engine/gen continuous rated output, we will have a better idea of why they dropped the rating so significantly.
Another way to approach capability is towing capacity, which certainly applies when it comes to trucks. The Avatr 07 is a compelling proposition, however the REEV version does knock 1000lb off the EV’s 4500. You can only accomplish so much with a 1.5L turbo. While the 07 REEV does deliver on cost, some compromises have been made to make the numbers work.
Given that Americans expect your average pickup to tow a gooseneck trailer at 80mph up Pike’s Peak on a 100° day, you can expect that any pickup REEV will need a substantial ICE drivetrain- Which is why the Ramcharger is set to use an entire 300hp 3.6L Pentastar.
Now, I understand the engine functions as a generator, and should always have the battery as a buffer- But Ram still needs to spec the generator to account for a worst possible scenerio:
>Vehicle reaches the end of its combined electric and ICE range
>In the mountains
>No charger
>Refilled with gas
>Generator must now recharge the battery, while making enough spare kW to handle the combined vehicle demand energy of the truck and 14,000lb trailer, moving uphill on a hot day.
This. I think folks think an erev can just use a small engine and still get the same performance when the battery runs out. You can’t if you want identical performance in electric mode versus gas
The engine has to be big enough to maintain performance when the battery is depleted. Otherwise the car suddenly goes to being able to tow 10000lb to only something much much lower.
The Ram EREV needing a beefy V6 is a perfect example. To maintain towing rating in ALL situations they had to go with that engine instead of some small 4.
Sorry, replied to wrong comment
Well according to Scout Motors their EREV will cost less to produce than the full EV version, that of course does not mean that it will be priced less, if they can charge more for it than the EV version they will.