PiP vs Ford Fusion Energi Plug-in?

I was caught up in the "must charge" mindset for awhile, where I felt very wasteful if I didn't plug my car in every time I thought I should. It's much easier for me to just take advantage of charging opportunities whenever they arise, and not worry about maintaining a certain high mpg running average.

 

95 MPGe for PiP includes both gas and electricity. 100 MPGe for Energi is only electricity. That alone can tell you PiP EV miles are more efficient because despite the 50 MPG gas blending, it still held at 95 MPGe.

I am saying as if the 50 MPG gas is bad but it is not. Gasoline fuel is 83% efficient to produce while electricity is 30%. Gas engine waste heat gets recycled and reheat the cabin. Power plant waste heat gets wasted and EPA sticker doesn't care as it is considered upstream.

Sure it is downplaying. After 6 AER, the remaining battery charge got blended to boost gas mileage. Subsequent EV operation (with remaining battery) does not get counted either because AER must be continuous (not right IMO).

If you don't drive aggressively (like pre-2008 cycle), PiP EV is more efficient. It is only in the aggressive US06 cycle, the gas engine was used -- making the comparison invalid.

I divided 2,728 Wh usable energy in a full charge divided by 177.5 Wh/mi for city and 193.7 Wh/mi for highway.

I don't think so. Preheating is a dumb idea, really. Electricity already have 70% waste heat in the power plant and the transmission lines. Using the remaining 30% to heat up the car is just dumb, IMO because it is a lose-lose situation.​

​

Gas engine produces waste heat because it is onboard. PiP taps into that while driving the wheels with it. It is a win-win situation.​

​

It is counter-intuitive but PiP's cabin heater turning on the gas engine is a good thing. The battery doesn't have to worry about heating up the cabin further boosting EV efficiency.​

If it blends, it should see higher MPGs but I am saying it will lower the efficiency.

Ford non-plugin regular hybrid already cycle the gas engine due to it overproducing power at cruising speed. When the engine cannot shutdown at speed above 62 mph, the mileage suffers. That shows the inefficiency of the oversized gas engine at cruising speed. Blending electricity would just force the engine to make even less power (more pumping loss).

 

*sigh* What info did I leave out that wasn't already brought up in the thread?

I was thinking that since gasoline is so energy dense that even a little bit used would greatly add to the total energy used for the given distance in the calculation of the mpge. I erred with my eyeballing the numbers.

I've heard that gasoline production is 74% to 76% range for efficiency. 83% is around diesel production efficiency.

Is that how it played out? I thought the EV related numbers, like the gasoline ones, on the window sticker got adjusted downward from the actual test results.

Really though, the thread is about the comparison between the Ford Energis and the PPI systems. I had made a misjudgement on the PPI EV efficiency, which I already admitted too. If not for that, I wouldn't have brought the 6 mile AER up.

Now, here is the thing. Most potential PHV purchasers care more about total EV range than EV efficiency. Displacing a larger percentage of their daily drive away from petroleum fuels is more important than going the farthest per Wh. I'm sorry, but that is how it is.

Going back to the Energi to PPI comparison, is there any test method in which the PPI will come out with an EV range even close to the Energi's?

First, just about every car is more efficient if driven like like the pre-2008 tests. Second, under the Argonne tests, the PPI started to use gas in the second through the city test cycle. Their test simulated about 7.5miles. The test cycle for the EPA results is 11 miles long.

The EV range numbers are based on the combined cycles that are influenced to some extent by the new high speed test. That may have resulted in more gas use for the PPI numbers, but the heavier acceleration of the high speed cycle is closer to how most people drive on our roads. While the acceleration may not have been heavy enough for the Energi to use gas, it would mean faster consumption of its charge. So the comparisons are valid. The EPA test method hurts both equally.

OK. Reminds me of a Fuelly discussion on using average speed to estimate city/highway mix. A tank with low speed and high speed driving can have the same average speed as one driven at just a middle speed, but the efficiencies would be the same.

I also think turning on a gas only car 10 minutes before your trip is a dumb idea. But many people do it. So I brought it up because it might have been a difference important to a potential buyer.​

No disagreement there, but people considering efficiency in a vehicle purchase are looking at the car's total efficiency. If the ICE is less efficient at times, but the wall charge is keeping the overall mpgs high at those times, they don't care.

In the case of the Energis, there might not be increased pumping losses during blending. Under the light load of cruising at high speed, the higher pumping losses are likely. They have a higher top EV speed than the PPI though. Where to PPI is blending to increase mpg while cruising on an interstate, they will still be on EV. For an assumed, typical commute, a larger part of their blending will be during heavy accelerations compared to the PPI. At which point the ICE throttle will be open wider with less resulting losses.

 

I don't think so. Energi would always get more EV range no matter which test. I think it has 7.6 kWh where PiP has 4.4 kWh battery. Energi's usable energy is much higher than PiP is more efficient. For that, Energi gave up the cargo volume and gas mileage hit.

I think people care more about interior space than EV range. PiP's total efficiency is the highest when you consider the upstream fuel production.

EV ratio can be increased with charging opportunities. When you over-sized the motor/battery and under-utilize the gas engine, you won't have the efficiency opportunity because they are part of the plugin hybrid. PiP's strategy is flexible with minimum battery/motor size. That's the difference.

CAFE uses 83% to calculate Petroleum Equivalency Factor.

 

Going by the monthly sales, buyers appear to be evenly split between cargo space(PPI) and range(Volt). Combined, the C-max and Fusion Energi make it a near 3 way time in terms of short, medium, and long EV range. In terms of space, the Energis make conclusions difficult. The C-max only has about one cubic foot more cargo space than the Volt.The Fusion has the worse cargo space than any of them, but outsells the C-max. Meanwhile, the Energi's have the most passenger space.

It is a difference that depends upon the existence of a charging infrastructure beyond the owner's own outlet to realize its full benefit. Great if it works out for a person, but surveys have a majority of PPI owners wishing for more range.

That appears to be an average refinery's overall efficiency. It isn't gasoline's production efficiency, but the energy efficiency of all the petroleum products; diesel, naphtha, bunker oil, asphalt, etc.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCYQFjAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fgreet.es.anl.gov%2Ffiles%2Fhl9mw9i7&ei=001hU__aHOqpsQSK14CoBQ&usg=AFQjCNGfSYw_JfDuyuD7XeJGiDtUfDvmzw&bvm=bv.65636070,d.cWc&cad=rja
That report gives a better factor for gasoline(near 90%), but it is still just efficiency at the refinery. It doesn't include the energy used pump the oil out of the ground, or process tar sands, and transport it to the refinery.

 

However, PiP is not sold in all states.

Want more EV range, yes. Every plugin owners want more.

When you need more cargo space, or higher efficiency or shorter recharge time, Energi or Volt can't offer them because you can't leave part of the battery in the garage. Nor can you downsize the motor and cooling system for optimal efficiency when you are just using 50 hp. Those things are fixed.

It comes down to two choices. One with possibility of extending the EV range (which has control with planning). The other with no control over achieving higher efficiency (fixed in the vehicle). Toyota chose the former and I agree with this approach and fits my needs and reasonable wants.

Well, this one said 84%.

 

And why is that?

Which is why choice is good. Need cargo space in a PHV, no beating the PHV. Same if you are regularly going on long trips and will be on gasoline for an extended time.

You could extend the PPI EV range with planning, and the good fortune to have such access to charging points. Great if it works out for you, but if more planning is involved, why not just skip the PHV and go straight to BEV or simply BEVx? What if these chargers aren't free, and cost more than gasoline? with increased BEV adoption, will you PHV a BEV from a charger? With number of discharge cycles being a major determinant for battery life, won't this practice risk shorter life of the PPI traction battery if done on a daily basis?

Short charging time is a misleading argument. It puts forth the concept that the Volt and Fords get no benefit from partial charge, and their EV range won't increase in the same time as the PPI charges. They all have the same rated onboard chargers. So the same amount juice can be gained in to same amount of time. The PPI likely has the efficiency advantage, but it is all YMMV. With close EPA ratings, they will likely gain about the same amount EV miles during the charge for the typical driver. Short recharge time is just another way of saying small battery.

Is there a report attached to that graph?
The Argonne report talks as refinery efficiency is part of the chain, but it is in reference to the GREET model. The formula you posted before does refer to the 83% as the Petroleum refining and distribution efficiency. Seems to imply extraction isn't considered.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2000-06-12/pdf/00-14446.pdf
The electricity generation efficiency factor is just for fossil-fuel fired plants. So it ignores hydro and nukes.

But maybe Argonne does consider some extraction, but not the additional energy requirements of syn-crudes and heavy ones.
"Currently, Argonne’s methodology pushes all the burden of oil sands processing to the upstream recovery steps. In the currently used methodology, processing oil sands–derived crudes (syn-crudes) does not impact the energy efficiencies of refineries. Argonne will evaluate the existing arguments for separating the extra energy burdens of processing syn-crudes between the oil sands recovery steps and the refinery processing.
...
Heavier crudes have a larger vacuum residue fraction that needs to be upgraded in order to maintain a commercially viable product slate. Residue upgrading consumes large amounts of energy (i.e., delayed coker units with high CO2 emissions) and hydrogen. Residue upgrading units produce hydrogen-deficient intermediate products that need to be further hydro-processed into commercial refinery products (gasoline/jet fuel/diesel)."
Going forward, we will be processing more of those.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CC0QFjAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fgreet.es.anl.gov%2Ffiles%2Fpetroleum&ei=001hU__aHOqpsQSK14CoBQ&usg=AFQjCNHoz7xTUnK3qPhR0t_Nk61aToRqbA


This paper was just interesting because it pegs a refineries electric use for gasoline production at just over half.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CDQQFjAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fgreet.es.anl.gov%2Ffiles%2F1c49xpjg&ei=001hU__aHOqpsQSK14CoBQ&usg=AFQjCNFNj86V3TM0Vokj1k74YGvzsebbnw

 

There is nothing misleading about it. If you want longer EV range, you charge longer. If you want to deplete a 12 hours charge in 15 mins with high speed driving, so be it. Nevertheless, it has to be said whenever EV range and speed are brought up.

PiP EV mode was designed for slower city driving and gas engine for high speed long distance driving. The design taps into synergy of both fuels and use either or both depending on the driving conditions.

There is a beauty in using everything onboard to the fullest. If that bothers you, PiP is not for you - as simple as that.

I agree with you that choice is good.

 

It is misleading in the sense that for the current PHVs the actual charge time for the car won't matter to most users. In a California survey, 80+ percent of plug in owners charged at home. The Volt takes to longest to go from zero to full charge at 10hrs with a 120v, 15amp outlet. That might be pushing the full charge at home for those with a long work shift or regular errands. But with the Volt, many will install an EVSE, even if not needed to get fully charged, to take advantage of battery and cabin preconditioning. The others will be fully charged with time to spare at home with a standard outlet.

So the vast majority of PHV users are charging at home. The other place where many might charge is at work. In that case, the car will also have hours upon hours to charge. If there happens to be too few chargers for employee plug ins, PHVs that are fully capable under gasoline power may simply be banned from the chargers. Of course, with many businesses not having employee charging available, no charging at work will be common anyway.

My current car has a smaller gas tank than the previous one. It takes less time to fill up. While there is a world of difference between a few minutes and a few hours, there is also a world of difference spending minutes outside babysitting a fuel pump and spending hours working, eating, playing, and living life. Then the few minutes saved from sitting out in the weather is paid for by having to refuel sooner. A smaller battery PHV will charge to full faster, but will require extra time finding chargers and plugging in out side the comfort of charging at home to match the EV ratio of larger battery PHVs.

So stressing fast charge times is a red herring. Charging time for PHVs is not as important as refueling times in the race pit. Even the PPI's charge time is measured in hours. Virtually all PHV charging is going to take place while the owner does other things. Individual cases with an EV range around a Volt's might be pushing this, but non of the PHVs require a charging equipment investment beyond a dedicated 15amp plug for home charging. EV charging isn't gas car refueling. It doesn't take time away from the owner while the fuel is flowing into the 'tank'.

Pointing out the shorter recharge time isn't the same as pointing out longer EV ranges take longer to charge. It is misleading when it isn't stated why the charge time is shorter. An more powerful onboard or dual chargers means it is possible to put more Wh in for the same amount of time is an actual advantage. That isn't the case with the PPI though. While out running errands, the likely hood is that an opportunity charge will be cut off when the errands are done, and before the full charge is reached. During that time, all these PHVs have taken on the same amount of energy. Let's say that it was enough time for 1kWh of charge. With the Argonne city numbers, that is enough for 6.2 miles for the PPI and 4.5 miles for the Volt. With the EPA combined, it's 3.5mi(ignoring possible gas use) for the PPI and 2.9mi for the Volt and Energis.

Is that enough to make a difference within real life use. YMMV might negate any actual range advantage, and if the trip was short enough for the PPI to get there on EV, it is short enough for the Volt, and possibly the Energi, to do it without needing to grab a charge at the destination. Yes, they made trade offs to have the larger battery. Which might be a deal breaker for some buyers, but not being at the mercy of public charger availability is a plus for others.

Shorter total charge time because of a smaller battery isn't an advantage. Stressing charge time because of that is an attempt to make an issue out of something that is really a non-issue in regards to these PHVs. They all will have a full charge when leaving for the day, and bigger battery packs doesn't exclude the Volt or Energis for opportune charging during the day.

There are advantages for to the path Toyota choose for the PPI. Cargo space is a one. Higher overall efficiency is the other. Both of which can sway a buyer to it. It isn't necessary to muddy the waters with charging times. They are only a concern with BEVs and possible future, long EV range PHVs, because it's important for potential buyers know if they need to install a home charger. Current PHVs don't absolutely need one, and stressing charge times in their case can spread confusion among plug in initiates.

 

Everybody knows when they'll be charging, so what's wrong with quantifying how long they take to charge?

Once you deplete the EV range, the charge time start to matter especially if the on-board gas engine is not efficient and require premium gas.

The bottom line is, once you cross a balance line, you start to trade off efficiency, interior space, cost, and refuel time in order to increase EV range.

If you can get the minimum EV range that you need, you have a lot to gain from it.

 

Just to be clear, your scenario is charging for 12 hours at 120v and then getting in the car and flooring it for 15 minutes at 100 mph.

Your giving a deliberately misleading and outlandish example without providing the relevant context -- something worthy of Faux News. Your other discussion points are interesting and worthy of debate. Your charge time arguments are not.

Also, Trollbait is forgetting that the Prius Plugin charges more slowly than the Volt or Energi at the "240v" level that is typically available from public charging stations.

Volt and Energi will charge at about 3.0 kW while the Prius charges at around 2.2 kW at the same charging station. The actual charging rate will vary somewhat based on the local voltage (197-250).

 

Exactly. 120v charger is what's bundled with the car.

100 mph was seen as a GOOD feature because PiP top EV speed is 62 mph. My statement was the consequence of such "feature". Pointing out inefficiency (among other things) of Volt (and Energi) are also about the consequences of having more EV range.

I think many people don't see it because it is well hidden behind the big MPG displayed on the screen. And EPA 98 MPGe rating doesn't help either since it ignores the upstream efficiency (as supposed to, for vehicle operation only).

 

But you aren't quantifying it. You are only stating shorter. Since you used the worse case 12 hours for the Volt, does that mean the PPI takes 11 hours?

No, that isn't how you are hoping your shorter charging statements will be taken. You're hoping those that haven't done much digging into PHVs will see this short charge time as a pro to cancel out on of the PPI's cons or a competitor's pro. While the reality is that all these cars take HOURS to charge from empty, even at level 2 rates, and the majority of daily charging events take place when the car is parked for longer than the PPI's short charge time.

It matters only if you only see the trees but not the forest. Nearly all the thousands of annual miles that a car racks up accrue on trips near home. Yes, the other PHVs are less efficient on gasoline, but the longer EV range means they go farther before those gasoline fired ICEs are needed. With a full charge overnight, this means a larger percentage of those annual miles will be EV.

For those few long trips you are wrong about them not being efficient. They aren't Prius efficient, but then neir is the Lexus CT or Camry hybrid. They are definitely more efficient than what most people are buying.

True, but until the charge times are reduced to a minute per EV mile, the charge times for empty to full don't matter during the normal usage cycle for these cars.

Here's an idea. Let's get some volunteers to get their Prii up to 100mph and record the instant mpg. We'll use the average of that instead of the EPA 50mpg as the official Priuschat Prius fuel economy.

What? Absurd and unrealistic, but it is surely better than every other car doing 100mph. Not our problem in casual viewers don't know the context of the number, and might start spreading it as FUD.

Since the 62mph top speed was mentioned. What are your views on Toyota decreasing EV efficiency by having the higher EV speed in North America than in Europe and Japan, USB?

 

For those still looking for a technical discussion on the differences between the PPI and Energis, I suggest just researching the differences between the Prius HSD and Ford hybrid drive trains. Any additional differences the plug ins might have are linked in the compromises needed to get the longer EV range of the Energis.

 

Gas refuels in minutes, not hours. The context of the discussion was the drive time vs refuel time. The cost of the battery wear vs engine wear is another issue.

I am grateful they did that since we have interstate highways even in the city. 62 mph is good for short jump into highways with speed limit 55 mph.

 

My response was to you "Pointing out inefficiency" with the Volt going 100 mph. The car still went 25 miles in your example. That's what people will care about. They aren't thinking about how long it takes to charge their phone while streaming HD video.

The context of my comment was that using extreme example that have a tiny chance of happening in reality was absurd at best or willful FUD spreading at worse. A Volt going 100mph will drain the battery in 15minutes is as useful to the discussion as knowing what a Prius gets in mpg at 100mph.

Fast refuel times are important to liquid and gas fueled cars because you are stuck at the station in the rain, snow, wind, humidity, etc. until the refueling is done. At best, you can go into the mini mart for overpriced soda and chips.

With electric cars, quick refueling times don't matter for daily use because you don't have to sit in the car or stand next to the charger while the refueling is happening. Long trips on the other hand mean plotting all the available chargers on the route. Have something to do while charging. Hope someone else isn't charging when you get there....um, wait. The cars we are discussing all use gasoline in addition the electricity.

How about this for an absurd example, let's limit the cars to just electricity and regular wall outlets. They start out in the morning with a full charge. The Volt gets 46.9 miles on an average 21mph speed. The PPI gets 16.8 miles and pulls up to an ideally placed outlet. Then charges for 3 hours, and then goes another 16.8 miles. After a second 3 hour charge, the PPI can go a total of 50.4 miles in 11.4 hours. It only took the Volt 2.2hrs to travel those 46.9 miles. It will take about 63 minutes of charging to get 3.5 miles of range. The Volt could charge for 3hrs instead, and then go another 11.7 miles. For a total of 58.6 miles in 5.76 hours.

Which was the most efficient use of time?

But isn't that using electric at inefficient high speeds when it would be better to use gasoline?

 

I was told today by two Lexus employees that Ford bought their hybrid technology from Toyota.

 

I heard the same from a salesman that used to work at a Toyota dealer back when the Escape hybrid was coming out.

It simply isn't true, and both companies' systems have progressed since the gen2 Prius and Escape hybrid to the point that patent sharing isn't required.