Hybrid Cars, any good ?

[Poinkachu]

Sooo, some car manufacturers in my country starting to roll out some hybrid models.

As much as I want to switch to fully EV, the infrastructure for it in my country is less than shit. Like.., hardly if any at all public charging station

Not to mention there might be flood in many places in each city when it's rainy season (6-7 months a year), and a shit ton of traffic jam almost any time, with the peak 2-3 times a day.

 

With a standard SUV when the flooding water level is some inches below my car hood I usually just pass through it when I really need to. Idk with Hybrid or EV, since battery seems to be at the underside of the car.

 

So I'm curious, is hybrid good enough or something I should avoid like a plague ?

 

[r00tb33r]

 

5 hours ago, Poinkachu said:

is hybrid good enough or something I should avoid like a plague ?

Sure, if it's a Toyota.  They split torque between gasoline engine and electric motor through a planetary coupler, and the torque is tapped from the middle of the coupler.  The electric motor having a wide RPM range is what generates the gear ratio, there is no "CVT" in the sense that you would expect.  It's more of a fixed gear configuration that takes advantage of the fact that an electric motor won't need multiple ratios.

 

I drive a Highlander Hybrid, it's far from a Prius.  It's 3.3L V6 + 70hp front electric motor with part time 4wd with an electric rear axle, motor ~40hp (good to get you out of a slowed in parking lot or a muddy puddle), for a quoted output of 268hp.  My butt dyno tells me it's a little nuts though, as it's basically a no lift shift car, it's just on power the entire time it accelerates because it's never in neutral.  They marketed it as a 4 liter V8 replacement, and that's about right.  Relative to the V8 it replaces it does have a solid fuel economy advantage, but versus a regular V6 model it's better by not that much.

 

Favorite moments is the instant roll from a traffic light, that unmistakable electric torque.  The gasoline engine fires about halfway through the intersection.  There is no starter motor, it uses the large electric motor to crank it.  And it totally peels (a hybrid!!!), both from a stop or rolling if I jam my foot in it.

 

Having driven my car it's hard get excited about cars with conventional transmissions anymore, the gearless driving is just awesome.  Who said hybrids have to be boring?

[seanondemand]

How often are you fjording rivers where you live? Aside from the Jeep Wrangler 4xe I can’t really think of any off-road oriented hybrids. Otherwise they’re all pretty commuter oriented. 

[BlueChinchillaEatingDorito]

19 hours ago, Poinkachu said:

Sooo, some car manufacturers in my country starting to roll out some hybrid models.

As much as I want to switch to fully EV, the infrastructure for it in my country is less than shit. Like.., hardly if any at all public charging station

Not to mention there might be flood in many places in each city when it's rainy season (6-7 months a year), and a shit ton of traffic jam almost any time, with the peak 2-3 times a day.

 

With a standard SUV when the flooding water level is some inches below my car hood I usually just pass through it when I really need to. Idk with Hybrid or EV, since battery seems to be at the underside of the car.

 

So I'm curious, is hybrid good enough or something I should avoid like a plague ?

 

EVs funny enough are much better when it comes to fjording flood waters since the battery and drivetrain are typically better sealed. With internal combustion including hybrids, the air intake is where water penetrates and hydro lock your engine. And for many passenger vehicles, that intake is positioned down around the wheel wells which is why driving through flood waters is almost always a disaster. 

[YellowJersey]

Hybrids: the best and worst of both worlds.

If you're going with a manufacturer that has been producing hybrids for several generations now, then I'd say go for it. I, personally, would go for a plug-in hybrid, but I don't drive nearly enough nor does my apartment building have any charging infrastructure... plus I can't afford it.

[RasmusDC]

don´t be more nervous about electric in floods, but Hybrids, it is too complex, you have both a electrical powerplant and an engine, that can fail, and in the really poor ones, the car is bricked, just if the "small" battery fails.

 

it is dead techology, has always been..

 

go either full electric or go ICE.. 

[dalekphalm]

On 6/24/2023 at 6:08 PM, Poinkachu said:

Sooo, some car manufacturers in my country starting to roll out some hybrid models.

As much as I want to switch to fully EV, the infrastructure for it in my country is less than shit. Like.., hardly if any at all public charging station

Not to mention there might be flood in many places in each city when it's rainy season (6-7 months a year), and a shit ton of traffic jam almost any time, with the peak 2-3 times a day.

 

With a standard SUV when the flooding water level is some inches below my car hood I usually just pass through it when I really need to. Idk with Hybrid or EV, since battery seems to be at the underside of the car.

 

So I'm curious, is hybrid good enough or something I should avoid like a plague ?

 

I've owned multiple hybrids - our first one was a 2013 Ford Fusion Hybrid SE - which we owned for about 2 years, and our current one is a 2023 Toyota Corolla Hybrid. It's absolutely good enough, and I can drive it just the same as I would drive a similar ICE powered vehicle. The EV components are weather sealed, but as with any vehicle, there's going to be a point in which you can't submerge the car any deeper without risking damage or the cabin leaking in water.

 

If you bought a comparable Hybrid SUV (Eg: RAV4 or Highlander, etc), you could definitely wade into a small amount of flooding, but I'd be way more worried about ruining my interior than I would about damaging the components. But either way, I would advise not driving through deep flooded areas even with a regular ICE vehicle unless it's absolutely an emergency.

[dalekphalm]

3 hours ago, RasmusDC said:

don´t be more nervous about electric in floods, but Hybrids, it is too complex, you have both a electrical powerplant and an engine, that can fail, and in the really poor ones, the car is bricked, just if the "small" battery fails.

 

it is dead techology, has always been..

 

go either full electric or go ICE.. 

It's absolutely not a dead technology - Hybrids are going to be essential to bridge the gap before ICE gets banned or phased out.

 

Hybrids are generally significantly cheaper than full EV's, especially at the low end of the market (on the upper end, there's less price delta).

 

My Corolla Hybrid cost me $25K CAD. The cheapest EV's in Canada are all around just slightly more than $40K CAD. With the Federal EV Rebate, you get $5K off, so even with the rebate, they're still more than $10K more expensive. Now, this would be smaller in some provinces (Eg: BC has an additional $4K rebate - Ontario, however, completely scrapped and removed all EV rebates when the current PC Government was first elected).

 

The additional complexity of the system, certainly has a cost over a base ICE Corolla, but the price is good, the fuel efficiency savings are still incredible, and the reliability of Toyota's hybrid drivetrain is long proven.

 

Personally at this point, it would be a hard buy for me to purchase a pure ICE vehicle anymore, with a Hybrid being a minimum (or PHEV/Full EV).

[cmndr]

Non-plug in hybrids (gas first with EV assist) have proven themselves to be reliable. You can see them in use in taxi fleets all over - at least in the US.

 

Plug in hybrids are just taking that another step further. They seem to work pretty well from what I see. 

 

[Lurking]

On 6/24/2023 at 10:14 PM, r00tb33r said:

 

Sure, if it's a Toyota.  They split torque between gasoline engine and electric motor through a planetary coupler, and the torque is tapped from the middle of the coupler.  The electric motor having a wide RPM range is what generates the gear ratio, there is no "CVT" in the sense that you would expect.  It's more of a fixed gear configuration that takes advantage of the fact that an electric motor won't need multiple ratios.

 

I drive a Highlander Hybrid, it's far from a Prius.  It's 3.3L V6 + 70hp front electric motor with part time 4wd with an electric rear axle, motor ~40hp (good to get you out of a slowed in parking lot or a muddy puddle), for a quoted output of 268hp.  My butt dyno tells me it's a little nuts though, as it's basically a no lift shift car, it's just on power the entire time it accelerates because it's never in neutral.  They marketed it as a 4 liter V8 replacement, and that's about right.  Relative to the V8 it replaces it does have a solid fuel economy advantage, but versus a regular V6 model it's better by not that much.

 

Favorite moments is the instant roll from a traffic light, that unmistakable electric torque.  The gasoline engine fires about halfway through the intersection.  There is no starter motor, it uses the large electric motor to crank it.  And it totally peels (a hybrid!!!), both from a stop or rolling if I jam my foot in it.

 

Having driven my car it's hard get excited about cars with conventional transmissions anymore, the gearless driving is just awesome.  Who said hybrids have to be boring?

Toyota uses eCVT. This isn't like a belt/cone CVT like you have in a Nissan or so. Actually that eCVT will be way more reliable than the 8+ speed automatics or belt CVT. That alone is a reason to buy a hybrid. 

 

One of the 2 motor-generators controls the speed of the sungear in the planetary gearset. That adds (or takes) power and varies the gear ratio. Hence it being electronic (the motor) CVT. It has absolutely nothing to do with those horrible Nissan or Chrysler CVT. Continually Varying Transmission means just that it has infinite gear ratios.. it doesn't necessarily mean belt. 

 

Look on YT for the Weber Auto channel or similar for very detailed review of varying manufacturers hybrid drivetrains.

[r00tb33r]

20 minutes ago, Lurking said:

Toyota uses eCVT. This isn't like a belt/cone CVT like you have in a Nissan or so. Actually that eCVT will be way more reliable than the 8+ speed automatics or belt CVT. That alone is a reason to buy a hybrid. 

 

One of the 2 motor-generators controls the speed of the sungear in the planetary gearset. That adds (or takes) power and varies the gear ratio. Hence it being electronic (the motor) CVT. It has absolutely nothing to do with those horrible Nissan or Chrysler CVT. Continually Varying Transmission means just that it has infinite gear ratios.. it doesn't necessarily mean belt. 

 

Look on YT for the Weber Auto channel or similar for very detailed review of varying manufacturers hybrid drivetrains.

Correct.

[Stahlmann]

If you're buying a pure ICE car nowadays you're basically investing in dead-end technology imo. The EU already put out a ban for the sale of new ICE cars in 2035. Either buy a hybrid or go full EV. Depending on the commute most people can probably use a hybrid fully electric and only fire up the ICE when driving greater distances.

[dalekphalm]

On 6/30/2023 at 3:38 AM, Stahlmann said:

If you're buying a pure ICE car nowadays you're basically investing in dead-end technology imo. The EU already put out a ban for the sale of new ICE cars in 2035. Either buy a hybrid or go full EV. Depending on the commute most people can probably use a hybrid fully electric and only fire up the ICE when driving greater distances.

IMO I think that regulators should have had a phase-in period (or maybe still could) where traditional ICE engines are banned (with some exceptions as needed), and ICE vehicles are mandated to be hybrid to be sold, as an interim measure before ICE gets fully banned.

[Donut417]

On 6/24/2023 at 6:08 PM, Poinkachu said:

So I'm curious, is hybrid good enough or something I should avoid like a plague ?

My aunt has like a 2010 Toyota Prius. Its a reliable car but the thing is it is more complicated. My aunt recently had to have the 12 volt battery replaced, it was like $350 because it was one of those new AGM batteries and I guess they cost a bit. If you have to replace the big battery it can get costly. I think you can get the cells for like $2k but installing it is a bit involved. ChrisFix did two videos on replacing the battery is a Toyota Prius. Furthermore you still have the gas powered components and the wear and tear those can have. You still have things like Oil changes for example, though you can probably push those to yearly depending on how you drive. 

 

Some people have suggested plug in hybrids and thats definitely an option. I recall the 8bitguy has on. I remember he stated that he keeps very little gas in it because well gas goes bad. Something to think about. 

 

To be deciding between Gas, Diesel, Hybrid, Plug in Hybrid or Full electric depends on where you live. How you drive and how far you are generally going to travel. For example around where I live, we dont have much infrastructure for EV's. Diesel is over $4 a gallon. We dont have a good way to plug in a car charger outside. Plus while I generally only drive 26 miles a day for work and maybe 5 to go to the store, my sister lives 35 miles away and we like to visit her and the kids. On top of all of that the current EV batteries dont do well in cold climates and Michigan is artic for 6 months out of the year or so.  So that leaves gas or hybrid for me anyway.

[Lurking]

13 hours ago, dalekphalm said:

IMO I think that regulators should have had a phase-in period (or maybe still could) where traditional ICE engines are banned (with some exceptions as needed), and ICE vehicles are mandated to be hybrid to be sold, as an interim measure before ICE gets fully banned.

The phase in were the ever increasing mpg requirements (CAFE etc ) that you need hybrids for. Like by 2027 a car needs to get 55 mpg. The problem are all the loopholes lobbyists carved out. Like an SUV is considered a small truck and doesn't beed to meet car requirements. Or the larger truck footprint is, the more it is allowed to use. So if you sell a car, it actually is harder to meet the respective requirements than selling a huge truck. Or the fact that selling one EV cancels out so many gas guzzlers. 

 

What bothers me is that most EV are targeted towards big SUV or truck. I bet that Hummer EV causes more damage in its life cycle than a Honda Fit ICE.

[Donut417]

3 minutes ago, Lurking said:

What bothers me is that most EV are targeted towards big SUV or truck.

Because that's what Americans are buying. The auto industry lied to Americans telling them that trucks and SUV's were safer, when technically they are not. Now that being said, I find its a lot easier to get in to my Nissan Rouge then it was to get in to the Ford Focus I used to own. Also with with the Nissan being more lifted, it makes it easier to go thru snow in the winter, used to get stuck with my Ford Focus. 

 

 

[Lurking]

3 minutes ago, Donut417 said:

Because that's what Americans are buying. The auto industry lied to Americans telling them that trucks and SUV's were safer, when technically they are not. Now that being said, I find its a lot easier to get in to my Nissan Rouge then it was to get in to the Ford Focus I used to own. Also with with the Nissan being more lifted, it makes it easier to go thru snow in the winter, used to get stuck with my Ford Focus. 

 

 

Ironically big trucks is what makes driving less safe for others.

 

I don't know what specific regulation is different, but cars have higher safety requirements than trucks. So it isn't just different mpg rules. SUV and trucks also have higher center of gravity. And those vertical grilles that reduce driver's visibility and have zero crash protection wouldn't be legal in cars. So yes, I blame regulators for enabling it. 

 

Don't get me started on the bro truck lift kits (that are totally unregulated and never properly installed). Google for the YT. channel "just rolled in" and among others you see how drivers felt confident they can built and install their own suspension modifications. 

[Donut417]

1 minute ago, Lurking said:

I don't know what specific regulation is different,

They fall under light duty trucks. Light duty trucks are generally used for commercial purposes. But somehow they convinced regulators to put pickup trucks and SUV's in the same category. 

 

 

[dalekphalm]

On 7/2/2023 at 10:33 AM, Lurking said:

The phase in were the ever increasing mpg requirements (CAFE etc ) that you need hybrids for. Like by 2027 a car needs to get 55 mpg.

I'm going to assume this is some American regulation.

 

I checked the Canadian regulations, and I can't find anything specific to MPG (or rather, L/100km) requirements, but from 2017 to 2025 there's an annual 5% reduction target in CO2 emissions. For Light Trucks, it was 3.5% reduction per year until 2021, then 5% reduction per year from 2022 to 2025. I can't find any information beyond that.

 

It does broadly say that we tend to align with the US Regulations, so it wouldn't shock me if it had to get down to 55 MPG (4.2 L/100km) by 2027.

 

That's a pretty huge drop though, considering 2027 is only 3 years away. Even the Honda Civic only gets around 7 L/100km for the ICE (non-hybrid) version, so that version will need to be eliminated and the base model will need to be a hybrid.

 

Either way, if this holds true, I'll be very pleased to see more Hybrid options, because they're great for people who stubbornly want to hold out (or simply cannot afford an EV).

On 7/2/2023 at 10:33 AM, Lurking said:

The problem are all the loopholes lobbyists carved out. Like an SUV is considered a small truck and doesn't beed to meet car requirements. Or the larger truck footprint is, the more it is allowed to use. So if you sell a car, it actually is harder to meet the respective requirements than selling a huge truck. Or the fact that selling one EV cancels out so many gas guzzlers. 

Yeah separate requirements for SUV's. They need to tighten up those requirements, IMO.

On 7/2/2023 at 10:33 AM, Lurking said:

What bothers me is that most EV are targeted towards big SUV or truck. I bet that Hummer EV causes more damage in its life cycle than a Honda Fit ICE.

As noted, this isn't the manufacturers screwing over emissions regulations, this is because the majority of buyers want SUV's now, and that trend has been going on for what, 10 years now? The Hummer is an obvious exception, since it was sold in small numbers and costs effectively $100K for the good version - very few people are gonna buy the Hummer EV. And yes, a Hummer EV, given it's massive battery, probably does cause more emissions and damage over the lifecylce compared to a Honda Fit, but that's also like comparing a Honda Fit to a bicycle.

 

A Hummer EV is still better for the environment than an old Hummer ICE.

 

Getting more people to buy smaller and more efficient vehicles is a good thing but you can't force people to buy cars they don't want.

[Donut417]

8 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

because they're great for people who stubbornly want to hold out (or simply cannot afford an EV).

It's not people being stubborn it is that EV's are not practical for a large amount of people. Due to limitations with charging. The amount of time it takes to charge. Or like me they live in a cold climate and current battery tech doesn't like cold climates (reduced range). For EV's to be more practical we need better charging, better battery tech and a better grid. BTW Detroit Edison charges double between the hours of 3pm and 7pm, which is the time where people come home from work and would plug in their cars. I think they are trying to deter from charging their cars when they get home. 

 

This is why Hybrids in my opinion are a better idea. Which we should have been pushing for the last decade. 

[dalekphalm]

11 minutes ago, Donut417 said:

It's not people being stubborn it is that EV's are not practical for a large amount of people.

While that's true for some people, the "limitations of EV's" are often blown massively out of proportion. The average person lives within easy driving distance for an EV to allow them to get to work, then back, on one charge. The big question is can they charge at home? Anyone who has a parking spot beside their house or a garage is already good to go. In fact, many regular commutes would even be able to charge using a a Level 1 charger (120V AC 15A).

11 minutes ago, Donut417 said:

Due to limitations with charging.

The big problem is apartment's and condo's, and people who have to use street parking for their house. Yeah, that's a lot of people. But there's also a massive amount of people that this problem won't apply to.

11 minutes ago, Donut417 said:

The amount of time it takes to charge.

This might be a problem for some people who drive a lot, or for the above mentioned people who cannot charge at home. But for most people who can charge at home, will pretty much always charge at home except for long road trips. They'll plug their car in, and in the morning have a full charge.

 

Battery and charging tech is improving this all the time mind you, with Fast DC charging allowing some cars to get to 80% in something like 10-20 minutes.

11 minutes ago, Donut417 said:

Or like me they live in a cold climate and current battery tech doesn't like cold climates (reduced range).

A problem for some people, to be sure - but let's be clear. People in Michigan, right now, are using EV's. Same with Ontario, and other provinces/states that are in colder climates.

 

Yes, EV's do have reduced range in cold weather - but how bad that is, really depends on which EV's. Tesla's - as much as I hate their interior design choices, are very efficient in cold weather - whereas something like a Nissan Leaf (especially an older gen one), may have as much as 40% of their range reduced.

 

But even in this case, worst case scenario with a 40% loss, a lot of drivers will not be impacted by this.

11 minutes ago, Donut417 said:

For EV's to be more practical we need better charging, better battery tech and a better grid.

The first 2 are constantly being researched - if the mythical solid state batteries actually become commercially viable, companies like Toyota are saying 700+ mile range with under 10 minutes to a full charge.

 

The grid? That's a problem in some areas and not others - that's just a government failure. They simply need to invest in upgrading the grids.

11 minutes ago, Donut417 said:

BTW Detroit Edison charges double between the hours of 3pm and 7pm, which is the time where people come home from work and would plug in their cars. I think they are trying to deter from charging their cars when they get home. 

Are you talking about people charging at home? Yeah. That's because that's peak usage time. You should be charging your car overnight, after like 10 PM or whenever your overnight rates kick in. This is something almost every EV can be programmed to do out of the box. Electric Utility companies want EV users to charge overnight during the off-peak time, when they have tons of excess grid capacity and nothing to use it for.

11 minutes ago, Donut417 said:

This is why Hybrids in my opinion are a better idea. Which we should have been pushing for the last decade. 

Hybrids are great for a lot of people - I own one. But Hybrids are still a short term solution. Or, at best, they're part of a larger multi-faceted solution that includes EV's and possibly other alternative fuel sources like limited use of HFC (Hydrogen Fuel Cell) or HCE (Hydrogen Combustion Engine).

[Lurking]

1 hour ago, dalekphalm said:

It does broadly say that we tend to align with the US Regulations, so it wouldn't shock me if it had to get down to 55 MPG (4.2 L/100km) by 2027.

 

That's a pretty huge drop though, considering 2027 is only 3 years away. Even the Honda Civic only gets around 7 L/100km for the ICE (non-hybrid) version, so that version will need to be eliminated and the base model will need to be a hybrid.

 

Either way, if this holds true, I'll be very pleased to see more Hybrid options, because they're great for people who stubbornly want to hold out (or simply cannot afford an EV).

Yeah separate requirements for SUV's. They need to tighten up those requirements, IMO.

As noted, this isn't the manufacturers screwing over emissions regulations, this is because the majority of buyers want SUV's now, and that trend has been going on for what, 10 years now? The Hummer is an obvious exception, since it was sold in small numbers and costs effectively $100K for the good version - very few people are gonna buy the Hummer EV. And yes, a Hummer EV, given it's massive battery, probably does cause more emissions and damage over the lifecylce compared to a Honda Fit, but that's also like comparing a Honda Fit to a bicycle.

 

A Hummer EV is still better for the environment than an old Hummer ICE.

 

Getting more people to buy smaller and more efficient vehicles is a good thing but you can't force people to buy cars they don't want.

55 mpg is an average number. And there are loopholes big enough to drive a coal-burning Semi truck through. for example, if they sell one EV, this counts as zero emissions. Like infinite mpg. But not only for one car, one sold EV can make up (or provide a credit) for 10 ICE cars. That is why major manufacturer sell EV at a loss (Tesla being the only profitable one) so they can sell more gas guzzlers. Actually Tesla and other EV-only manufacturer sell those credits to ICE manufacturers. It is a total number game to make the 55mpg look good. The actual average. Don't quote me on exact numbers, I'm just trying to explain. In practice only the Toyota Prius and similar can achieve 55 mpg. There is no way in 3 years every car will be as good as a Prius. Especially not if you add SUVs and trucks. 

 

The lobbyists carving out those EPA loopholes were paid by the car manufacturers. So no, car manufacturers aren't just innocent bystanders. TEsla is happy they cna cash in on those credits, Ford is happy they still can sell millions of ICe F150 but have great PR because of those few hundred EV they sell. Consumers are happy, because they can feel better, but don't really have to change anything in their life. Everyone wins, except the planet. 

 

SUV and trucks became popular, because car regulations made cars comparatively expensive and limited their size/performance. Fuel consumption didn't matter much in real life due to low cost in NA. but the SUV and trucks basically are used as cars, but they don't have to follow those regulations. Maybe this isn't the only reason, but part of it. and fuel is cheap in NA, compared to the rest of the World. in europe, at $7-$8 per gallon, it is hard to justify driving an F350 toyour office job. Although, cars there also get bigger. 

 

Edit: I'm not sure if that changed. for the 55 mpg they also use an ancient EPA cycle. Modern EPA numbers are tested on a realistic cycle with AC use, cold start and so on. but the old test didn't use those realistic scenarios. Sot eh very same car could get 30 mpg under old, or 25 mpg under new testing. that 55mpg goal is based on the old outdated and optimistic test cycle. so 55 mpg is like 40 mpg under current test rules. It is just a fancy number to satisfy voters. Thanks lobbyists. with that and the loop holes due to EVs, we will be lucky if we get 35mpg on average and still meet that 55mpg number on paper. The tax code makes more sense than the EPA rules. 

 

[Donut417]

27 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

Anyone who has a parking spot beside their house or a garage is already good to go. In fact, many regular commutes would even be able to charge using a a Level 1 charger (120V AC 15A).

Everything I have read says you get 40 miles of range over night on 120v. Generally the places that are affordable to live in and the places that pay well are no in the same area. My dad drove 50 miles a day for work. I drive like 26 miles a day, but then you add the trip to the grocery store once a week. Might have to go out and get dinner one night. Add possible a 42 miles trip to my sisters. Thats 40 miles of range each night is a very limiting factor. It would be different if we had public transits but that doesn't exist in Michgian at large. So a Level 2 charger is the only way, because I dont want to be counting my miles driven like I have to count the data we use thru Comcast each month. 

 

32 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

10-20 minutes.

I can fill up my car in less than 5 minutes with gas. There are gas stations on like every corner. 

 

38 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

But even in this case, worst case scenario with a 40% loss, a lot of drivers will not be impacted by this.

Thats assuming you charge to 100%. Again from what I have read, overnight at 120v is about 40 miles of range. 

34 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

he grid? That's a problem in some areas and not others - that's just a government failure. They simply need to invest in upgrading the grids.

Last I checked the goverment doesn't operate the grid, corporations do. So its more like corporate greed. But it still doesn't change the fact that if the grid cant handle it EV's are USELESS. 

 

You can't push a solution down everyone's throats that limit's what they can do. Sorry but EV's limit people. Until EV's have the support like ICE cars do they wont be accepted by everyone. Which is why I stated all those things have to improve. I know of only maybe 1 person who owns an EV. All the others are not considering one. Most Americans are also keeping their cars longer, meaning ICE is hear to stay for a long time. 

 

43 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

alternative fuel sources like limited use of HFC (Hydrogen Fuel Cell) or HCE (Hydrogen Combustion Engine).

Hydrogen is not practical. We can get enough of it cleanly. The only way to produce a large amount of it is with Natural Gas. Unless Japan can figure out how to get a large amount of Hydrogen cleanly, its never going to be practical. 

[dalekphalm]

1 hour ago, Donut417 said:

Everything I have read says you get 40 miles of range over night on 120v.

That's assuming you charge for 8 hours, no more and no less. Level 1 chargers get about 5 miles per hour of charging. Let's say you get home from work at 7 PM and you leave for work at 7 AM - if you plug it in right away and leave it charging all night, that will give you 60 miles of range.

1 hour ago, Donut417 said:

Generally the places that are affordable to live in and the places that pay well are no in the same area. My dad drove 50 miles a day for work. I drive like 26 miles a day, but then you add the trip to the grocery store once a week. Might have to go out and get dinner one night. Add possible a 42 miles trip to my sisters. Thats 40 miles of range each night is a very limiting factor. It would be different if we had public transits but that doesn't exist in Michgian at large. So a Level 2 charger is the only way, because I dont want to be counting my miles driven like I have to count the data we use thru Comcast each month. 

A Level 2 charger certainly would be necessary for anyone commuting 50+ miles per day, yeah. As I said, many commuters will be just fine with a Level 1 charger, but not all.

1 hour ago, Donut417 said:

I can fill up my car in less than 5 minutes with gas. There are gas stations on like every corner. 

Mhmm. And? Those gas stations didn't get built overnight. You're taking advantage of 100+ years (The first dedicated Gas Station in the US was from around 1905). Public EV chargers are expanding massively, every year, all over the place. It will get better. And with Ford making a deal to use the Tesla charging network, it just got way easier for Ford customers to charge their EV's on the road.

 

As I said, new battery and charging tech is constantly being developed, and if they can nail solid state battery tech, it will be no different than pumping gas.

1 hour ago, Donut417 said:

Thats assuming you charge to 100%. Again from what I have read, overnight at 120v is about 40 miles of range. 

But not every person charging at home will use Level 1 charging. I'd assume that most people who can install a Level 2 charger, will. I certainly would. On the very basic low end, all you need is to have a dryer outlet wired up in a convenient spot, since every EV comes with a level 2 "portable charger" anyway.

1 hour ago, Donut417 said:

Last I checked the goverment doesn't operate the grid, corporations do. So its more like corporate greed. But it still doesn't change the fact that if the grid cant handle it EV's are USELESS. 

Whether a government or private corp operates the electric grid largely depends on where you live. I'm going to assume all American utility companies are private corps, for the sake of this discussion. If that's the case, that's a regulatory failure of the government still, since they should have forced the utilities to adapt by now. The EV transition started nearly 15 years ago with the Nissan Leaf, Tesla Model S, etc. Corporate greed? Yes. But still a failure of government to force them to act.

1 hour ago, Donut417 said:

You can't push a solution down everyone's throats that limit's what they can do.

You say "everyone's throats", yet I did not say everyone. Please don't misuse my words. I'm simply pointing out that cost of the vehicle aside, a lot more people could drive an EV with no or few issues than people seem to think.

 

In the meantime, Hybrids are, frankly, the best solution until EV tech has evolved to solve these limits.

1 hour ago, Donut417 said:

Sorry but EV's limit people. Until EV's have the support like ICE cars do they wont be accepted by everyone. Which is why I stated all those things have to improve. I know of only maybe 1 person who owns an EV. All the others are not considering one. Most Americans are also keeping their cars longer, meaning ICE is hear to stay for a long time. 

And keeping a used car for longer is fine, short term. The incoming "bans" are all for new sales, not used cars.

1 hour ago, Donut417 said:

Hydrogen is not practical.

I agree.

1 hour ago, Donut417 said:

We can get enough of it cleanly.

I also agree.

1 hour ago, Donut417 said:

The only way to produce a large amount of it is with Natural Gas.

There's electrolysis, which can be powered by any number of different methods (Nuclear, tidal, hydro, geothermal, etc) - so scaling "clean" hydrogen could be done. But the problem is that for the amount of electricity it takes to generate hydrogen to drive 1 mile, you could have just charged a BEV battery and gotten more miles out of it.

1 hour ago, Donut417 said:

Unless Japan can figure out how to get a large amount of Hydrogen cleanly, its never going to be practical. 

Even if you did, it would still be less efficient than using a BEV.

 

Hydrogen has been a mythical unicorn for decades now. Some people and some companies truly believe it's the future over BEV's, but I'm not at all convinced.

 

With that in mind, HFC and HCE could have niche use-case scenarios that make sense where a BEV does not.

[Donut417]

On 7/4/2023 at 10:10 PM, dalekphalm said:

On the very basic low end, all you need is to have a dryer outlet wired up in a convenient spot, since every EV comes with a level 2 "portable charger" anyway.

Assuming everyone has an electric dryer. Lots of people here in the US use natural gas. Our Dryer, hot water heater, furnace, and stove are all gas. We dont have a single 220v appliance and we dont have space in our electrical panel for one. The reason we use gas is because its cheaper than using electricity for everything. 

On 7/4/2023 at 10:10 PM, dalekphalm said:

Those gas stations didn't get built overnight. You're taking advantage of 100+ years (The first dedicated Gas Station in the US was from around 1905).

Yes but they are here right now. And before cars we had horses who just required food and water. Horses are no longer a prefered method of transportation for most. Instead of pushing EV's when the infrastructure isn't ready, you make the infrastructure ready. You upgrade the power grid, you install charging stations, you mandate that new homes have the ability to install a level 2 charger. You let the market decide when its time to change over, you dont force it, < redacted by moderation, politics >

Edited July 6, 2023 by LogicalDrm