Featured Plug-In Hybrids No Greener, Or Even Worse, Than ICE Models, Study Finds

Fooled all of us? This is a Prius site, not a Diesel site. So there can’t be that many fools here! Most of all of us drive a Toyota non-diesel.

 

I'd like to see University of West Virginia do some of their mobile studies to quantify what happens. One PHEV advantage is the initial acceleration can be in EV and the engine initial catalytic converter warm-up in the relatively low power, cruise mode.

Bob Wilson

 

They were actually doing work for the the ICCT, who has done many studies in Europe. In fact, they were doing the research on the US diesels to counter manufacturer claim's in Europe that emission controls would be too expensive.

https://theicct.org/

Here is the article on their research of the topic. Links to the actual white paper at the end.
PHEV: Real-world consumption 2-4 times higher than approved - electrive.com

 

Interestingly, for me anyways, that the old man from the way back machine, mentioned to me many times as I was approching my teens, that GM give the same excuse to the Ralph Nader call for adding seat belts to US manufactured cars. Not even shoulder harness, only waist belts. Thanks for the stroll down memory lane

Ralph - Biography of Ralph Nader - Learn More About Ralph Nader

 

I've seen this twice and don't quite see the relevance. It sounds like you are advocating the i3-Rex as a "best buy" even though you describe it as a barely adequate BEV for local use and a totally inadequate ICE for long distances. You are obviously not using it as a low emissions vehicle if you have it set so that you don't even have the "auto stop/start at idle" feature once the ICE is needed.

What is the use that requires that you drive 72 miles in town every day? I find it hard to use up 25 miles of range doing errands in a city that is 50 ( 7 x 7 ) square miles.

Dan

 

It is a question of requirements driven in part by local conditions. I live in Madison county, Huntsville AL. I can imagine (and have lived) in extremely larger and smaller urban areas that would have different driving requirements.

Bob Wilson

 

The devil is in the detail, especially with such a cherry-picked list of testing vehicles for that study:

• BMW X5 = 31 Miles EV, 6-cylinder 282-hp engine starting at $65,400 (50 MPGe, 20 MPG)
• Volvo XC60 = 19 Miles EV, 4-cylinder 316-hp engine starting at $53,950 (57 MPGe, 27 MPG)
• Mitsubishi Outlander = 22 Miles EV, 4-cylinder 117-hp engine starting at $37,705 (74 MPGe, 25 MPG)

How is that supposed to be representative of an entire fleet of PHEV choices? Excluding the newest offering tells the real story:

• RAV4 Prime = 42 Miles EV, 4-cylinder 176-hp engine starting at $38,100 (94 MPGe, 38 MPG)

And based on what is a minimum of 90 km (56 miles) for EV required? That's quite an arbitrary value, well above most people's daily driving needs.

 

I think you are commenting on this, Carmakers pass the buck onto consumers for plug-in hybrid emissions | Transport & Environment

No link to the actual study, but Transport & Environment appears to be a political group lobbying for zero emission vehicles.

My guess the Mitsubishi and Volvo were chosen because they are the top selling PHEVs in Europe now. The BMW is new, but a large percentage of sales are for the PHEV. European sales 2020 first half EV and PHEV - carsalesbase.com

Are Rav4 PHV's available in Europe yet? Either way it would also fail in this test, as the official test is the WLTP, and the official CO2 emissions are determined by basically the same method as the Volt got a sixty something MPGe on its first window sticker. Which the EPA realized was a useless metric after less than a year.

The 80km(50 mile) EV range, among other things they are calling for is in line with their mandate. It isn't a requirement they are calling for on all PHEVs. Just for ones that receive incentives.

That is the drive for these PHEV studies in Europe. The cars get subsidies based on CO2 emissions from the official test, but many of the people that actually drive them aren't plugging in for whatever reason. Since they aren't delivering the CO2 reduction, there is a call to eliminate the subsidy or redo the requirements.

 

My PHEV experiments were aimed at saving my money. But if others are just trying to 'game' the system, the studies make sense along with changes. I'd probably go with a split odometer with total and gas vs EV miles. Then annual fees based on the ratio or something like that.

Bob Wilson

 

Unfortunately, there has been only 1 study and it was presented as comprehensive. We didn't find out until recently just how misrepresentative it actually was. This was basically propaganda, selective data used to draw an all-encompassing conclusion... which now feeds anti-PHEV rhetoric. Treating all designs as if they were the same is a blatant attempt to undermine. It's just like what saw in the past for hybrids, but now for plug-in hybrids. Think of how absurd it is to set criteria, then fail everyone even before giving them a chance to try to meet it.

To actually be constructive, PHEV offerings should be rated in several categories and that information be fully disclosed. Better choices will get the support they deserve. Later when a mandate is set, those who pushed to achieve that criteria specified will get rewarded.

Gaming doesn't work if you meter properly. This isn't rocket science. Measuring the amount of kWh the vehicle takes in via the plug tells the real story of how that vehicle was used. In fact, this is already the method some electricity providers use to determine how to calculate discounts.

 

One study does not make a rule. There needs to be multiple, independent studies.

I share the concern that all three examples have relatively short EV ranges compared to our 2014 BMW i3-REx. I found the shorter EV range PHEV unacceptable but then I had the BMW i3-REx as an alternative. When the short range PHEV became 'driveway art,' it made more sense to trade it in on our Tesla. In less than one year, the Tesla has twice the odometer miles than the traded PHEV after a year and a half.

Bob Wilson

 

Yup.

The purpose of studies like that are supposed to be to collect data and present it for consideration of how mandates should be set. That's how you get solutions that are realistic to achieve. Setting criteria that isn't based on real-world feasibility doesn't make sense.

We have very important goals that must be reached. That requires critical thinking. To witness keyboard-warriors proclaim PHEV failed without even so much as questioning why that study didn't disclose detail and why only one study was all they needed to draw a conclusion is really troubling.

 

Let's face on a lot of measures a phev is not a lot cleaner than a hybrid. Its hard to figure out a scenario where they are Less green than a regular ice, but here goes. you travel once a year, and go 1000 miles there and back then park. That battery is going to need some help in the phev.

Now the question is really what is green versus what is clean. A hybrid like the prius or camry hybrid have very low emissions. A phev when used properly will have less, but not so much. Definitely with some bad euro regulations many phev are going to be bought for corporate tax breaks and the drivers may drive in a way that pollutes slightly more than if they had a hybrid.

I do think in many case a small battery phev (<10kwh battery) is going to not make a lot of sense unless the car isn't expected to go far or fast or it needs more than v8 power and that small battery can supply. Milder 48V hybrids will become the norm in Europe in the next decade, living along side phevs and bevs. Really Toyota in their rav4 prime did a good mix of battery size and efficient engine.

 

There has been at least three studies posted in these threads. Two of them were using user reported data from sources like Fuelly; one from Greenpeace and a partner, and the other from ICCT, whose having W. Va tech run a study caught VW cheating with diesels. The most recent one was direct testing of three models by T&E, which I do criticize for not actually publishing the study with their recent press release(these seem to be it, https://www.transportenvironment.org/sites/te/files/publications/2020_11_Plug-in_hybrids_report_final.pdf, https://www.transportenvironment.org/sites/te/files/publications/2020_11_Emissions_Analytics_plug-in_hybrid_testing_report.pdf). The PHEVs chosen were the two top sellers and a newer model that is very popular in the PHEV form. The Outlander PHEV sold 19,000 in one half of 2019 in Europe to the Prius PHV's 2600 for the full year. Going with the more efficient model would be the cherry picking here.

Like most, you are getting outraged by the third party head line, and not actually reading what the study says. T&E was not setting criteria before the test. They were calling them failures for not meeting what the cars got for CO2 emission according to the official, state tests.

The criteria you are referring to are proposals made after the study for changes to subsidy policy. T&E's proposal is more extreme than the others, because they only want to subsidize PHEVs that can run zero emission for nearly all their use, but the others also had the same conclusion that the current EU subsidy policies for PHEVs aren't working to reduce carbon emissions. That is what these studies are actually saying, that what the headlines say.

They should do that, but it isn't what the EU is doing. They are just looking at CO2 emissions to determine subsidy eligibility. A PHEV's rating is determined from a virtual trip over a set distance, starting with a full battery, using consumption figures from the official test. WLTP is better than NEDC, but it is still easier than the EPA. Get a low enough rating, and the car qualifies, regardless of whether it is actually charged once sold.

Which is one of T&E's proposals.

 

RAV4 Prime - I thought was only available in USA - and just recently in Japan.

Being EU based report - OUTLANDER PHEV is the dominant player.

 

I'm not convinced with 48V Hybrids though - we have the RAV4 Hybrid - at a price premium over ICE. SUBARU Forester has a similar price premium for their 48 volt Hybrid. RAV4 makes huge savings in fuel $$$. Forester not much at all.

Road tests - the journalists have every time said go for the Hybrid with RAV4 - it's a no-brainer. But when they tested the Forester - they all said "avoid it" - it's marginally better than the ICE, but you'll never get your $$$$ back. I haven't seen a back-to-back comparison - I think they've already worked out which will LOSE - by a big margin.

 

Knowing new PHEV choices are on the way, yet pushing a study as if it represents a complete & mature market, is the problem. It's a never-ending battle having to deal with misrepresentation like that. People will sight the outdated study for years... especially if it is extremely vague... which is exactly what we got. This is how you undermine. We've seen it many times in the past.

 

Crystal balls aren't easy to come by. We deal with the present, or with history.

 

The Subaru isn't using a 48V system; the battery is 118V. The pricing does sound high for what it is. Likely because of production scale. Maybe they are paying through the nose for the batteries.

A 48V system will be cheaper because of the smaller battery and production numbers. Two or three auto supply companies have developed these 48V systems, and they'll be used the entire industry. It will add about $800 to $1200 to a car's price vs the $2000 to $3000 for a full hybrid system. Ram only charges $200 over the V8 price for the mild hybrid option.

How were they suppose to test a car that isn't available? Wait for it? But what about the next new model with its improvements?

These studies weren't condemning PHEVs. They were condemning the subsidy policies that were intended to reduce carbon emissions from the car fleet, but aren't actually doing that because they don't ensure people actually plug the PHEV in. If the US had a policy that businesses multi year tax breaks for buying PHEVs in the name of reducing emissions, but the business didn't provide charging at work, and gave the cars to employees that couldn't charge at home, we'd all be Wth, too. The EU's PHEV policies have the same flaws as the flex-fuel ones did in the US.

As for detractors smearing PHEVs with these studies, they would do so even if they were as perfect as you wanted them. Just look at how global warming deniers misrepresent research supporting global warming.

Even the Rav4 Prime would fail these tests because of the less demanding fuel economy testing, and the way the EU the derives a single CO2 emission rating for a PHEV.

 

Ohh - the road-test didn't mention a voltage, sorry, probably my assumption. But they certainly weren't impressed. My sister has a current Forester and gets better mileage than the Journos did with the "Mild Hybrid".

They mentioned - an opinion "Further, the term mild hybrid is an oxymoron: you either have multiple (hybrid) or singular (non-hybrid) propulsion types and there’s no technical ‘sorta-hybrid’ in between. (Further still, to call Subaru’s application a mild hybrid is to confuse it with Audi’s stated approach, which is merely internal combustion only, masquerading behind somewhat deceptive marketing.)".

A later back to back comparison with RAV4:
FORESTER - 7.0L/100km, RAV4 - 4.8L/100km

AND - SUBARU aren't using the Hybrid Synergy Drive - but a "conventional" CVT - which has been quite unreliable and expensive to repair.