Why aren't there more plug in hybrids?

[danp]

Taken from the thread based around the premise that light weight is not all good:

J4CKO said:

Interesting stuff in Autocar yesterday about BMW's future direction, their cars will all be plug in hybrids with some lightweight construction techniques and materials, any weight saving, seemingly will go to offset the battery weight.

I'm amazed this isn't the norm already - i.e. plugin hybrids. (or battery plus a range extending ICE)

Excellent numbers in terms of performance/mpg/co2/tax and if they have a 20 mile range many people could do their commute solely on the battery.

And no range anxiety.

What's not to like? The cost of an ICE plus batts and the tech/brains to integrate them?

[Mr Gear]

Much as I like plug in hybrids, they are the worst kind of compromise in engineering terms.

You have to package both a large battery and fuel tank, and engine, and you have the complexity of both. Then whichever power plant isn't being used, it's just a dead weight to drag around.

[danp]

Mr Gear said:

Much as I like plug in hybrids, they are the worst kind of compromise in engineering terms.

You have to package both a large battery and fuel tank, and engine, and you have the complexity of both. Then whichever power plant isn't being used, it's just a dead weight to drag around.

I looked up the plugin Prius, it has a 4.4kwh battery which weighs 80kg, so that's not an outrageous amount to lug about (total weight is 1450kg). And these are not using aluminium/composites as per the i3/i8, so I reckon a mythical 3pot 3er hybrid of 2022 would be a similar weight to today's normal one.

Not sure how manufacturers will be able to avoid making hybrids, they must surely all have them in plan due to increasingly strict co2 regs - unless they have a Tesla model 3 equivalent under wraps!

http://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/new-cars/future-...

[anonymous-user]

Cost Vs reward. Only now are the costs of the "small capacity" hybrid systems falling to a point where the fuel savings make financial sense.

[AER]

Throwing technology at saving fuel is a fool's errand. The depreciation cost of the technology is so huge as to dwarf any fuel saving, even with oil prices above the highest levels we've ever seen ($150+) That's the sad fact of life about being green. It's actually not economic.

If you want to save the planet, economics is the best tool we have and at the moment, extending the life of even some moderate gas guzzler to achieve your mobility requirements is the best use of the planet's resources. Changing your lifestyle to reduce the dependence on mobility is a much better way.

Clever hybrid technologies only gives Jevons' paradox a big rev.

[Tazio1]

They are coming it is new tech, even mitsubishi who have done well with the outlander ev said it is planned for their whole range, but the next one is not out for 2 years.

[Don]

AER said:

Changing your lifestyle to reduce the dependence on mobility is a much better way.

But I like mobility. It's great.

Whenever I read about changes in lifestyle I always note that the politicians extolling the idea exempt themselves from the necessity.

"One shouldn't fly but it's so important I go to meet Obama with fourteen of my colleagues..."

Whilst I love the idea of eliminating dead time travelling and will happily invest in the IT necessary to do my work in my home as I do have a virtual profession there's something wonderful about travelling.

So f**k the descendants I'm off for a drive. In my environmentally friendly electric car...

[AER]

I agree with you Don. But for many, if not most people, every pound that doesn't have to be put in the fuel tank is £2 they don't have to earn.

There's nothing joyful about sitting in peak-hour traffic. Arranging a lifestyle so that you don't have to can amount to tens of thousands of pounds that don't need to be earned for the same net income, not to mention the additional spare time that can be used for jetting off to the Maldives...

Edited by AER on Friday 16th January 05:42