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
The problem in my mind is that people continue to shop for vehicles based on the edge cases of their usage. “I tow a trailer twice a year so I need an F250.” or “I drive from Florida to Maine each summer and need a car with legs so I don’t have to stop and charge 15 times” The reality is that cars are becoming so expensive that many shoppers are priced out. If I am honest, I would argue that people should buy a vehicle that works for their everyday usage, and rent one for the edge cases. This would mean 90 percent of the US could use a chevy bolt or a tesla model 3 without any trouble. Unless automakers make a conscious decision to lower truck prices, I see this as the way the market is heading. With shoppers being forced in to more practical cars against their will.
Yeah, I’m missing something. EREVs don’t seem much different from PHEV. Is it just battery sizing? Combined range you can go on EV Only vs. gas? Gas only power available? Path of energy to the wheels?
IMO, Volt was a PHEV. Not EREV. The gas motor alone can be sufficient for driving, where as the gas motor on the i3 is anemic at best (scooter motor).
IMO, a battery pack that can provide 20% greater range than the average super commuter (75 miles * 1.2 = 90 miles) is the perfect size for a battery. Any batt larger is a waste of materials and money. This will account for batt degradation over vehicle life. Also, the amount of power that can be pulled from such a battery could be a boon for performance, or PTU’s.
Hit me up for more consultation and rationale.
From my perspective, PHEV’s are basically the same as an EREV. The difference is just marketing. You can plug in for short trips, run on gas for longer. People making them out be something different are just drawing a line that doesn’t exist. An early i3 REX was like 74 mile electric range. A Volt was 53, and a Prius Prime is 44. For most people, current PHEV range is probably plenty for most days. Plus PHEV sales growth is already outpacing EV’s. It’s already happening.
From a technical side, most PHEVs are parallel hybrids, with the ICE and motors both driving the wheels directly. EREVs are usually (excluding the Volt) series hybrids, where energy flow is linear from engine to battery to wheels. Essentially, the ICE is just a genset charging the battery.
Yes, but to the consumer, does the difference matter? 1st gen volt was series, 2nd gen was parallel. So EREV, then PHEV. Did the average consumer view them any differently? Chevy advertised both as an EV with gas backup.
To the owner, plug it in daily, put in gas for longer trips. Either way it’s the same to them.
The biggest difference is in the feel, but you may be right that the average person doesn’t worry about the difference in acceleration or the handoff between the two powertrains (my RAV handles this pretty smoothly, but my Niro was a pretty noticeable transition). Personally, I like the idea of an EREV for most people because the driving experience is more consistent, but I don’t know if the average consumer has a preference.
I have a friend who had the plug-in Prius who was getting something like 120mpg as his trip was 99% electric every day. Started having issues with the gas going bad in the tank. I wonder if we’ll start hearing about that or if they’ll start recommending fuel stabilizers for people with short journeys.
A PHEV RAV4, as currently spec’d would be ideal for me, as 95+% of my trips are 20 miles or less. And most of the trips longer than that are trips to visit family 700 miles away. I don’t need 100 miles of EV-only range.
I love my BMW i3 with RE on a near-carnal level. I think a pickup with a 4-cylinder gas engine to recharge the battery could be enormously effective. Or even a small pickup with a 3-cylinder Geo Metro engine. MPG and EV torque? Sign me the heck up!
The Chevrolet Volt is not a small car. You could make the argument for the 1st generation with only four seats, but not the 2nd generation. The platform may be similar to the Cruze, but it doesn’t drive like one.
Frankly my prediction, and I know everyone was waiting with baited breath, is EVs won’t succeed without them. Why you ask
1. Range anxiety is real especially in open spaces. Especially when you need the last quarter of a tank just to get to a charging station.
2. Sorry the first modern car with this system was the Geoffrey. Design by James May Top Gear Presenter and most supportive of EVs.
3. Can they design a Mobil fast charger that you can transport and plug in to a high output electric source and have mobile fast charging instead of fixed charging system at the risk of idiots and poor ice parkers? Think about it put the mobile charger at the back of the parking lot and no one is parked in a charger spot because it is closer to the door.
That would work except the plugs don’t really exist. A high speed charger needs something like 480volt / 100 amp connection. That’s why we have fixed infrastructure chargers, because they need a special electrical service to run them.