Bugs and odd decisions in the Outlander PHEV

[elm70]

I agree with both jaapv and anko.

We must remember that a customer's role is to have wish lists which they communicate to the maker.
We can only guess of the complexities and responsibilities of successfully producing a PHEV.

I have long retired, but in electronics and computing you need a robust system of change control to guard against the unintended consequences of making hardware and software changes. The last thing you want is to make design alterations on a whim.

The costs of getting it wrong are colossal, the gain of pleasing your customers great.
This is a car transporting humans around, amongst other humans, not a virtual reality game.

Can we go back to making wish lists please, I am just as sure they are read, as I am that the makers have good reasons for their decisions
.

At the moment .. on my post #1 I have 4 sections:

Bugs
Wrong design decision
Cheap solutions
Undesirable end result

If you or anybody has context for the "Wish List" I can add it .. even on the top of the list

I'm also free to rename some title if the title is consider too "hard"

 

[elm70]

I think it was because they had no real life experience of how the PHEV battery would stand up to its duty. Therefore they wanted the ICE to step in to support the battery as and when required. They were being ultra conservative so as to acheive the best reliability.
With 3 years of knowledge they now know that the battery can satisfy a higher performance demand and so the decision to add the EV button.
Of course if their competitors doing it may also have had an influence...

Actually I think that the castrated EV button was a consequence of the battery overheating problem they found in the first series. Possibly its function was downgraded from the original idea. -Pure speculation-

Good point jaapv

Yes, it could be that overheat battery may have suggest designers to avoid a pure EV mode, which as consequence could have use more power from the 12kwh battery ... having the "freedom" to floor the accelerator without kick in ICE .. it may have cause more drivers, that don't need full range, to use more Epower and cause more stress to the battery

Still ... this does not go much well with the B5 what pump almost 60kw in a burst back to the Lithium pack.

Anyhow .. since the battery issue have been fixed in few months after PHEV introduction, so back in 2013 ... it is still a bit odd that took 3 years for get the EV mode

 

[anko]

Maybe, but one can assume that the car has been beta-tested extensively and the first 4000 were driven for half a year in Japan by normal users before the car even started to be exported. I'm sure that wasn't just done for fun.

Indeed, this was not for fun. This was (partly) because the Japanese government blocked export of the PHEV after some battery incidents, remember? Roll out in Japan started early 2013. My car was initially scheduled to arrive in the Netherlands mid July 2013. So, shipping scheduled for end of May 2013. Building scheduled for somewhere in April or May 2013. I cannot imagine the building of my car would have been impacted much by customer feedback from Japanese owners in the first months of 2013.

 

[anko]

Anyhow, we still do not know the deliberations why the ECO button was not EV. Too obvious to miss when designing, there must have been a reason.

Mitsubishi distributor told me they asked 'Japan' why there was no pure EV mode, and they said it was by choice:

- Not having all power available when needed would be hazardous.
- Slow warming up at low temperatures would be to uncomfortable (embarrassing?).

If that is true, question is what made them change their minds .... Then again, knowing is not changing anything.

 

[anko]

I think it was because they had no real life experience of how the PHEV battery would stand up to its duty. Therefore they wanted the ICE to step in to support the battery as and when required. They were being ultra conservative so as to acheive the best reliability.
With 3 years of knowledge they now know that the battery can satisfy a higher performance demand and so the decision to add the EV button.
Of course if their competitors doing it may also have had an influence...

I don't believe this is true, as I don't see how leaving out pure EV mode would reduce the strain on the battery (I am not talking about the increase form 60 to 70 kW but the pure EV mode itself).

 

[anko]

Still something trivial and easy to add , like EV button .. available from the competitors .. it was missed .. till 2017 model .. so 3 years .. for a little but very important change.

I don't think they missed it for three years. They just waited for a major facelift / update to incorporate the change in.

 

[anko]

4000 Japanese bring less value from 200 people taken from all the mayor markets world wide .. unless the aim is to only sell in Japan

Why? If the rest of the world is going to have the same findings, does it matter who found them first?

 

[elm70]

Anyhow, we still do not know the deliberations why the ECO button was not EV. Too obvious to miss when designing, there must have been a reason.

Mitsubishi distributor told me they asked 'Japan' why there was no pure EV mode, and they said it was by choice:

- Not having all power available when needed would be hazardous.
- Slow warming up at low temperatures would be to uncomfortable (embarrassing?).

If that is true, question is what made them change their minds .... Then again, knowing is not changing anything.

We all know that these two argument are not "real" / "true"

- All power can be available with kick down .. they could have implemented vtech "box" (as is) .. so ... no hazardous issue
- No ICE for warming up .. could be configured in the MMCS ... everybody will be happy if made configurable

I think the real reason is what jaapv mention ... they did want to be conservative on power usage on battery .. they did want to make difficult to have continuous discharge of the battery at 60kw ... something that is anyhow possible in the motorway driving at 120-130km/h constant speed

Possibly on 2017 they are more confident on their batteries

 

[elm70]

4000 Japanese bring less value from 200 people taken from all the mayor markets world wide .. unless the aim is to only sell in Japan

Why? If the rest of the world is going to have the same findings, does it matter who found them first?

You miss my point

4000 Japanese is less "relevant" then 200 people with people from different countries .. with % related to the market expecation

For example ... average Japanese driver has not the same need of the average driver in Germany.

 

[anko]

Actually I think that the castrated EV button was a consequence of the battery overheating problem they found in the first series. Possibly its function was downgraded from the original idea. -Pure speculation-

Who says it was castrated? It is not there. And it is now. That is all we know.

 

[anko]

Can we go back to making wish lists please, I am just as sure they are read, as I am that the makers have good reasons for their decisions
.

If that is what you need, use the search function on this forum. There have been more than one in the past. Nothing new here

 

[anko]

Yes, it could be that overheat battery may have suggest designers to avoid a pure EV mode, which as consequence could have use more power from the 12kwh battery ... having the "freedom" to floor the accelerator without kick in ICE .. it may have cause more drivers, that don't need full range, to use more Epower and cause more stress to the battery

Why do we think that the pure EV mode also means "much more power form the battery"? Okay, there was an increase from 60 to 70 kW, but that is something separate from pure EV mode.

 

[anko]

We all know that these two argument are not "real" / "true"

Not agreeing with a reason does not mean there hasn't been a reason and it was thus missed ....

 

[elm70]

Why do we think that the pure EV mode also means "much more power form the battery"? Okay, there was an increase from 60 to 70 kW, but that is something separate from pure EV mode.

If you have only 1cm power control, and above this 1cm ICE start ... there is only very very narrow band for request max EV power without engage ICE (when ICE is on, battery is not used, actually is even charged) ... so be able to consumer 60kw from battery is not easy .. so people will tent to accelerate slowly if EV mode is requested to be kept. (Also the 5 green marks stuff, is an invitation to "accelerate slower")

Now, if EV mode is granted, and people can floor the gas pedal, then it will be more often used the fulll EV power: 60kw ... it is a 2 tons car ... and if battery has more then enough range for the need ... 60kw is "not much" for move agile the car in the traffic

So ... if I'm a producer that is afraid of overheat or durability of the batter pack ... avoiding EV mode will cause to reduce the stress of the battery

60kw to 70kw ... is a different story, I was not even aware this is part of 2017 changes ... for me it is looking an exact copy from vtech original EV mode "solution" .. as shown in his video quite some time ago ... vtech by ODB2 codes manage to control the max power available from battery to motors .. he did test up to 110kw ... I can't stress enough that it will be great to have this vtech solution : the freedom to customize the PHEV with "codes"

 

[jaapv]

Actually I think that the castrated EV button was a consequence of the battery overheating problem they found in the first series. Possibly its function was downgraded from the original idea. -Pure speculation-

Who says it was castrated? It is not there. And it is now. That is all we know.

As in a piece of equipment not functioning as effectively as one might wish... :twisted:

 

[anko]

So ... if I'm a producer that is afraid of overheat or durability of the batter pack ... avoiding EV mode will cause to reduce the stress of the battery

So as a manufacturer, you would willingly depend on the driver not being able to 'drive on the edge of the 60 kW scale' when it comes to preventing a battery pack from overheating? That doesn't sound like a sane approach ...

I think when the battery gets to hot, it should reduce power output by itself. And if it doesn't, the product should not be released. At least not with 'castracting an EV button' as a workaround. I simply cannot imagine this is what happened.

 

[elm70]

So ... if I'm a producer that is afraid of overheat or durability of the batter pack ... avoiding EV mode will cause to reduce the stress of the battery

So as a manufacturer, you would willingly depend on the driver not being able to 'drive on the edge of the 60 kW scale' when it comes to preventing a battery pack from overheating? That doesn't sound like a sane approach ...

I think when the battery gets to hot, it should reduce power output by itself. And if it doesn't, the product should not be released. At least not with 'castracting an EV button' as a workaround. I simply cannot imagine this is what happened.

Yes, it would have been a tricky decision, and not very healthy too

But ... maybe it was just a way to get an extra buffer

About tricky decisions, we have seen many related to the Euro5/6 cheating, with VW able to masterpiece cheating ... with cheating as foundation of their own R&D ... so nothing can surprise me.

Anyhow, you proposed that EV mode was intentionally not enabled for "having all time full power" for safety reason ... which is a weak reasoning for me view.

Yes, also the other "reasoning" due to " battery preservation" is relative weak.

At the end .. it is look a bad fundamental decision back in the creation of the PHEV with ECO mode only and no EV ... something that has been just fixed ... and why it is now and not before .. we can only speculate.

As far as I know .. it is possible that they use different batteries in the 2017 model .. maybe the 50A cells instead of 40A cells ... or a different production process for the same "type" ... Lithium battery evolution is happening all the time .. so .. it possible that 2017 battery is a more refined and resilient battery then the 2013/2014 version

 

[jaapv]

I think when the battery gets to hot, it should reduce power output by itself. And if it doesn't, the product should not be released. At least not with 'castracting an EV button' as a workaround. I simply cannot imagine this is what happened.

Which appears not to be the way technology works. For instance this is the "solution" for Boeing 787 Li-Ion batteries overheating and catching fire. Fire-containment measures instead of addressing the battery problems...

The Federal Aviation Administration decided on April 19, 2013 to allow US Dreamliners to return to service after changes were made to their battery systems to better contain battery fires. Japanese authorities announced they were doing the same for their airplanes. The causes of the battery failures are still unknown. There is still concern that because the root cause of the fires were not identified, the solutions put in place by Boeing will not be able to cover the full range of possible failure modes. These include problems that may arise from poor systems integration between the engine indicating and crew alerting system (EICAS) and the battery management system

 

[ian4x4]

I always thought that the EV button / mode was part of the necessary changes needed to sell the PHEV to the USA.

elm70
Have you seen this book.
It goes into lots of facts about lithium batteries, like configurations, outputs, life, etc.
It is useful as it mentions the theory behind there use in other cars as well as the BMW i3.
I found it most interesting when trying to understand the advantages and limitations of Hybrid, EV, and PHEV cars.
https://issuu.com/brycheinsltd/docs/evs_and_i3

By the way, my top wish is more powerful battery (increased energy density) with a different configuration to allow more power in EV mode.

 

[ian4x4]

The reasons behind the Dreamliner failure appear complicated to me.
http://batteryuniversity.com/learn/article/possible_solutions_for_the_battery_problem_on_the_boeing_787

QUOTE A single safety breach with bad press can turn the public against the incumbent airplane. Two battery incidents on a new airplane hint to a design flaw and Boeing must realize that Li-ion serving as the main battery may not be as well understood as NiCd and lead acid systems.

The best that I can understand from this is that Lead Acid is far safer and stable to have as the battery for the control systems of the car and drive battery pack, and 'bad press' associated with a catastrophic failure makes the extra weight worthwhile.