You could argue that an “electric car company” is not something that needs to exist, and that car companies should simply be Car Companies, not tied to any particular powertrain. But electric car companies do exist in the U.S. in the form of Tesla, Rivian, Lucid, Polestar, and Slate, and the reason why is pretty obvious: “Electric” was the hottest new term of the last two decades, and a necessary one to raise enough capital to get a new company off the ground. Pitching a hybrid car company to a group of investors would have been as fruitful as the messages I used to send on dating apps. But now it’s 2025, and that hot “electric” term is now lukewarm at best.
A few months ago, I was at a Rivian event in which I asked a representative if the company would ever offer a gasoline range extender. The answer was an emphatic “no.” I asked the same question at a Lucid event and received the same answer. “The future is electric,” is the refrain I typically get from folks when I ask this question. To which I respond: “What’s your point?”
Telling me what the future is doesn’t seem particularly relevant. We could all be driving flying cars in the future, but if you started selling only flying cars today, you’d be a fool. This reminds me of 2022, when GM announced it would skip hybrids because the future is electric. More specifically, per the Detroit Free Press, Mary Barra said:
“GM has more than 25 years of electrification experience including with the plug-in vehicles like the Chevy Volt …From that experience, our vision is for an all-electric future. Our strategy is focused on battery electric vehicles as they represent the best solution and advance our vision for an all-electric future.”
I remember thinking upon reading that: “Sure, the future may be electric, but you’re selling cars now, in the future’s past. Right now, people want hybrids.” As expected, GM backtracked on its plan to offer only EVs and to skip hybrids, and is now going heavy into the hybrid game (while still offering a solid array of EVs).
Too Many Companies Are Splitting Too Small A Slice
The future is electric, but today is not electric. Toyota understood this because they understand consumers, though they got dragged by journalists for not going all-in on the new hotness. But sales numbers bear out that hybrids are the answer, and what’s more, automakers like Rivian and Lucid losing absolute metric crap-tons of money on electric vehicles — and other car companies like Ford deciding it’s worth losing $20 billion to cut many of its electric vehicle programs altogether — goes to show that the market just isn’t there for fully electric cars.
Of course, there’s Tesla, a company that managed something amazing. Lightning in a bottle, you might call it. It was an American company that came out of nowhere, developed its own charging infrastructure, created electric cars that were generations better than anything up to that point, and offered the cars at a rather competitive price. They also had a larger-than-life CEO who was admired by most of the world at the time, and also, they made loads of money by selling ZEV credits to automakers running afoul of CO2 compliance. That credit system is likely gone in the United States, thanks to the new presidential administration.
I get the impression that many companies saw Tesla’s success as proof that a sustainable EV company can exist. But in my eyes, to try to replicate Tesla’s model is silly. Tesla is one-of-one. An outlier. I tweeted this thought over a year ago, suggesting that EV companies should hybridize ASAP:
My suggestions to EV-only automakers: 1. Be careful looking at Tesla and thinking “I want those sales numbers.” You are not Tesla. Don’t try to be Tesla. Tesla is an anomaly. And 2. Get on the range extender bandwagon as soon as possible. Transition back to BEV-only later. https://t.co/1b7H2jmfN0
— David Tracy (@davidntracy) October 25, 2024
You know who replied to that tweet? None other than Ford’s own Jim Farley, CEO:
Now it’s nearly 14 months later, and Ford announced that its departing fully-electric F-150 Lighting is being replaced by a range-extended F-150 Lightning.
Ford Will Add A Gas Engine To The F-150 Lightning To Create A 700-Mile EREV
Naturally, EV-diehards are not thrilled:
This is what happens when you make sh*t products. This has nothing to do with making EV’s; this has everything to do with making bad EV’s. https://t.co/f3kxBlR6Ul
— phil beisel (@pbeisel) December 16, 2025
Hybrids are not the answer Jim
The future is all-electric and autonomous
You should’ve taken Elon’s offer to license Tesla FSD years ago…
Not looking good for Ford https://t.co/vPdl8fBtc5
— Dalton Brewer (@daltonbrewer) December 16, 2025
This going EREV will almost certainly be better for the environment than the BEV.
100K people trading their 15 MPG F-150 for an EREV truck has more value than 25K people trading their Tesla for a BEV truck.
— David Tracy (@davidntracy) December 16, 2025
You can see my opinion on the matter in the reply above.
This seems like a smart move on Ford’s part. The truth is that fully-electric pickup trucks make little sense for the mass market, and if you don’t believe me, just listen to what the former CEO of Lucid (an electric car company that refuses to offer gasoline engines) told me when I interviewed him last year:
“But let me tell you the reality is, and it’s me saying this, that it is not possible today with today’s technology to make an affordable pickup truck with anything [other] than internal combustion.”
This is just reality, which is where major corporations have to live.
With Fully Electric Vehicles, America’s Love For Big Cars Gets Expensive
America loves large cars, and large cars typically have what’s called in the industry “a high Vehicle Demand Energy” (VDE). This is the energy needed to move the vehicles down the road, and though it can be affected by powertrain (because, for example, a gas engine requires more cooling, which can lead to more drag; an electric vehicle is heavier, which can lead to more rolling resistance, etc.), this is more about the vehicle in which the powertrain is placed than the powertrain itself.
America’s taste for large vehicles means we tend to drive cars that require lots of energy just to go down the road, and if that vehicle is, for example, a pickup truck (like a Chevy Silverado EV) or SUV (like a Rivian R1S), you’re going to need a massive battery to achieve the range that the average American wants. Both the Silverado EV and the Rivian R1S offer batteries over 140 kWh, with the former offering one over 200 kWh.
Add a big trailer to those vehicles, and even those giant batteries won’t be enough to overcome not only range issues, but recharging issues, as infrastructure still isn’t good enough, and pull-through chargers for trailer-pulling pickups just aren’t very common even in 2025. When it comes to towing, EVs are simply the wrong tool for the job, as I wrote last year.
With Lucid and Rivian losing billions of dollars annually as EV demand remains softer than expected (though we do have some early signs that Rivian is turning things around, with a few quarters of positive gross profits, though net profits remain elusive), there’s an obvious question worth asking: Should these companies build cars that appeal to more than just a small electric sliver of the American car market-pie?
Rivian thinks the upcoming R2 and R3x will be enough. I have no doubt that they’ll sell relatively well, but I do have doubt about whether they’ll bring Rivian to sustainable net profitability. After all, the world already has cool, small electric SUVs like the Hyundai Ioniq 5 and the Chevy Equinox EV. And sure, you could say the world has lots of great hybrids, but the sales figures are on a different level. With hybrids, there’s more than just a sliver of the American market “pie” to share.
EREVS Are A Compromise That Can Minimize The Most Important Compromise
America wants hybrids; when Scout offered its vehicles as fully-electric or range-extended hybrid models, the majority of pre-orders were for the hybrids. And for good reasons. Though some EV purists call hybrids “compromises,” in truth, every car is a compromise, and a hybrid’s main advantage is that it’s actually a compromise-minimizer. If you think about the compromises that actually matter in the car world, it’s not compromises to packaging or complexity or even vehicle performance — what matters, big picture, is minimizing compromises to the way a driver actually uses their vehicle, while keeping the biggest compromise — cost — down. And in this way, hybrids are less of a compromise than BEVs.
I live in California, where the infrastructure is better than pretty much anywhere stateside. Still, charging a BEV can be an inconvenience compared to filling up a gas car, and what’s more, it can actually cost as much or more. I’m not saying charging a car here is bad — if you leverage the right apps, and are smart about planning, you can really get a lot out of driving a BEV (and you can save money on driving) — but the compromise is nonzero. It’s not about charging infrastructure or charging times or poor towing range — more than anything, it’s about cost.
Americans want to drive big cars, and they want to be able to not have to worry about range anxiety. This RA term is one that lots of EV journalists have historically dismissed. “Nobody needs 300 miles of range. 100 is just fine!” many say. In fact, here’s a Facebook reply to our story on Ford ditching the BEV Lightning for an EREV:
The Lightning is an excellent vehicle that won’t sell because truck buyers think they’re going to tow a trailer 500 miles every weekend. They won’t, and the range of an Lightning would actually meet their needs 99% of the time, but people stupidly make buying decisions based on that remote possibility that they might need extra capability someday.
The Gas Generator Doesn’t Have To Be Great Or Expensive
Are EV Car Companies EV-First or Environment-First?
OK, So There Are Some Huge Branding Problems
One topic I cannot ignore is the branding of it all. If a company has built its identity on a powertrain, things get tricky if they want to offer a different one. Rivian is all-electric, anti-gas. Lucid is the same. Tesla is the same. Since their inception, they’ve been no-gas, all-electric companies, largely because none of these companies would exist otherwise. How, then, can you maintain brand integrity if you offer a gasoline range extender?
I think you’re kind of missing the point of these, specifically Rivian for a surprisingly large number of buyers. It’s supposed to be contrarian yet acceptable status symbol of wealth in parts of America with high percentages of college educated professionals. Like a Fjallraven jacket. It’s to show up at the trailhead dangling the S-Works Stumpjumper off the back. Sure, never ride it. But you’re the coolest Cardiologist in suburban Rhode Island. You could get a Porsche, but your MTB group is going to talk made smack. The Rivian though, you’re a man who has money, can go fast and somewhat cares about the environment or something. I say this as a woke person, with woke friends, in my woke town, and my woke state. It’s a Corvette for people who go outside. Range-extenders are all fine and dandy for average people, who are probably just going to buy an F150. No-one is out towing with a Rivian; that’s stuff you pay people to do. Need to go far, we’re taking the Audi. Now, if Rivian wanted to make more money, and I can’t believe I’m saying this. They should just charge more. Make it even more exclusive. Because I’ve heard more than once, actually. a person surprised at how cheap their new Rivian was. The market could probably bear a significant price increase. Rivian should lean into that exclusiveness. Leave the whole trying to move volume thing to Ford.
Nope. EV’s a great for anyone who can charge at home and don’t have some crazy 3 hour commute. I have zero desire for my Ioniq 5 to have a range extender. I only charge it once a week. People (and especially auto journalists) seem to think everyone does a 1000 mile road trip once a month or more, when it’s once a year at best for most people. Hell, the furthest I’ve driven this year is 200 miles. I took the Odyssey because of space and the built in dvd to keep the kids happy.
I charge my Polestar 2 once a month. The cost is far less than my previous compact 4 cyl sedan, which I had to fuel up about once a month. Total cost savings for me. Plus the inside of my car doesn’t smell like an exhaust pipe.
And it can warm itself up in the garage every morning without toxic fumes
I don’t have a garage. I rely on public chargers. Even doing that it is far less expensive. Lack of toxic fumes is still a bonus
The point you’re making is part of the article. David points out that people by vehicles based on what they think they might do one time, not on how they will actually use it.
I’ve driven a few EVs/PHEVs, and just bought a new Tacoma (non-hybrid – not because I’m anti-hybrid, but I wanted a stick shift).
I wish there was a PHEV/EREV truck available today, I might have bought it. But not if it was going to cost me $20k more than the gas version.
I don’t do much towing, so even an EV would have potentially worked. But I couldn’t find a F150 lightning ER at a good enough price, and even then the range / charging time would have been a tough pill to swallow on road trips. If I can have a battery that covers anywhere between 10-40miles of range a day, charges on L2 at a decent rate 6kw+, and doesn’t require lengthy charging sessions in Walmart parking lots…that’s everything I need. People have different needs, it’s not one size fits all.
Smaller vehicles as EVs are already there, IMO (or can be – not all OEMs have gotten there yet). My Ioniq 6 proved that to me over the 24k miles I put on it. And that’s in DCFC charging environment that’s still not where it needs to be. But I took multiple 1000 mile trips on it and didn’t have a single charging issue.
Like, I’m very pro-EV…but the way they’ve rolled out over the last few years have definitely soured me on them. $70k to get a truck w/ 300 miles of range (probably 240 on the highway) and a 30+ min charge time are just compromises I’m not willing to make. This market, love it or hate it, demands certain things and is unique compared to China/Europe. Personally, the price for 200kwh of battery to make doing all the truck stuff people expect, barely, just didn’t add up. And yeah, I know most of these monstrosities never do more than an occasional trip to Lowes…but I’ve given up concerning myself with that.
EREVs seem like a good solution for trucks / bigger vehicles…it’ll be interested to see how they’re priced, and how they work.
Sigh. More EV bashing on this site. This is getting tiring. To the point where I may just stop visiting this site.
Please stop constantly proselytizing that EREV’s are the one, the only solution. I can confidently say it is not the one and only solution for all cars and trucks. It’s all about segmentation. A car/truck that does not appeal to you does not mean it does not have a market. If the EV car/truck is appealing to a demographic that ACTUALLY BUYS NEWS CARS (more on that later) then that is what you need to build. Next you need to determine if that demographic is large enough for you sell enough cars.
Tesla has clearly demonstrated that there is enough demand by selling 650,000 around cars in in US in 2024. They have about 45% market share, so that makes the annual US markets for EV’s nearly 1,500,000 units annually. With the drop in US incentives, even a 30% drop in sales is around 1,000,000 units annually. You are essentially saying they should just ignore that market.
Time to loop back the building cars for people that actually buy new cars. You, David, are seemingly wired to only buy used cars. (With amusing stories to tell as a result, so that’s a great win.) However, having you preach that these car companies should start making EREV’s is truly amusing. The odds of you actually buying a BRAND NEW EREV you preach about here seems incredibly low. I also suspect, that a solid majority of this sites demographic also never buys new cars. (Which is not a slight by the way, it is just a fact that lots of people like cars with, no touch screens, actual mechanical door handles, V8, cool 80’s car, enjoying working on their car, etc, etc.)
** If people only like ICE cars, great.
** If people only like Hybrid cars, great.
** EREV’s only is also great.
** EV’s only is also great.
But I’m sick of the bashing going on here specifically at EV’s. You seem hellbent on driving away a segment of car enthusiasts that happen to only like EV’s.
Anyhoo, time to sign off. I’ll check back here for today to look at any replies and then probably take a break (possibly permanent) from bothering visiting and commenting at this site. As as stated at the start, this is getting tiring.
Zero EV bashing is happening on this site. We’ve been extremely positive on BEVs, and if you think suggesting another option that could get more people driving electric is somehow EV-bashing, that may just be a sensitivity on your end. (Which I understand; for some reason, EV/gas has become a competition in the car world. It shouldn’t be!).
Nobody is “bashing” EV’s.
And you wrote a manifesto to whine about a car site covering car stuff.
You used Tesla as your example of the EV market, because OF COURSE you did… even after they were mentioned in the article (which you didn’t read, apparently).
Nobody is trying to make you sell your Tesla.
Then you announced your departure.
Maybe just go?
The problem will likely be that the manufacturers won’t build ”true” EREV’s i3 rex style or even Toyota style e-cvt drivetrains. Instead, they will take a traditional drivetrain and add ALL the parts that are needed for an EV, and then add some extra hybrid bits for good measure. Then they screw in all the extra components wherever they can find space. Because you don’t have space for them in the traditional combustion engine platform. Ze german brands (or at least their customers) are finding out the hard way, that putting electric components in the underside of the car does not work that well in winter climate.
Then the battery fails after 5 years, as it is too small and there are just too many/frequent load-charge cycles. And as the battery is too small and you have to run the engine often (for short periods of time), the engine wears out, because the oil is a mixture of gas and water and it never gets hot.
I get that from the bof pick-up/suv point of view the range extender could make sense. And a car with 3 m wheelbase (Ioniq 5) is small… but the whole vehicle must be built as an EREV, ground up. Or with a Toyota-style engineering approach with emphasis on durability in general and special focus on battery longevity. Will the stock-market focused US manufacturers have the patience, or will they take the easy/cheap/fast-approach…
“Then the battery fails after 5 years….” and gets replaced under warranty. The minimum warranty for hybrid batteries is 8 years / 100K miles. CARB states are 10 years / 150K miles.
My first question is where would they get the engines from? They certainly cannot build their own so it would need to come from another manufacturer and it would have to be efficient as a generator. Specifically in the case of Lucid, the cars were designed around not have an engine. Where would they put it? I understand batteries are a big driver of cost (prices are coming down), but I don’t see how making vehicles more complicated will make them more affordable.
People online love talking about how ideal PHEVs/EREVs are, but is anyone actually buying them? (Thank you David for at least putting your money where your mouth is) PHEVs have been available for a long time, they aren’t new. How many PHEV owners actually have home charging set up? I have a hunch people treat them just like normal gas cars and they will do the same with EREVs.
For people who have not owned a BEV, the whole thing can seem very different and scary. Any BEV owner will tell you that range anxiety goes away with experience. Road trips are entirely doable and not stressful. For those who say BEVs are too expensive, do what I did get one 2 years old for half off with a CPO warranty.
Why would one buy a plug-in car if one is not planning to plug it in? I mean, sure, people are stupid, but when there is a non-plug-in hybrid for sale that is less expensive, the math… well, that “stupid” thing is there again. That adds up to a lot of stupid.
And, I think these companies would have to create new designs to include a small gas engine, not try to fit one in with the existing designs.
PHEVs get worse gas mileage than non hybrids when not plugged in. Your average person will think because it’s a hybrid they will save money on gas no matter what and plugging in is too much hassle. I am also extremely doubtful that salespeople are capable of explaining the difference between hybrid/PHEV/EREV.
We don’t have enough good PHEVs to really know about plug-in rate, but I strongly doubt people won’t be plugging in their big 150mi EREV trucks/SUVs. If they won’t do that, then a BEV likely isn’t for them, either.
We have a 25 PHEV Escape and a 25 AWD Hybrid Maverick with nearly the same powertrain though they are different vehicles so cant to an exact comparo, but I can tell you that the PHEV when the battery is depleted (and it switches to Hybrid Mode) is probably a little better as a Hybrid than the MavericK which is always in Hybrid mode.
When in Hybrid mode the Escape, like the Maverick, the EV battery regens every coast and brake, and then the car uses the electric motor on acceleration and low loads until it’s low. They both do a lot of regen/drive and ICE / ICE + EV / EV switching. It’s all seamless
From what I can see, the Escape seems to hold the EV mode just a little longer before it switches on the ICE again based on either charge or load. It’s not a big difference, but you really need to baby the maverick to keep the ICE from starting, where the Escape tends to hang on a little longer..
The PHEV, when the battery is a 0% is still a Hybid, but on steroids
The subsidies used to make the PHEV cheaper for a lot of models.
(This is why the EU company car market is dominated by PHEVs that employees don’t plug in)
We have no good data on EREV sales in the U.S., so we really don’t know. But as I mentioned, I have concerns, as gas is cheap these days.
As for the engine thing, I have a paragraph on that. I make it clear that, like you said, it’s not as trivial as folks think. That said, the engine doesn’t have to be that efficient. For many, it’s mostly going to sit there.
FWIW when we got our first EV, the first thing the wife mentioned that she LOVED was that she didn’t have to fill up a car up with gas.
It wasn’t the cost of the gas, it was just the effort of her going to a gas station and tanking up. There was nothing pleasent in that experience for her so having the EV topped off every night and starting the day with a full charge was a big deal. Later she also fell in love with the instant power delivery and how quiet it was.. you know, all the other good stuff about driving electrified.
The key to our success with our EV is we had an ICE vehicle for road trips PLUS we also had a dedicated 220v level 2 outlet installed in our garage for the EV’s included level-2 charger (thanks GM!). The EREV and a 120 outlet is probably a better choice for anyone who only has one vehicle and/or can’t access a home level-2 outlet.
I HATE filling up my i3. I try to use it on electric 99.9% of the miles I drive. And I succeed with ease.
I drove a Volt for years, and my wife has a PHEV Rav4 now…so I get it. But I also kinda think this mentality of never wanting to fill up is sort of a negative with these types of vehicles.
Like, I’ve done the hunting for a public charger, or the gamification of it to never have to fill up – but part of the beauty of these things is that they don’t have to use public charging.
If a charger is there to use, great. Otherwise, use the car, charge it when it’s home/overnight, rinse and repeat.
Not to sound like a misogynist, but I think it may be slighty more of a woman’s thing. Smelly gasoline, poorly lit gas pumps, maybe not the best neighborhoods. I get it. I don’t like filling up at sketchy gas stations either and I wouldn’t want my daughters having to tank up and some of the city gas stations late at night, or really any time.
The EV’s (or PHEV’s or EREV’s) ‘full tank’ every morning after a charge eliminates that hassle.
That’s not a misogynistic take based on research we used to do in the OEM world. ICE vehicle highway fuel economy range target used to be 350-400 miles for exactly the reasons you mentioned based on years of focus groups around the US. A good balance between fuel economy and fuel tank capacity also translates into less frequent city or combined driving fuel stops.
I’m a guy and I hate filling up my gas car and hate filling the diesel even more as one is basically guaranteed to be standing in a greasy patch of spilled diesel.
Also hate wrenching on ICE vehicles and getting fuel on my hands – the stench hangs on for hours.
This makes it very odd that you decided to buy the PHEV version. You are basically the poster child for a dedicated EV as you have a huge fleet of vehicles to choose from.
PHEVs make the most sense for single car households.
(Was this the one you bought for the battery replacement shenanigans that was only available for the PHEV version with an extended CARB warranty)
If it’s just going to sit there, then what’s the point? Why have an engine that’s only going to be used once per year? It’s only purpose is to ease an irrational anxiety of the battery going dead? I understand the emotional reassurance of gasoline but I think we can get over that hump with more familiarity with BEVs and better education.
This would be a “read the article” moment. The same is true for BEVs that have over 300 miles of range. That extra battery capacity is just sitting there most of the time. It’s very heavy and relatively expensive. This is especially true for larger vehicles. EREVs make a ton of sense for these large vehicles.
If you only have an EV and you’re lucky enough to be able to plug it in all the time (level-2 charger at home? work?) and you do 95% of your driving around town, you’re not going to be very comfortable making a once a year extended road trip in it. First time DC level 3 charging, dealing with multiple apps and payment schemes, first time finding chargers on a route you’ve never taken, and depending on what part of the country, a real chance that the charger you’re looking for won’t be available though your apps may say otherwise. It’s going to be high stress for the occasional road tripper AND you also have to deal with charging once you get to your destination.
Not saying it’s not possible. I’m saying for someone who rarely goes out of town with an EV, those rare long EV trips are going to be high-stress.
All things being equal, if your EV had a range extender, you could eliminate all the anxiety of taking the car more than 200+ miles. This is of course assuming you had a level-2 charger to begin with. With only level-1 the EREV also becomes a viable EV choice for those daily commutes.
Love EVs as a city car, wouldn’t want one as my ONLY car.
I have taken my EV on a 900 mile trip and it is not nearly as stressful as you are making it out to be
Guess it depends on experience and the infrastructure. A 900 mile trip though California is different than a trip through Alabama, Mississippi and Arkansas.
I tire of the continuous drumbeat that homeowners are lucky or privileged. We aren’t some sort of new aristocracy.
67% of US households live in single family homes. It is by far the most common kind of housing.
I wonder what percentage of those have an available 220v outlet they can use, preferably under a covered carport or garage? Renters/leasers, all those older homes with 100 amp services, , .. just the cost to add a level-2 outlet might be prohibitive and will reduce that 67% quite a bit. The % of homes that are “EV” friendly is probably a bit lower.
Younger folks have a hard enough time making ends meet and if they’re apartment dwellers are probably not going to be able to find a level-2 (or even a level-1) outlet at home.
I’m all for home ownership, and I consider myself lucky to have been able to get our first home with help from family oh so many years ago. It’s a lot tougher now for the newly employed to afford a home, insurance and taxes, and it won’t be getting any easier anytime soon.
Adding EREVs to F150s is just kicking the can down the road. Real changes need to be made in transportation to reduce impacts. We are going to have to rip the band-aid off at some point. The longer we procrastinate, the worse it’s going to hurt.
Counterpoint. If nobody buys them, then it doesn’t make a difference. If instead, we produce vehicles that will be driven on electric for most use cases, and a lot of people buy them, then that is much better for the environment. I have an EV as a commuter car and I love it. But I wouldn’t buy one right now as a truck. I have a neighbor who had a Ford Lightning, but he got rid of it because it couldn’t do the truck things he needed it to do. EREVs for large vehicles is a win for the environment that has a chance of actually being implemented now, despite what EV purists want to believe.
Free Harbor Freight “Range Extending” Generator with every R1T purchase!
Let’s see how the F150 EREV does before we get all zealous about what a great idea these are. EREVs are a nice solution for the roadtrip issue, but otherwise they’re either a hybrid with wayyy too much battery or a PHEV with too much battery. EREVs aren’t a meaningful solution for people with no home charging.
Neither are BEVs, clearly.
I have my concerns about EREV sales as well, though I have no doubt that they’re more palatable than BEVs.
I just don’t see that there are a large number of people for whom the tradeoff makes sense.
Ditto with BEVs.
Honestly, right now in the U.S., the only sure thing is gas and traditional gas hybrids.
I think that’s a wild overstatement.
A ice generator is a lot more parts and more parts inventory and warranty concerns. BUT I so want an EREV. electric for around town and then gas when camping and overlanding.
I have a RAV4 Prime and use it mostly like an EV – especially during the week. In warm weather the battery capacity is just enough to get me to work and home with about 50 feet of range remaining.
302 horsepower is fun. 0-60 in under six seconds is exhilarating – most of my car history has been econoboxes with power best described as “adequate,” and not the way Rolls-Royce meant it. But I don’t need it. The power of the EV motor punching the car up to full chat is a striking experience, so the full 300 ponies is superfluous on any day.
So if I could have, instead of the full 2.5 liters, just 1.25 and an extra 50-100 miles of battery, that’d be the best of all possible worlds.
Full EV’s are just fine for daily commuting vehicles. I have one.
PHEV’s are great if your daily commute is short, but you also go on long trips occasionally. I have one of those too.
Full EV’s are horrible for trucks if you actually do truck things with them, but I would buy a EREV truck to tow our camper. I would never buy an EV to do that though, so I have a V8 gas truck. I also won’t buy a newer diesel because the reliability has been ruined by the emissions equipment. But I’m excited to have some EREV options when I replace my truck in several years.
Miatae are great for just having fun and should always be offered with a manual transmission. We have one of those too. And I just felt like putting that in there because it’s important to say.
Choice… that’s what is important!
X2 though our truck is a Hybrid AWD Maverick that can tow (only) 4,000 lbs. + a PHEV (25 Escape) + an EV (23 Bolt) + a Miata (91 Antique auto 5 speed) all at the house. The PHEV goes off with my daughter when she graduates in the summer where I hope she’ll wind up someplace where she can plug it in at night, the rest stay here as my city/truck/fun vehicles.
That’s such a similar mix to me. The Bolt EUV is new to us. I have an 06 Miata and a full size truck because my camper is 6000 pounds. My Ram is technically a hybrid, but it’s a very mild hybrid (48v Belt Alternator system). Our PHEV is a 330e.
If you were forced, tomorrow, to have one car (and access to no others), what would you choose?
Out of my stable? Probably the Maverick if I’m being practical since I sometimes use the truck/towing feature. If not that, the Escape PHEV; then again they’re going to bury me in my 91 Miata if the hole is big enough.
Love EVs. The BOLT is a blast but EVs are not great for road trips down here. A plug in PHEV/EREV is I think the best choice for anyone who only has one vehicle option.
That said, I’d sell a kidney (and my soul) for a Mazda VISION 4 door sedan in silver, instant torque AWD electric motors, and a rotary range extender. To me it’s still the most stunning car built in the 21st century. They even made a running concept!
https://share.google/images/QpIxMtmqMRB61Dav7
GIVE IT TO ME
Tough question… I’d have to keep the truck because it’s the only one that can pull our camper and my vacations are important to me. But it’s the one I hate to drive the most. The Miata is the one I would miss the most. I miss it right now (it’s going to be a long winter).
Yeah, it is tough! I could daily my SS sedan all year, and take family vacations with it, but I’d wreck it in the process (dogs as well). I’m hoping that Mrs. addiction is eventually on board with me having 3 myself: a light & low sports car for track & back roads, keep the SS, and then a truck or SUV for work/hauling/camping/etc. And she has the family trip-mobile.
I figured the Paragraph # over/under on mentioning this was about 1.5. Nice restraint, there.
I just have to disagree here. I don’t believe your argument about the impact on the environment when you take lifecycle emissions into account. And you want to build a vehicle that is more complex than ICE or a BEV independently.
I own a Tesla Model Y, a Silverado EV 4WT, and I don’t see the problems you are describing. ICE and BEVs have the SAME range problems with towing. There is virtually nowhere in the lower 48 where you are not within 50 miles of decent charging. There are an increasing number of pull through chargers and still going to be more.
But there will be less demand for more if you settle for EREVs. I’m not saying they shouldn’t exist, but they are not the best solution. The whole world is moving to BEVs but the US is drunk on planet killing fossil fuels, stubbornly refuses to do the buildouts that most other countries are doing, and is panicked about what-ifs that are at the extreme end of driving practices.
I drove my truck from SLC to Rexburg, to Yellowstone (spending two days there), to Laurel (near Billings), then down through the center of Wyoming and not once did I drop below 100 miles of range when connecting to a charger. If I had been towing I would not have had a problem either. And year over year this will get improved.
I find concerns about weight to be a farce when you have ICE trucks in many common configurations that tip the scales at between 6000-7500lbs. The Silverado EV is technically a 1/2 ton but it’s as roomy as the biggest trucks I’ve ever seen and tows the majority of trailers unless it’s a huge 5th wheel, the longest Airstream, or an 8 horse trailer. With a midgate on some trims you get your long bed while still being able to (ok, barely) fit in a parking space. Yeah, it’s not going to haul 2 tons of dirt, but I’m waiting for the person who shelled out $100K for the F350 long bed that is then going to dump 2 tons of anything besides a (dangerous) truck camper into that bed.
When the Lightning cancellation post went up, I read comment after comment after comment of people explaining their driving scenarios and how only an EREV or ICE would work and I kept saying to myself, “My Silverado EV can do that just fine.”
No one on this site, and I have to call you out David, is really seriously talking about the environmental impacts of the entire fossil fuel industry, which at this point, could largely be retired except for cars and aviation and shipping of which it’s cars…it’s really cars at this point. We have solutions for almost all other scenarios if we’re willing to divert some oil subsidies to them. And once we do, we’ll do what we’ve done elsewhere: improve battery and charging tech (1Mw chargers) and availability until every one of those problems is solved. But going backwards is just going to slow that down.
The only reason why people aren’t buying EVs is not because of the lack of EREVs, but rather because oil and gas are subsidized but the subsidies for EVs were dropped.
You hit the nail on the head. I hear all the time that BEVs don’t work but 2 years in I couldn’t be happier. After I got mine, people in my life saw that it wasn’t that big of a deal and also got one.
That is how these things work. The vast majority of people will only be convinced something works when someone they know and trust demonstrates that it works.
It happened with me with Hybrids and now later with EVs.
I’m glad your truck works well for you. As I mention in the piece, if everyone were rational, BEV sales would be through the roof. But if you’re an automaker, understanding the irrational nature of the consumer is critical to survival.
And yes, I concur that there is an inherent value in simply relying on less oil/gas. That’s exactly why I think EREVs make sense; getting people to turn in their 15 MPG F-150 and drive electric daily is a great thing.
My biggest concern with EREV is that they’re still going to cost more than an equivalent ICE truck, and that this powertrain is still going to struggle convincing F150 drivers getting 15MPG to make the switch.
But vs the current model (BEV trucks that nobody buys), I think it’s a better idea.
Do we know how these vehicles will perform once the battery is depleted (to its 20% floor or whatever) and operating on the range extender? I understand the basics of how this will work, but I’m just curious if there will be a performance drop off at that point – in terms of power, towing, etc.
Great points, Detroit Lightning!
That’s fair, but again, I think the irrationality is driven more by current policy than anything else.
I am 100% in agreement regarding the move to EREVs. PHEVs come in a close 2nd but compared to an EREV they’re more complicated, typically have much smaller batteries, and only deliver a fraction of the available power when in EV only mode. EREVs give you all the power, all the time, and with a larger battery provide that sweet 80+ miles range for just about everyone’s daily commute. (Full disclosure, 80 miles is almost enough to get us from where we live to the other side of town and back). An EREV with 100+ mile range sounds even better.
What owners of ICE vehicles don’t get, and won’t get until they purchase their own plug-in electrified car, is the personal epiphany that occurs when you drive past your favorite gas station the first time. It’s real, and that’s when you ‘get it’.
Another point that many miss is that a PHEV or EREV with the smallish battery can usually be topped off overnight using just a common 120vac outlet (level-1) charge cable. There’s no need for an expensive level-2 220v dedicated outlet in a garage to charge up for the day (though all EVs can use level 1 or level 2. (Most commuters would come home with 50% or better left in the EREV battery).
I am still waiting for a EV manufacturer to break the mold and go with something like a lightweight OMEGA-1 rotatory thing, or hell Mazda, just give us a purpose-built flying Dorito motor and generator for a EREV Mazda Vision, Mazda RX Vision, or the Mazda Iconic. We’re waiting!
Until the infrastructure in the US and the battery tech combines so charging up competes with gas in both time and cost, the EREV/PHEV solution is a better fit for those that can only have one vehicle. EV’s make great commuter/city cars but would not be my first choice for a road trip.
I somewhat disagree. There’s no reason all those companies “should” offer EREV or PHEV or whatever hybrid tech is out there. It’s perfectly OK for Tesla, Rivian, and Lucid to go all-in on BEV as their preferred platform. They are all luxury brands (of various levels) and if they can maintain their niche then more power to them.
That said, I agree with the rest of the thought that EREV or PHEV are still great technologies with potential to improve things like trucks, commuters, and the more mainstream use cases.
Not all companies need to be everything to everyone. Ford and GM are mostly truck and SUV companies now where full BEVs are less useful with current tech but EREV/PHEV would augment their line up wonderfully.
Throwing a lifeline of sorts to the oil industry, ensuring use of their products in transportation (for starters) is the last thing we should be doing, after all the BS and lies they’ve pulled.
I’m all for getting more folks away from oil and gas, which is why I’m a proponent of EREVs.
It should be noted that even if 100% of all new vehicles sold are BEVs starting tomorrow, there would still be plenty of business for the oil industry in the form of:
providing fuel and other fluids for the millions of ICE vehicles that are still out there.. not to mention fuel and other fluids for aviation, locomotive and marine use.LubricantsCoolantPlasticsSealantsSolventsWaxesHydraulic fluids like brake fluid, power steering fluid and the fluid used by other hydraulic systems.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroleum_product
The oil industry isn’t going away… ever.
But that doesn’t mean the oil industry couldn’t be run in a more sustainable way.
Simply doing a better job of capturing methane emissions could do a lot to slow global warming. Letting methane escape into the atmosphere is far worse than capturing it and using it in machinery or using it to generate electricity.
Also, finding more efficient ways to extract, refine and transport oil can also reduce overall emissions.
I’m gonna have to sort of disagree with you there, they’re just making the wrong cars EVs. Compliance EVs had it right 10 years ago, take your compact cars, add a motor and 30-40kWh of batteries, and you get over 100 miles of range for regular daily commuters. Then Ford/GM said oh we should make our biggest vehicles EVs, which is horrible.
EREVs are great for bigger vehicles, and I feel the cutoff should be if it needs more than 100kWh battery to do 300 miles in it, it’s too big, go EREV. If it’s small enough that 100kWh will get you 300 miles, or more then there’s no need to add that complexity.
As a fer instance, the Bolt EV gets over 200 miles on 62kWh battery, Tesla Model S started with 60kWh and then incrementally added to get up to 100kWh. The Slate is slated(hehe) to have either a 52.7 or 85kWh batteries, and get over 200 miles on the larger one.
The Hummer/F150/ID.Buzz/Scout/Rivian all should probably have EREVs, but not all EVs need an extender option. And in 10 years when the EV infrastructure is built out even more and chargers are as common as gas pumps it’ll be even less of an issue.
Tesla (and maybe Rivian) might struggle with this, but what does Lucid have to lose, let alone any smaller manufacturer still trying to make it?
Presumably this would be an option, and anyone who wants the “untainted” pure EV could still buy one.
I fail to see how opening up further options is a bad thing, especially when it’s addressing the major concern people have with EVs.
Especially when they still can shift their marketing from EV to Environmental. Show that math that 100 people in EREVs is WAY better for the environment than 15 people in BEVs, in all sorts of ways from mining the minerals to how much gas is getting burned.
Its a shift I would be discussing as an executive in those EV companies for sure.
I would love to see a breakdown of the environmental impact of the Toyota Prime line versus the full EV line at any other automaker. I would bet the PHEVs come out ahead, simply because so many more people buy them.
Totally agree.
EV companies need to stay EV because some states only allow EV companies to sell directly to consumers. If they do EREV then they need dealerships.
This is an interesting perspective I think I need to know more about. I’m not clear on where the actual legal lines are being drawn in those states. But I am also confident that lobby money is a powerful actor in the US, so those lines could be moved.
I’m actually generally pro-dealership because I’m not convinced direct sales lead to cheaper cars, but rather just more money in very rich peoples’ pockets instead of that money spread out to employees at dealerships. In the town I grew up (Leavenworth, KS), one of the biggest employers was Danny Zeck Ford. This was not uncommon in rural America.
Having now worked with Galpin, I see all the good a dealership brings to a local economy. Of course, it’s not a take I can formally write due to the fact that our site’s partner is a dealer (massive conflict of interest), but I truly mean this: I feel that GOOD dealerships are good for America. The issue is too many dealerships don’t meet that standard.
But that’s all a different topic for a different day.
I don’t think automakers need to reinvent the wheel with marketing these things. They’re hybrids you can plug in – just leave it at that. We all know they’re more complex than that, but to the average person it’ll function the same way as a hybrid in their daily life.
I think they can save face, but the longer they wait, the harder it will be.
The Range Extender is just a lifestyle option. “We are still an EV-focused company” can remain intact.
I was thinking about this just this morning and now I don’t want to repeat David’s thoughts, but if we start with Rivian and Slate, they could potentially package a range extender in the space where a truck toolbox might go. Self-contained fuel cell, motor, and electrical bits all in one modular package.
Test the market using a retrofit kit — if possible — and then extended it to a full OE implementation (including the non-pickups, where packaging becomes more of an issue).
What kills me with Lucid is they went in on the full-size luxury sedan when even before they started, it was obvious that segment was in serious decline. At this point, what even remains of it? Mercedes-Benz, BMW and maybe Porsche? Maserati doesn’t have enough volume to count, neither do Bentley and Rolls-Royce.
The Lexus LS is dead. Isn’t the Audi A8 on its run-out?
It feels Lucid in particular really wanted to try to repeat the Model S when the Model S at the time could offer something no competitor had, while there was still some space to carve out in that segment. However, 8+ years later when the Lucid Air was technically out the door, everything had changed. 5+ years later, it’s now obvious.
Rivian at least was smart with the R1T and R1S. Yep, pricey stuff so you’re not taking an absolute bath, and have limited volume to learn how to scale and fix bugbears… but the packaging people actually wanted.
As for hybrids, keep ‘em coming. Most buyers have a budget, and that stuff being built in higher volume with components produced in much larger quantities allows manufacturers to hit customer expectations while keeping the price reasonable.
Lucid has more than sufficient range in even their Air Pure model.
Adding a range extender would just make their car unnecessarily complex, heavier, and more expensive.
Meanwhile, people are buying Rivians and Lucid and other EVs specifically because they don’t want to use petroleum or go to gas stations.
I think they know what they’re doing.
That’s just like your opinion, man.
Dude – 420 miles is Downtown San Francisco to West LA via the 5.
I’ve made that drive numerous times in as little as six hours.
Can’t do it without getting out of the car to pee, get a drink or something to eat. Might as well plug in for a few minutes while doing all that for a bit of extra range.
Not all of us have the good fortune to take our road trips in California’s climate.
It’s going to be below zero F tomorrow night when I make my drive for Christmas. No EV on earth can make the 500 mile trip without significant time devoted to recharging.
This is definitely a thing road tripping with an EV and if that’s a major use case for the car they simply aren’t great at it.
I’ve done a few 600mi trips with my Model S and I’ve gone from usually one 15min pit stop to 3-4 20-30min stops (heavily weather dependent). Public charging is a little cheaper than my previous inefficient gas car but not by much. Granted, my S is a gen or so old in the battery and charging arena so newer stuff would be a bit better.
I’d imagine there is a larger number of people in the US that has only had the good fortune of taking their road trips in sunny California-like weather than the number of people wanting to make 500 mile road trips in a continuous single shot in below zero temps.
That’s what I hear. And I mean, that’s fine if you feel that way. But I don’t think that’s a logical way to justify car purchases.
You’re welcome to feel that way, but the way I see it is an EV is asking me to make additional impositions on my life that a gas car doesn’t.
Why would or should I accept any compromises of that magnitude in a $100,000 purchase?
Everyone values their tradeoffs differently.
I’m sure Lucid is having massive success selling to those folks then! Making lots of profits I’m sure.
Lucid’s big problems aren’t that they only make EVs. It’s their lack of reliability, their expensive, they don’t really have a competitive brand image vs similarly priced luxury cars, they aren’t well known, they don’t have a good footprint for selling or service, their software is buggy, etc. Switching to EREV isn’t going to help them. If you could magically swap in ICE powerplants from some other company, it wouldn’t solve their problems.
In the deep south chargers are still scarce, and even though they’re maybe on your app, no guarantee they’ll be working or open. Yes it is possible to take an EV on a road trip though the deep south, but it’s going to be a gamble every time you plan a stop.
As long as you don’t mind finding a Bucc-ee’s or whatever local Hampton Inn has charging in the back parking lot, you’ll be fine 🙂
Source: Lived in AL 30 years. But EV charging is far from the mainstream across the majority of the US landmass. The focus thus far has been on population density because that’s where the customers are. Roadtrippers are NOT a key market segment. And why would they be? “Total range” is starting to feel like the EV version of “Towing capacity” for pickups, even though it doesn’t apply to 95%+ of owners.
It’s a very accurate one nonetheless.
OK?
I won’t buy a Lucid right now.
I would buy one with a range extender.
If the company is so successful that it can ignore people like me, then so be it. I don’t think they are lighting up the sales charts or profitability metrics though. So what is there to lose?
Do you really believe Lucid would be more successful if it were chasing customers like you?
I believe offering more options generally leads to more sales, yes.
It’s almost like there’s more to success than sales.
For a company struggling to survive, I’d sure be curious to know what else you think rises to that level.
If you were making this argument for Tesla, I’d get it, but IMO Lucid can’t afford such purity.
Lucid can’t afford much of anything. What do you think it would cost the company–resource wise, and I’m not just talking money–to implement such a thing.
The Air and Gravity aren’t designed to accept a range extender anywhere on their platform. The amount of engineering likely necessary would likely be similar to them engineering a whole new car. For a company that has only ever had two models of cars, one of which is literally brand new.
They aren’t flush with the necessary capabilities to do something like this.
Unless they plan on selling the Air unchanged forever like Tesla does, they’ll eventually need to design and engineer a replacement (or go out of business). Sacrificing max efficiency for greater flexibility in accepting multiple powertrain options would seem to me like a good tradeoff to make with that vehicle.
I mean that completely ignores market specialization, brand image, operations infrastructure/logistics, etc etc. There is a reason McDonalds isn’t selling caviar, Rolls isn’t selling econo hatch backs, and Nvidia doesn’t make CPUs.
TIL luxury EVs and luxury EREVs are completely separate markets without any crossover appeal.
Still waiting for someone to answer the question of what Lucid has to lose from trying this.
My comment isn’t that there isn’t appeal in both, it’s that Lucid doesn’t know shit about ICE, doesn’t have any infrastructure to support ICE (their infrastructure is already a bit of a joke) and based all their designs about never having to include ICEs. To change this late in the game, you might as well just start a new company because everything is going to have to be replaced. Lucid would need new staff, new supply chain, new facilities, new designs, new equipment….
Lucid optimized their design so much around EV, you’d have to throw out the whole thing and start over.
But by adding a range extender, they can reduce battery size which carries a very high fixed cost with it. Its entirely possible they could create an EREV with a smaller battery that actually weighs less and costs less due to those battery reductions. Even if that didn’t prove possible, I am confident that approximate price parity between EREV and BEV is reasonably achievable.
Complexity, yes, you are absolutely correct that this would increase.
It’s not just solely about range, it’s about cost and allowing a pathway for EV skeptics.
I love the Gravity and Air, but expensive sedans/minivans don’t represent a lucrative part of the U.S. Market.
Respectfully, David, how does an EREV help an EV skeptic?
Also, the cost is higher because you still have an EV battery.
/I think David is playing fair here. People will drive around on battery, see how often they are on battery, see the things they love about driving on a battery, and it will bring down barriers for them. Not all barriers, but I am confident EREV’s can act as gateway drugs.
No question! But it doesn’t have to be a gateway to BEVs. Sticking with EREVs for larger vehicles, long term, seems totally fine.
I agree with you. They don’t have to be gateway drugs, and many vehicles will make long term sense as EREVs regardless.
And that is us with our PHEV Rav4. When we forget (rarely) to plug it in and have to use gas around town, we grumble. We can usually go several days on one 45 mile EV-only range.
On the other side, I have an 8 hour drive coming up Friday, and with a BEV, it would extend that to about a 10 hour drive to include charging.
This is why I think every argument for EREVs is a better argument for PHEVs.
This all depends on the exact implementation, but generally you are incorrect. Generally, you can save more than enough money by going with a drastically smaller battery, that it more than pays for the range extender bits.
That being said, I can’t imagine retrofitting range extender bits into purpose built EVs would be cheap. This would have to be something these brands do on following generations.
Most automakers who have EREVs in their plans have stated reduced cost as a major reason for their move.
Agreed. But none have said they are going to retrofit an existing EV with a range extender, to save money. All of them are waiting for the new generation or model to be released to implement it.
Plus, look at a company like Lucid. For them to direct the necessary bandwidth to implement an EREV into the Air, Gravity, or some future model, would stop the company from being able to do much else. And it’s not like Lucid couldn’t use some continuous improvement when it comes to reliability.
Oh yeah, if you don’t package-protect for it, retrofitting is a tough job. But EREV is really the only option for a company that sells BEVs and wants to sell a hybrid without developing an entirely unique platform.
That’s a PHEV.
Technically, any true series hybrid is a range extender.
Besides, battery costs are at like $100/kW. It doesn’t take much battery downsizing to save enough to pay for a small range extender.
It’s about bringing down pricing and reducing infrastructure concerns.
EREVs improve an electric car’s palatability to the masses. The Scout’s preorder numbers proved that.
You can only say that if you agree the Cybertruck’s preorders proved how palatable the electric pickup is.
Preorders are for the birds.
Sure, but there’s plenty out there that proves BEVs ain’t it right now.
How does adding a range extender to a competent EV bring down pricing?
It significantly reduces the cost of the most expensive component.
Slate, you should be listening here.