Featured if you are looking at a new plugin or EV which is more important, range or MPGe?

Hybrid will never go away...it is win win for crude oil companies and electric company's

 

Measure of distance per unit of fuel isn't the best way to measure efficiency; amount of fuel for a set distance is. As mentioned earlier, the first can give a false impression that a change in efficiency is smaller or bigger than it really is. Then to calculate a proper average of fuel efficiency from multiple trips, the first needs to be converted to the second.

That said, MPGe is useful for comparing the efficiency of various cars using the fuel put in by the driver, or pump/outlet to wheels. It is just an EVs kW per distance efficiency converted a gallon of gasoline equivalent to make like comparisons easier. Use outside of its intended purpose at your own risk.

20 to 30 miles of EV range seems to be about the best compromise between cost, packaging, and EV performance in a PHEV at this point. Improvements in batteries will push the top limit of that range up. Under 20 miles, and the cost of including a larger battery and charger would likely be viewed as not worth it for consumers compared to a plain hybrid or even ICE car.

For a BEV, I'd say 100 miles is the minimum for a car that will be available nationwide in order to still be viable in areas with a real winter. Because people tend to overestimate how far they actually drive, and range anxiety, longer ranges are needed for expanded adoption.

Which is my situation. Since I want a plug in in order to reduce fossil fuel use, the Volt would fit me better than the Prime. I might get to all EV in a day for part of the year. So increased choice with differing range options is good.

With real winters, I think 90 miles is the minimum range for a BEV that would fit my needs.

 

there are tradeoffs with ev's, and not one size fits all. but that will improve with technology over time.

 

i can't speak for other potential buyers, but all i read about in reviews and discussions is range. i just don't think people care yet, because there aren't enough options.
if you want 300 miles; tesla. 200; bolt. 100; now we are seeing more offerings, but there are still a lot of other considerations besides efficiency; price, packaging, reliability...

 

never say never.

 

Sort of a false argument. Of course smaller batteries take less time to recharge than bigger batteries. (given the same number of watts on the input).

Bring a small cup and a bucket into any 2nd grade class and ask them which takes longer to fill up. I'm pretty sure they will all get the right answer. Now ask them which one they want filled with candy to take home. No one is going to say the small cup because it will take less time to fill up.

Mike

 

Geeee - I duno . . . . would i prefer our solar to allow us to drive free at FIVE miles per kWh & only have 25 miles of EV range? ... or would i rather pay zero for our PV fuel - driving THREE miles per kWh & not have to recharge for 300 miles. Hmmmm. decisions decisions.
Is this a trick question?

.

 

I don't think many car about ICE efficiency.

 

agreed. even though we have a system for mpg's, how many people care? maybe with higher gas prices, more do.
and then, people who care realize that each car under their particular operating circumstances often won't reflect the sticker mpg. so comparison becomes somewhat difficult.

 

If they are paying enough attention to know they won't match the window sticker number, they are aware enough to figure out how much they'll deviate on their daily drive and apply that to the stickers of other cars.

 

but every car's variation is different. at least, it has been for me. on the same drive, some do better, some similar, and some worse.

 

I had just looked at the EPA figures yesterday for two cars (Rav4h and v) and happened to look at the fuelly graphs for those cars to see how they were actually performing. More than half the reporting owners for each car had EPA combined or better lifetime figures. The curves were remarkably symmetrical.

My point is not all folks get lower than EPA.

 

i consistently find toyota to do better. gm, chrysler, ford, merc, vdub, fiat, et al, but i haven't purchased anything but toyota in the last ten years.

 

This is due to the EPA highway MPG crossover speed, Ford/ GM cars almost always are around 50mph, Dodge 40mph, Honda 65mph.
The "city" rating is relatively accurate on most cars but only at 80F on longer city jaunts. Many cars become increasingly abysmal as the temperatures goes down.
Even mild temps like 60F have dropped my mpg 5mpg on some cars.
(Which in my mind is poor design, my Honda maintains EPA right down to zero F)

Manufacturers who design/game the car for the test could be ratted out if a
Max continuous highway speed you can expect X mpg at 50F metric were on the label.
May also motivate some to kill their crappy cold weather behavior and improve.

 

I think the average joe and jane are going to look more closely at range than mpge. Though both are very useful numbers, if they were comparing, say, a 2017 Chevy Volt, with its 106 mpge, to the 2017 Prius Prime's 133 mpge, it probably wouldn't mean too much to them.

But when they look at 53 miles of electric range vs 25 miles, that's more concrete numbers that they can then factor into their driving habits.

For me, using less gas was my main goal, which the Volt achieves very nicely due to its larger range. With my current 40 mile work commute, up from the usual 38 due to highway construction, I can make it to work and back everyday without using any gas.

With the Prime, I'd have to burn gas everyday. Which also ultimately means more trips to the gas station, and being subjected to whatever OPEC/Big Oil demands in tribute at the pump at the time.

That's not to say the Prime doesn't have its advantages, namely the lower starting price, higher mpg when running on gas, larger cargo room, and the stellar Toyota reliability. Not everyone needs a fast car, and the Prime's EV range may fit some people's daily driving, so hopefully Toyota can focus on their strengths.

Ultimately, I like to look at all plug-ins the same way, reducing our oil dependence. The less gas we're using, the better. I hope the Prime helps bring people who may never have considered a plug-in before to start looking at them a little more closely. Which will then encourage and justify the R&D costs to automakers to make more of them.

It's already hard enough to get people to try out plug-in cars, so the less bickering we're doing against each other, the better.

 

One of the reasons I went from the PiP to the Volt was for the extra range, so my commute would be gasoline free, which the PiP couldn't do. Even with more range that the Prime has, the ICE would still come on.

 

one reason i'm having trouble pulling the lever on prime is that i'm already at 65% ev, and using less gas by the year.
it would seem foolish to trade up just for higher mpge, if you don't use it often enough.
plus, towing around a battery you only use all of once in awhile seems not to make sense.

 

Towing around a bigger battery than needed - i get that ..... it even costs more .... not to say that excess pack size doesn't have its own benefits. So for instance, it requires less charge cycles, which adds to longevity. Similarly, a biger traction pack can absorb higher power, w/out causing as much heat, which again, is a factor for capacity degradation / longevity. Collaterally, the higher power can represent a faster charge. Different products - for different concerns.
.