GRA
Well-known member
^^^ Yes, and I've seen similar ones recently, along with synfuels.
Re an earlier post of mine, via IEVS:
https://insideevs.com/features/456629/plug-in-hybrids-fixed-less-pollutant-cars/
I disagree with much of this, as it assumes all PHEV drivers have the same use case and driving style, not to mention income, and none of that's true.
For example, re power split, the only time I'd be using the battery alone is on surface streets or short freeway trips within the AER; neither requires that the electric motor provide half the total power. For longer distances I want the ICE to have enough power to allow cruising at say 85-90 mph (80 mph, plus some extra power for moderate grades and/or headwinds plus hotel loads); the battery just provides some extra oomph for passing or sustained high speed climbs.
Similarly, requiring 80 km/50 miles of AER is excessive for many people, including me, adds to cost, may reduce cargo/passenger space and, due to added weight, reduces efficiency in both CS and CD modes.
Nor do I see any need to require QC capability, as most of these batteries are so small that charging rates would quickly taper, eliminating much of the advantage of QC and likely hastening degradation. If people want it, by all means give them the option, at least on the larger packs. Personally, given the choice of QCing for 1/2 hour so I can go maybe 40 miles, versus gassing up in <5 minutes so I can go 300 to 600, I know which one I'd pick. L2 is plenty for most PHEV packs.
Certainly, allowing the owner to fully control when the battery is used is a good idea regardless of how someone drives, even though many people won't take advantage of it.
Re an earlier post of mine, via IEVS:
This Is How Plug-In Hybrids Could Be Fixed To Be Less Polluting Cars
https://insideevs.com/features/456629/plug-in-hybrids-fixed-less-pollutant-cars/
. . . According to Anna Krajinska, emission engineer at T&E, there are three aspects that PHEV manufacturers have to address urgently: motors, battery pack, and charging capacity.
“The average electrical power of PHEVs on sale is less than half – 43 percent – of the power of the internal combustion engine fitted to the car. That means that current PHEVs are closer to conventional ICE cars than BEVs. To improve PHEVs, manufacturers should ensure that the electric power of the car is at least equal to the power of the internal combustion engine by fitting more powerful electric motors to PHEVs. The car should be able to drive at least 80 km electrically, stay in electric-only operation under all conditions, and be capable of fast charging.”
As you are probably aware, very few PHEVs have a fast-charging capability, and most of them fire up the combustion engine just to make up for their small battery packs. This is one of the reasons why PHEVs have emitted carbon in T&E’s emission tests, even if not the only one.
“During T&E's tests, it was found that both the XC60 and X5 switch on the engine when more power – due to faster accelerations – is demanded, decreasing the EV-only range by up to 76 percent. Similarly, while it was not seen on T&E's tests, the Outlander PHEV manual states many conditions under which the engine can turn on automatically, including if the car is not regularly refueled, despite having a charged battery.”
Apart from these situations in which the car demands the engine to work, T&E made its tests under the RDE (Real Driving Emissions) test procedure for 92 km (57.2 miles). That is a longer distance than most PHEV ranges, which implies they will have to switch their engines on anyway, as Krajinska told InsideEVs.
“After 75 km (X5), 37 km (XC60), and 48 km (Outlander), the internal combustion turned on, and therefore CO2 emissions were measured on this test. . . .”
I disagree with much of this, as it assumes all PHEV drivers have the same use case and driving style, not to mention income, and none of that's true.
For example, re power split, the only time I'd be using the battery alone is on surface streets or short freeway trips within the AER; neither requires that the electric motor provide half the total power. For longer distances I want the ICE to have enough power to allow cruising at say 85-90 mph (80 mph, plus some extra power for moderate grades and/or headwinds plus hotel loads); the battery just provides some extra oomph for passing or sustained high speed climbs.
Similarly, requiring 80 km/50 miles of AER is excessive for many people, including me, adds to cost, may reduce cargo/passenger space and, due to added weight, reduces efficiency in both CS and CD modes.
Nor do I see any need to require QC capability, as most of these batteries are so small that charging rates would quickly taper, eliminating much of the advantage of QC and likely hastening degradation. If people want it, by all means give them the option, at least on the larger packs. Personally, given the choice of QCing for 1/2 hour so I can go maybe 40 miles, versus gassing up in <5 minutes so I can go 300 to 600, I know which one I'd pick. L2 is plenty for most PHEV packs.
Certainly, allowing the owner to fully control when the battery is used is a good idea regardless of how someone drives, even though many people won't take advantage of it.