The RAV-4 PHEV Topic

My Nissan Leaf Forum

Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
I’m glad to hear that you guys acknowledge the root challenges for BEVs today.

Going forward things will absolutely improve, but today all BEVs have become a surprising disappointment for new BEV owners when it comes to long distance travel. 150-200 miles seems to be the limit of all BEVs, especially Tesla M3s on long trips regardless of their stated ranges.

One of my colleagues just came off of a round-trip from the Bay Area to Denver with 3 passengers and cargo and back where the average speed of traffic on the interstates was 75-80 mph. He averaged about 180 miles/2 hours between charges that lasted about 20-30 minutes each. But he is not unique, every day I am seeing more and more new Tesla drivers world-wide that are complaining with similar experiences.

It does not seem to matter if the charge session is 120miles/15 minutes or 200 miles/30 minutes, it’s still inferior to the average ICE econobox or SUV.

Fortunately long distance travel in BEVs still in the minority of use cases. The Supercharger network as with EVgo and EA are still a patchwork of predominantly lower speed superchargers with the more powerful ones few and far in between. In my friends Denver trip he told me that the superchargers were almost all the older ones, especially out in the I80 boondocks in Nevada, Utah Wyoming and north Colorado.

There is certainly a lot of grandstanding about future technology direction, and I am confident that it will pan out, but it will most certainly take longer than advertised.
 
Yeah, for those of us who don't require pee breaks every two hours but prefer to drive 4-5 hours between stops, and who are often visiting rural areas where charging infrastructure is few and far between assuming it works at all (see my posts last week in the Bolt topic), current semi-affordable 200+ mile BEVs and their infrastructure fall well short of requirements.

Someday that will change, but the only BEVs that even approach ICE capability now are far too expensive for mainstream buyers, even if they're available in the type desired.
 
DougWantsALeaf said:
There is just no sense of adventure with a PHEV.

The number of suv EVs is going to go up rapidly this year to come. Even faster in Europe.

True, but that assumes that most people want a car trip to be an adventure. Most people most of the time value the car on trips for its utilitarian function, i.e. how well it provides quick, convenient, flexible, comfortable and affordable transportation for themselves, their passengers and cargo to their destination(s), when they want, via the route they want, without requiring that they make stops when, where and for how long the car needs them, rather than whenever's convenient for them. The adventure comes at the places the car provides access to; the driving itself shouldn't have to be an adventure of the "will we be able to get there at all, without wasting lots of our free time doing so?" variety.
 
OrientExpress said:
Unless your house is on wheels, home charging doesn't have much value on a road trip.

That's the issue, long distance travel which in most cases is the 5% task. For the other 95% of travel around you local area, BEVs are the perfect car.

For that 5% task the options are:
Drive a modern ICE that has a 400-500 mile range at highway speeds
Drive a modern PHEV that has a 700 mile range at highway speeds
Drive a BEV that has a 150-200 mile range at highway speeds, along with the added 30-45 minute charge time for every 150-200 mile segment.
ETron has a 200 mile range at highway speeds, and we don't have that kind of range. Every hour or so, I hear "Can we find a place to stop soon?" So I often plan charge stops every 80 miles or so... And the eTron is faster than she is, with 150kW charging.

A recent road trip had a stop for the usual reason and for lunch. With a 50kW charger, we finished lunch at about the same time as the car was ready to go.

How many people can sit for about 10 hours in a car without a stop? Even if you could, is that healthy? A 700 mile range isn't because of any public demand for a 700 mile range. It is because of gas tanks are a standard part, and the fuel economy going up. It would cost money to put in a new smaller tank, so they don't. In many cases it is the same size gas tank as was in the car when the older model car got 15 miles to the gallon.
 
In my few runs to Iowa city on a charge (from Skokie), we did stop to pee, but not charge. About a 3 1/2 hour run if you keep around 70.

Skokie to Bloomington IN, same thing, stop to pee, but not charge (but would have if EA wasn't broken). That was 4+ hours of driving. Driving was a bit slower.

So, so far the car has been exceeding bladder range.
 
WetEV said:
How many people can sit for about 10 hours in a car without a stop? Even if you could, is that healthy? A 700 mile range isn't because of any public demand for a 700-mile range. It is because of gas tanks are a standard part, and the fuel economy going up. It would cost money to put in a new smaller tank, so they don't. In many cases it is the same size gas tank as was in the car when the older model car got 15 miles to the gallon.
It's not for the 10hrs but I like a long-range to avoid paying the exurbanite gas prices in small towns not to mention CAnada. When we take our 500 mile Prius to CA every(not this one :( ) summer we fill up at home at Costco for the lowest price gas, then our next fill is at the CA border, much more expensive than home but far cheaper than CA! We drive about 500 miles in CA, then fill up at the MN border on our way back and never have to pay their 50% higher fuel and I also don't have to worry about converting L's to G's for figuring out MPG, also don't have to pay with CA $'s but with CC's that's a moot point, well other than converting CA $'s to US$'s to know just how high their gas prices are.
I don't like filling up gas, I LIKE the largest gas tank I can get with the highest MPG I can get, simple as that :)
The RAV4 Prime will be nice for our CA trip, it will also be nice to take advantage of all the large hills along the N. Shore of Lake Superior. With our Prius the battery gets empty far before the top of the hills and then gets overfull during the long downhills, requiring me to have to use the friction brakes. It will be nice to be able to charge at our destination and have 40 miles of pure EV driving, this should easily save 5 or more gallons of gas, should be no problem at all not having to purchase gas in CA :)
 
WetEV said:
OrientExpress said:
Unless your house is on wheels, home charging doesn't have much value on a road trip.

That's the issue, long distance travel which in most cases is the 5% task. For the other 95% of travel around you local area, BEVs are the perfect car.

For that 5% task the options are:
Drive a modern ICE that has a 400-500 mile range at highway speeds
Drive a modern PHEV that has a 700 mile range at highway speeds
Drive a BEV that has a 150-200 mile range at highway speeds, along with the added 30-45 minute charge time for every 150-200 mile segment.
ETron has a 200 mile range at highway speeds, and we don't have that kind of range. Every hour or so, I hear "Can we find a place to stop soon?" So I often plan charge stops every 80 miles or so... And the eTron is faster than she is, with 150kW charging.

A recent road trip had a stop for the usual reason and for lunch. With a 50kW charger, we finished lunch at about the same time as the car was ready to go.

How many people can sit for about 10 hours in a car without a stop? Even if you could, is that healthy? A 700 mile range isn't because of any public demand for a 700 mile range. It is because of gas tanks are a standard part, and the fuel economy going up. It would cost money to put in a new smaller tank, so they don't. In many cases it is the same size gas tank as was in the car when the older model car got 15 miles to the gallon.

We'd previously discussed this claim, and as I pointed out the new through three generations of Rav4 Toyota changed the size of the tank for each generation, and the range increased each time. While few want to drive 10 hours at a time (6 is about my limit), lots of people appreciate not having to gas up on a weekend road round trip, and even more like only having to go to a gas station every other week instead of every week in routine daily use.
 
jjeff said:
WetEV said:
How many people can sit for about 10 hours in a car without a stop? Even if you could, is that healthy? A 700 mile range isn't because of any public demand for a 700-mile range. It is because of gas tanks are a standard part, and the fuel economy going up. It would cost money to put in a new smaller tank, so they don't. In many cases it is the same size gas tank as was in the car when the older model car got 15 miles to the gallon.
It's not for the 10hrs but I like a long-range to avoid paying the exurbanite gas prices in small towns not to mention CAnada. <Snip>


Yup. Example, I usually fill my tank in either Tracy, Manteca or Oakdale on the way over to the east side of the Sierra, as gas is cheaper there than in the Bay Area, and far cheaper than on the east side. As my car has a no worries HWY range of at least 400 miles plus at least a 30 mile reserve while using heat or more rarely A/C, this allows me to do most round trips from that point to the east side and back, and often all the way home, unrefueled. On one such trip a few years back I noted gas prices: Oakdale, $3.68/gal. Lee Vining, $4.90. Bridgeport, $5.10. I'm very glad my car's range allows me to avoid paying for most and usually all of my gas at mountain monopoly prices.

Give me a car with 700 miles of HWY range and I could do the 692 mile round trip from home to Whitney Portal unrefueled, with the option to fill the tank with the lowest-priced gas I found anywhere along the way if I choose. As long as the bigger tank doesn't encroach on cargo space* or have some other negative effect, the more range the better.


* Like the optional 25 gal. aux. tank my dad had installed in the trunk of his 1976 Peugeot 504D, which, added to the standard 15 gal. tank the car had and the 30 mpg. it got on the highway, meant he could go almost 1,200 miles between fuel stops. He did that because at the time he bought the car few gas stations carried diesel, and most truck stops didn't want to waste their time with such a small amount of fuel. ISTR there was also some issue with fuel taxes at such stops. He also had an iron ass, and AFAICT would have done the 640 miles between Oakland and my cousins' place in the Portland area non-stop, if I didn't need to stop for at least one food and bathroom break enroute.
 
Interesting discussion this has gone into. I can provide a real life example, unique to me, of this and then you all can make of it what you wish.

I often drive from my place in the desert of CA to AZ rim country. A large portion of the route is on I-40. NO EV under $50k can do it currently without multiple charging stops. ABRP has a model 3 LR requiring charging stops in Needles, Kingman and then Flagstaff in order to go the complete route of 534 miles, and that is starting with 100% charge. Charging adds an hour.

I think what some of you might forget is that large portions of the country are not flat, and that can impact your range, and perhaps speed varies as well.

Now what is IDEAL for this 534 mile trip? My ideal EV would match the ICE trip, where I always stop half way in Kingman for lunch, bathroom and gas. I probably don't have to get gas right there, but I always do, since I stop anyway and only want to stop once. So in this real life example I need one stop in a 534 mile trip. With an ICE it takes 8 hrs plus that middle break. That's how I really do it and have always done it. YMMV.

As I stated, no EV currently can match that trip plan in a reasonable price range. As far as I know, only the model S can do it all right now and that's stretching it, arriving at 5% and requiring OVER an hour charge in Kingman. According to ABRP the only ones in the near future that can comfortably do it are the Tri Motor Cybertruck. Maybe Rivian and Lucid once EA gets their I-40 charges done. Certainly no EV in the 30-40k range. This case is particular to me but it is real.
 
SageBrush said:
OrientExpress said:
I’m glad to hear
You hear what you want to hear.
I was only saying that your statements are are at best distorted spin and FUD.

As usual


How are real-world issues and concerns distorted spin or FUD? We know that for YOUR driving habits and destinations a BEV and its charging infrastructure is acceptable. Those of us with different habits and destinations don't find them so yet, much as we wish that wasn't the case. You've been given some real-world examples demonstrating this. The IEVS review makes the same points:
Is a PHEV the better EV for long-distance travel?

This is a touchy subject, with pure battery-electric-vehicle (BEV) proponents turning up their noses at anything that burns even the slightest bit of petroleum. But there are also those that feel that using the proper tool for the job is the better approach.

PHEV advocates contend that at this point in time, BEVs are an excellent choice for urban and inter-urban travel and as a daily driver. BEVs shine when it comes to low speed travel and are extremely efficient in stop & go traffic. They are the perfect replacement for an ICE daily driver, and study after study has shown that 85-95% of all vehicles are driven primarily in this environment.

But many other studies and owners’ reported experiences have shown that long-distance travel is the BEVs Achilles heel. More and more BEVs are available today that boast EPA and other governmental range results of 300 or more miles, while actually only delivering at least a third less real-world range.

The current BEV mileage champs like Tesla boast 300+ miles of range on the majority of their models, and have one of the better recharging infrastructures today, but owners are surprised and disappointed when they find that real-world range at real-world highway speeds of 70-80 mph only deliver 150-200 miles of that advertised range. Add to that the necessity to recharge more times that adds a significant time penalty to a trip that in an ICE can accomplish on one tank of gas. Combine the hurry up and wait time lost in charging along with the relative scarcity of reliable high-speed charging in areas other than interstates and urban areas, that adds a significant time and enjoyment penalty to driving a pure BEV on a long trip. Many BEV owners are willing to take a step back in time efficiency when it comes to long-distance travel perhaps because of the novelty of BEV travel, but the mainstream long-distance driver finds their time more valuable than trying to show off.

A PHEV on the other hand takes the best of both the ICE and BEV world and lets the vehicle work with the tools that are most efficient. It’s a BEV when starting from an urban area, a gas/electric vehicle on the majority of the high-speed highway section, and back to being a BEV once the vehicle has arrived at its destination. And because it does not have a huge battery to recharge, 110v L1 charging is actually useful.

A PHEV isn’t afraid to get off the beaten path either, as the range of a PHEV is much greater than any BEV and gasoline is available in even the most out-of-the-way backroad. The RAV4 prime can easily accomplish a 650-700-mile trip without refueling or recharging despite that one’s bladder may not be as accommodating.

So yes, a PHEV may be a better choice today over a BEV if long-distance travel is a significant portion of the anticipated driving.

Is IEVS also engaging in distorted spin and FUD by publishing this?
 
GRA said:
Is IEVS also engaging in distorted spin and FUD by publishing this?

Same author.

Yet I agree with his point. BEVs are not yet for everyone, and may never be. Very remote areas are unlikely to be covered by DCQC stations, the cost is just too high. Range of 1,200 miles isn't likely. Much less to match the crazy neighbor's pickup with a transcontinental range.
So something else, with low and low tech infrastructure cost, is needed. Short term gasoline, longer term perhaps biofuels or synfuels.
 
That’s what I’m thinking. ICEs already run on a variety of synthetic, organic, and petroleum based motor fuels. So if the ICE will still be with us for years to come, it seems logical to make them as inoffensive as possible.

Btw, just ran across this in the Tesla Model Y FB forum.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/TeslaModelY/permalink/2750130541901643/

It’s a timely endorsement for our conversation.
 
WetEV said:
GRA said:
Is IEVS also engaging in distorted spin and FUD by publishing this?

Same author.

I know. That wasn't my question.


WetEV said:
Yet I agree with his point. BEVs are not yet for everyone, and may never be. Very remote areas are unlikely to be covered by DCQC stations, the cost is just too high. Range of 1,200 miles isn't likely. Much less to match the crazy neighbor's pickup with a transcontinental range.
So something else, with low and low tech infrastructure cost, is needed. Short term gasoline, longer term perhaps biofuels or synfuels.

[Removed statement I misattributed to WetEV rather than SageBrush]

Re your last point , while the infrastructure costs are still somewhat high, FCEVs provide the same capability as ICEs now (given the infrastructure, which thanks to their longer real-world range can be less dense and likely more reliable than the necessary QC network), and PHFCEVs provide a full ZEV replacement for PHEVs. Barring some major scientific breakthrough, biofuels are unlikely to be able to meet demand beyond critical aviation requirements, as we all have to eat too.
 
It is amusing that I am the only one here who has owned a PHEV, let along owned one and praised it repeatedly in this forum.
I have also said that my objection is not to the design but to the fleet results, which in my opinion argues against PHEV subsidy. And face it folks, without subsidy PHEV sales would dry up as fast as GRA could say "I drive a 20 mpg ICE."

As for @orient and his usual BS, I decided to correct his FUD that EVs must stop every ~ 150 miles for 30 - 45 minutes. Just because it is true for some EVs does not give him license to concoct a BS narrative
 
Not must stop, but usually stop every 150-200 miles. The newer Tesla community members are not happy that it seems to be status quo for Tesla’s model Y.

It’s nothing to be ashamed about, back in the 1960’s ICE vehicles had the same range too.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/TeslaModelY/permalink/2750130541901643/

teslamileage.jpg
 
Ahh ... FB, the land of morons.

He sits twiddling his thumbs for and hour to charge to 100% SoC, so he can drive 85 - 90 mph
Why am I not surprised that FB is @orient's go to reference for EV information
 
Back
Top