Anyone else who wouldn't have a PHEV again?

[anko]

For us, no hybrid is going to be cheaper to run or more ecological than a modern petrol vehicle of comparable size ....

Perhaps it can, if you stay away from the Save button ... I know, you have already explained you care more about comfort than fuel economy. For others, I still believe the PHEV can be more economical than a comparable SUV. Even on long distances.

 

[maby]

For us, no hybrid is going to be cheaper to run or more ecological than a modern petrol vehicle of comparable size ....

Perhaps it can, if you stay away from the Save button ... I know, you have already explained you care more about comfort than fuel economy. For others, I still believe the PHEV can be more economical than a comparable SUV. Even on long distances.

Once you go significantly beyond the EV range, you are up against basic science - the PHEV is carrying around a heavy battery that is contributing very little towards fuel economy and the power flow at speeds below 40 or 50mph is going through first a generator, then an electric motor. It does remarkably well to more or less match the running costs of a conventional car really. I know that you disagree with my strategy for operating the car, but I've seen nothing to suggest that the car is capable of better than about 45mpg over long distances and that is well within the capabilities of modern comparable 4WDs like the RR Evoque. Nobody here has made a plausible claim for better than 45mpg on long non-EV trips.

 

[greendwarf]

I suppose it very much depends on your rationale for getting a PHEV and the likely impact of the BIK and OLEV amendments. If the main reason was the tax incentives etc, then clearly these forthcoming changes are likely make a difference, but that may not be an issue for others. While mine is a company car, I own the company, but above all I do fairly frequent short trips on a daily basis and only the very occasional longer trips, so I get the very most out of the EV mode.

....

The deciding factor is pattern of usage. For us, no hybrid is going to be cheaper to run or more ecological than a modern petrol vehicle of comparable size and pure EVs are woefully inadequate. The incentive is the tax treatment and that is being eroded. I doubt that the PHEV will see me out, so I think it will be back to a conventional petrol vehicle in eight to ten years.

Depending, of course on price of petrol (war between Iran & Saudi?) & tax levels against price of electricity - 8 to 10 years is a long time.

 

[anko]

...but I've seen nothing to suggest that the car is capable of better than about 45mpg over long distances and that is well within the capabilities of modern comparable 4WDs like the RR Evoque

A RangeRover Evoque is rated as follows:

- long distance 6.4 l / 100 km (46 MPG)
- city 10.3 l / 100 km (27 MPG)
- combined 7.8 l / 100 km (36 MPG)

This info comes directly from the official Dutch LR / RR website. Marketing materials. Wanna bet it cannot do 45 MPG on the long range in real live? And let's be honest, how could it? There are laws of physics to deal with. Or are we all of a sudden moving away from a "petrol vehicle of comparable size" to a "diesel vehicle of comparable size"?

I do think that, apart from BIK, an Evogue Diesel had been a much better choice for you / your use pattern and style. That I'll give you ;-)

Once you go significantly beyond the EV range, you are up against basic science - the PHEV is carrying around a heavy battery that is contributing very little towards fuel economy and the power flow at speeds below 40 or 50mph is going through first a generator, then an electric motor.

(I write this with people new to the forum in mind, as you and others know my thoughts about this)

A full battery may not contribute very much, but an empty battery might. The big issue with normal cars is that their engines run under a partial load most of the time which makes them rather inefficient. The battery of the PHEV can buffer exces power, allowing the engine to run under a much higher load most of the time (if not all the time), which makes the engine operate more efficiently (more mechanical kWh produced per liter spent). By keeping SOC artificially high by means of the Save or Charge button, you (partly) eliminate this positive effect of having a big battery. As we all can experience quite easily, even max regen braking capacity is negatively impacted by a high SOC, ultimately resulting in more use of friction brakes / waste of energy.

The hybrid setup of the car allows for shutting down the engine for significant parts of our trips. The end result is less revolutions of the crankshaft per mile traveled and thus less energy wasted on overcoming internal resistance.

Believe me, it is not that I do not agree with your 'operating strategy'. That is all up to you. It is more that, as you have repeatedly said yourself, your strategy is more focussed on comfort than fuel economy, and yet you make statements about the cars poor fuel economy. To me, that doesn't make sense. Sorry

 

[TC1978]

The issue, as I see it, is less one of range and more a question of the time it takes to recharge. A couple of hundred miles range is just about adequate - but only if you can recharge in broadly the same time that it takes to fill the tank of a conventional car with petrol - and that will require a completely new battery technology. Even if you are prepared to stop for half an hour every couple of hundred miles, the logistical implications are horrendous for the large scale adoption of EVs. A motorway service area can refuel half a dozen cars or more per pump in the time that it would take a Tesla with current technology to recharge - and the Tesla (which currently has the best range of any EV) will need to recharge almost twice as often as the petrol cars need to refill. We would need to more than double the forecourt capacity of refuelling stations and would probably have to embark on a major cable laying programme too - the drain on the grid to simultaneously recharge a couple of dozen cars on rapid chargers will almost certainly exceed the distribution capacity to most current petrol stations.

I don't disagree to any of those points with 'current view' eyes, but I look to the advancement in battery, EV uptake and charging technology in the past three years. Clearly there can't be exponential improvements forever, but three years ago CHaDEMO was not a thing, and the Nissan Leaf had only been available for sale in the UK for less than a year.

That launch Nissan Leaf had a range, measured by EPA of 73 miles, and now has 107 mile range. The Model S, although wildly more expensive, has an EPA measured range of more than 200. With the current cost of batteries roughly falling by 15% per year, that's a representative cost reduction - broadly translatable into range - of almost half projecting forwards.

Again, subjective to everyone's needs, but for mine, if there had been an EV with ~300 miles range available for similar money to the PHEV, I'd have bought that and lived with the consequences. I stop every few hundred miles on long trips anyway, by the time I've gone to the toilet in the main services, bought a drink and filled the PHEV up on the forecourt, I doubt there's much change from 30 minutes. And with the advances expected in battery storage (of power), who's to say that there won't be a quicker way to charge in 3 years time?

Once you've reduced 'charge time' anxiety, range anxiety is dead. I've had range anxiety in every single car I've owned, but there's been MASSIVE investment in refining and storing petrol historically. There's nothing like that cost to make EV charging networks as ubiquitous and useful.

 

[maby]

...but I've seen nothing to suggest that the car is capable of better than about 45mpg over long distances and that is well within the capabilities of modern comparable 4WDs like the RR Evoque

A RangeRover Evoque is rated as follows:

- long distance 6.4 l / 100 km (46 MPG)
- city 10.3 l / 100 km (27 MPG)
- combined 7.8 l / 100 km (36 MPG)

...

You are quite right - I was looking at the diesel figures!

Regarding the rest of your post, there may well be some differences in performance depending on driving strategy, but I maintain that nobody - including you - has ever demonstrated an ability to extract significantly more than 45mpg from a PHEV once you get significantly beyond the EV range - and while 45mpg is not bad for a car of this size, it is not an overwhelming argument in its favour. I have tried your strategy of letting the battery run flat - we documented and discussed it right here - the difference in fuel consumption compared with holding a full charge for later use was too small to measure with certainty.

 

[HHL]

You are quite right - I was looking at the diesel figures!

Regarding the rest of your post, there may well be some differences in performance depending on driving strategy, but I maintain that nobody - including you - has ever demonstrated an ability to extract significantly more than 45mpg from a PHEV once you get significantly beyond the EV range - and while 45mpg is not bad for a car of this size, it is not an overwhelming argument in its favour. I have tried your strategy of letting the battery run flat - we documented and discussed it right here - the difference in fuel consumption compared with holding a full charge for later use was too small to measure with certainty.

Not sure why people think there should be much difference in fuel economy on the open road between the modes. They really all do the same thing with one difference. They maintain the battery at different charge levels, but once the battery is there, they will cycle within about 5% of the selected level, 80% in "charge" mode, around 30% no button pressed and whatever level it was when "save" is pressed. So, the end result over a longer distance would no vary much at all, except for a slight increase in fuel usage for the charge mode if it was pressed when the battery was low.

 

[anko]

Not sure why people think there should be much difference in fuel economy on the open road between the modes. They really all do the same thing with one difference. They maintain the battery at different charge levels, but once the battery is there, they will cycle within about 5% of the selected level, 80% in "charge" mode, around 30% no button pressed and whatever level it was when "save" is pressed. So, the end result over a longer distance would no vary much at all, except for a slight increase in fuel usage for the charge mode if it was pressed when the battery was low.

That increase of fuel consumption would be caused by the fact that you in fact increase your SOC over the duration of the trip, right? That makes sense. But there is more to it.

Lookup BSFC (Brake Specific Fuel Consumption) on the internet. This value tells us how much fuel we need to produce 1 kWh of mechanical energy. As a matter of fact, it is a map rather than a single fixed value as it depends on RPM and engine load. A BSFC map for a typical engine could look like this:

Regardless of RPM (although there is a preference for lower RPMs), the amount of fuel needed to produce 1 kWh gets lower as engine load increases. The little circle labeled 206 represents the optimum, the so called sweet spot. Normally, with an ordinary car it is very difficult to let the engine operate in the sweet spot (shifting up swiftly helps) as there are many moments where the power demand is simply too low. At these moments the engine runs most inefficiently.

Via the generator, the PHEV creates an artificial extra power demand allowing the engine to operate in or near the sweet spot (approx. 75% load) much more than otherwise possible. You will see that, when accommodating to differences in driving conditions, the CC does not play with the throttle, but it changes the charge current. The load is kept at 75% as much as possible. Very neat.

What has SOC to do with that? Well, in order to get to 75% load, the battery needs to accept a certain charge current. But how much charge the battery is willing to accept depends on SOC. When SOC gets above approx. 50% on the gauge (approx. 65% real), the maximum charge current is already limited so much that the engine can no longer operate at 75% load most of the time. You will also see the CC behaviour changing from "charge current controlled" to "throttle controlled" (You may want to have a look at http://www.myoutlanderphev.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=17113#p17113 to see this in a diagram).

Interestingly enough, the instantaneous fuel consumption is indeed higher at an SOC < 50% (maybe 11 l / 100 km @ 100 km/h) compared to an SOC > 50% (a slow as 8 or 9 l / 100 km @ 100 km/h). But the total amount of energy produced is so much higher, that it allows for longer periods of EV driving, resulting in a lower average fuel consumption.

 

[maby]

But, while what anko says is undoubtedly true in theory, nobody has been able to demonstrate any consistent improvement in fuel consumption between running on a nearly full battery and a nearly empty battery. I did one measured run starting with a full battery on Save and measuring my fuel consumption over a distance of around forty miles, then letting the battery run flat and measuring the consumption over another forty miles. All at the same speed (on cruise control), all at pretty much the same temperature and all on the flat. The measured difference was about 1.5mpg (out of about 42mpg) - with the worse figure coming from the flat battery. The theory makes sense, but it simply does not translate into any measurable difference in practice. Nobody here has ever reported figures significantly better than about 45mpg on a decent distance flat battery run.

 

[anko]

Nobody here has ever reported figures significantly better than about 45mpg on a decent distance flat battery run.

Meaning ....?

 

[maby]

Nobody here has ever reported figures significantly better than about 45mpg on a decent distance flat battery run.

Meaning ....?

Surely that's obvious, isn't it? While there is a theoretical benefit from running on a near-flat battery, it simply does not translate into measurable improvements in fuel economy. The fuel consumption under given conditions with a flat and a full battery differ very little - which is my justification for doing my long runs on save with a full battery in order to ensure that I have plenty of reserve for acceleration and hill climbing.

 

[gwatpe]

Still early in my PHEV's life to say if I would buy another Mitsi. The ocean will hopefully have more fish in the sea to choose from when I look at a replacement.

My Phev typically returns 7-8L/100km for a return trip to the city using SAVE mode, with some toggles of the button to allow some EV driving in the city.

Yesterday I tried the flatten battery first mode, [NORMAL] and my PHEV returned 8.6L/100km for the round trip. had about a 10km stretch of highway in CHARGE mode, to bring the battery up from empty to allow for a certain hill to be climbed in parallel hybrid mode, that has proven on many drives to be much more efficient to be driven in that mode compared to series hybrid. Battery still ended up with the same number of bars like previous drives.

I have had some problems with data logging of late, so analysis of this drive to see where differences occurred are still a mystery. Some of the drive had 45C ambient temps. The max temp of the battery from EvBatMon when I got home was 35C. I believe that a comment mentioned in another thread re PHEV operations should be limited at temp above 45C may be related to the battery temperature and not the ambient.

I do notice that in CHARGE mode with a depleted battery, that my PHEV stops the ICE generation of electricity on a slight downhill with slight regen, but keeps the ICE running. CHARGE mode does not guarantee the ICE is running most efficiently. This may be an AUS shipped PHEV variant.

Even though my first PHEV had a failure in a way that caused the vehicle to veer dangerously to the opposite side of the road, as well as battery capacity and systems malfunctions, I still like the drive of the PHEV. The tyres are now close to worn out and there is more road noise. At 45000+km the ICE has not developed any noises internally. The exhaust has a rattle at certain loads that can only be heard when ICE is operating and the vehicle is pulling up to a stop. Might still be related to rubs on rocks from my travels.

I will only be replacing my PHEV with another PHEV, but it won't necessarily be a Mitsi. I have many more criteria that a replacement vehicle must meet, including driving range, lights, instrumentation etc.

 

[Sunder]

I seriously doubt that there will be any acceptable pure EV within that timescale - actually, I doubt there will be one within my remaining driving lifetime - which is optimistically 20 years. It will require battery and charging technology that does not exist even in research labs yet.

I'm not sure if you were replying to me, but since I'm the only person who mentioned a time frame between your post and mine, I will assume that you were.

You're wrong about the battery technology. Lithium Titanate already exists. I can buy a type now that can charge at 10C and has 20,000 cycle life. That's just insanity. You can charge from empty in 6 minutes, and the battery will last beyond the life of the car - possibly beyond the life of the owner! It's as expensive as hell right now, but there's no reason it should be except that it's new(ish) and low volume. There are cheaper types that will safely charge at 3C, and have a 10k cycle life, which is still impressive.
http://www.batteryspace.com/Lithium-Titanate-Battery.aspx

The big issue is chargers. Charging a 100kwh car in 6 minutes would require 1mw. That's bigger than some of our smaller power plants.

However, charge time can be worked around. Who cares if it takes 12 hours to charge a battery if you don't have to wait around for it? So there are several strategies for that:

A. Charge the battery out of the car and change it.
B. Charge opportunistically, so the battery never gets flat.

There are already three technologies to enable that:

1. Battery exchange. Instead of charging the same battery, you drive into a car wash like device which robotically changes the battery in the same time that it takes to fill a tank.
http://www.zdnet.com/article/watch-teslas-90-second-electric-vehicle-battery-swap-demonstration/

2. Inductive charging. There are some way out there futurists who reckon we'll have roads that can charge us. I think that's unlikely. However, Nissan if everywhere you went had inductive parking spots, who cares if the range of the battery is only 200km? I go to the shops, to get some milk and it takes me 15 minutes, I get a few extra kilometers. I go to the doctors and I'm there an hour, I'm topped up. I go to work, and I leave with a full battery. All without having to remember to do anything. Well, maybe put some coins in the meter.
https://www.pluglesspower.com/

3. Robotic arm charging - Like the inductive charging above, if you didn't have to remember to charge every time, and all you needed to do was park in a specific spot, then batteries will always be full, and range will be less important.
http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/211865-check-out-this-scary-robotic-arm-charger-for-the-tesla-model-s

The second two obviously won't work for very long journeys, but how often do you do those? The last time I took a drive >200km without a substantial break was 3 months ago, but before that, was over 2 years ago. That can either be solved by petrol range extenders, or specialist hire cars once every couple years, the same way that people keep a day to day car now, but hire a truck or Ute when they move. By then, though, charging stations will be more common than petrol stations are now, and petrol stations will be rarer than charging stations are now.

In rebuttal to your statement that " It will require battery and charging technology that does not exist even in research labs yet.", you're wrong. The technology is already here. It's only the price and availability that's the issue.

 

[anko]

Nobody here has ever reported figures significantly better than about 45mpg on a decent distance flat battery run.

Meaning ....?

Surely that's obvious, isn't it? While there is a theoretical benefit from running on a near-flat battery, it simply does not translate into measurable improvements in fuel economy...

To me it isn't. Sorry Where does the magic number of 45 MPG come from? Earlier, you said 45 MPG should have been achievable, even without battery, because a comparable RR Evogue could do this. That appeared to be a mistake, but you still hang on to this number. As if you want to use it to proof that the battery does not add much value on the long distance. But I think for our kind of car (petrol SUV) 45 MPG would be a GREAT value.

 

[anko]

I do notice that in CHARGE mode with a depleted battery, that my PHEV stops the ICE generation of electricity on a slight downhill with slight regen, but keeps the ICE running. CHARGE mode does not guarantee the ICE is running most efficiently. This may be an AUS shipped PHEV variant.

It is not AUS specific. I have described this phenomena last year, when explaining my strategy for maintaining as much SOC as possible while towing: when coasting, any form of braking (be it flippers or brake pedal) makes the engine idle. Until you select B0 and briefly hit the gas pedal.

 

[maby]

...

To me it isn't. Sorry Where does the magic number of 45 MPG come from? Earlier, you said 45 MPG should have been achievable, even without battery, because a comparable RR Evogue could do this. That appeared to be a mistake, but you still hang on to this number. As if you want to use it to proof that the battery does not add much value on the long distance. But I think for our kind of car (petrol SUV) 45 MPG would be a GREAT value.

My post was in relation to yours suggesting that I could get a significant improvement in fuel economy by adopting a different driving strategy. The magic 45mpg comes from the fact that my PHEV which is effectively driven as a petrol car has averaged 45mpg over its entire lifetime - and that has been achieved following my driving strategy. I drive a couple of hundred petrol miles each week and about 20 EV miles - hence my belief that 45 mpg or a little below is the natural fuel economy of the car and that full vs. flat battery driving strategy makes very little difference.

The whole point of this thread was to answer the question "Would you buy another PHEV?" and my answer is "Probably no." That is a personal answer and I think I've given good reasons why - in the absence of the favourable tax treatment, the PHEV gives me, personally, very little and I've become a bit unhappy with its build quality. I note from another message above that there is battery technology in the labs that has the potential to overcome the charging time issues, but I still doubt that the price will come low enough or the infrastructure be developed sufficiently for me to consider an EV within the remainder of my driving lifetime.

I'm hoping that the PHEV will last another seven or eight years (if it doesn't, that would be a strong argument against buying another!). By that time, I will be approaching retirement age and my available income to buy another expensive new car will be reduced. The distances I travel will also be reducing and I will probably have less than ten years driving left in me. Therefore, I anticipate that I'll end up replacing the PHEV with a relatively elderly diesel SUV - probably predating all the current and future emission controls. I may even go back to a Landrover Defender - it should have most of the bugs out of it at 20 years old!

If I'm proved wrong about EV technology, I may yet consider an EV - I don't have any philosophical objection to them, but I'm not prepared to put up with the inconveniences of the current generation in the name of the environment.

 

[anko]

My post was in relation to yours suggesting that I could get a significant improvement in fuel economy by adopting a different driving strategy.

I believe you stated you don't see much added value of the PHEV package (heavy battery) in terms of reducing fuel economy (because of your usage profile). Also you seem not very happy with the MPG you get. So, I start to think it must be related to your driving style. Looking further back into this thread, I see this:

Fuel economy could be a significant factor for some users, but it isn't for us - we are getting about 45mpg - and I am not taking into account the cost of electricity - our effective mpg is probably closer to 40. It is certainly the case that if you use it almost exclusively for short journeys, the running costs (and environmental impact) can be very low - but I would not buy an expensive, large 4WD for that pattern of usage - I would either buy a compact petrol car at half the price and capable of 70mpg or better.

Reading this, I don't understand why you are not happy with the MPG you get back and why you question the added value of the PHEV package.

Yesterday, we have seen that the RR Evogue petrol car can do 46 MPG, but only in theory, and only when you don't take it into the city. In the real world, MPG for the RR will be much, much less. Way less than the (corrected) 40 MPG you are getting, I guess.

 

[maby]

My post was in relation to yours suggesting that I could get a significant improvement in fuel economy by adopting a different driving strategy.

I believe you stated you don't see much added value of the PHEV package (heavy battery) in terms of reducing fuel economy (because of your usage profile).

....

Once again, you're taking my post out of context... I said:

"Once you go significantly beyond the EV range, you are up against basic science - the PHEV is carrying around a heavy battery that is contributing very little towards fuel economy and the power flow at speeds below 40 or 50mph is going through first a generator, then an electric motor. It does remarkably well to more or less match the running costs of a conventional car really. I know that you disagree with my strategy for operating the car, but I've seen nothing to suggest that the car is capable of better than about 45mpg over long distances and that is well within the capabilities of modern comparable 4WDs like the RR Evoque. Nobody here has made a plausible claim for better than 45mpg on long non-EV trips."

This was in response to your suggestion that I should be able to improve my fuel economy by leaving the Save button alone and that the PHEV might actually be more fuel efficient than a conventional SUV even on long distance runs. Of course the battery has an impact on overall fuel economy - though the magnitude of that impact is rather usage dependant. But my comment above was specifically referring to the battery once it was flat on a long run. The question then is whether the presence of the battery helps or hinders fuel economy - it certainly adds quite a lot to the weight of the car. Balanced against that is the ability of the engine to run at a higher efficiency and dump charge into the battery, switching to EV mode for periods of time. Would the same body shell fitted with a 2 litre petrol engine coupled to a conventional manual transmission be measurably less fuel efficient than a PHEV? I doubt it.

You are quite right in your other point - I incorrectly referred to a petrol RR Evoque in my comparison - this was, in fact, carelessness - I didn't realise that there is actually a petrol option for the Evoque, I had assumed that they were all diesel. I owned a 3.5 litre V8 petrol Landrover for several years and freely agree that a more realistic fuel consumption for them is 22mpg - I could easily get mine down to 16mpg!

 

[greendwarf]

I'm hoping that the PHEV will last another seven or eight years (if it doesn't, that would be a strong argument against buying another!). By that time, I will be approaching retirement age and my available income to buy another expensive new car will be reduced. The distances I travel will also be reducing and I will probably have less than ten years driving left in me. Therefore, I anticipate that I'll end up replacing the PHEV with a relatively elderly diesel SUV - probably predating all the current and future emission controls. I may even go back to a Landrover Defender - it should have most of the bugs out of it at 20 years old!

I would have thought the reverse is true. I am semi-retired and do the reduced distances you anticipate. Hence most of my driving is on EV. Why on earth would I want a diesel in 7/8 years with all the likely financial penalties then in place. Even with your mileage approaching 100k by then, £3k for a replacement battery to extend the usable life of the PHEV sounds quite reasonable to me. :mrgreen:

 

[jaapv]

Assuming that it will be 3000 pounds. Nobody knows whether the price might come down substantially as the number of cars sold rises. Besides, there are already cell-replacement services operating for Prius, much more affordable than the official full battery replacement for that car as offered by Toyota.