Plug In Vs Non Plug In Cars ?

[Aletank]

All this talk of electric cars etc in the news, one of the main topics seems to be about all the charging points required.
Why do most electric/hybrid cars seem to be the plug in type ?
I know Lexus not long back and maybe still do have a range of cars that are non plug in hybrid, which to me makes more sense ?
Whys the plug in type better than the non plug in type ?

[nbetts]

Aletank said:

Whys the plug in type better than the non plug in type ?

The Plug-In type means you can 'fill your battery' with energy derived elsewhere than the Internal Combustion Engine or Regeneration.

This typically gives the car an economic advantage over non-plug in types usually due to the larger capacity batteries that Plug-Ins tend to carry.

[Phunk]

Because you can charge the battery from electricity, not the engine. So they have a bigger battery and can run further without the engine.

[Aletank]

So can the plug in cars still run on battery without ever getting that plug in charge, just engine charges ?

[Donbot]

Yes, but that defeats the point of the 'plug in' bit.

[Chris-S]

It's potentially complicated too. Non plug ins have a tiny battery capacity, the cars I looked at were barely capable of one mile under electric only power and electric assistance typically dropped out at relatively low speed as well. It's mostly intended as a stop start assist I think. A typical PHEV can do from 10 to 20 miles on battery only and some will do motorway speeds on electric power no problem.

Putting a big battery in a non-plug in would be pointless I think, you'd never fully charge it from regent and using petrol to charge it is a very expensive way to go.

They are very sensitive to the type and distance of driving you do as well. Short trips within battery range can be very cost effective, longer journeys aren't bad either I've found. Add in the various modes they offer and it all gets a bit fiddly, or involving, depending on your view. I bought a C350e last December and find it suits us very well. For our typical local trips, we use no petrol at all, on longer runs, we are averaging over 50mpg. When it was new, I ran it in Sport mode that kept the engine running at all times (to speed running in) and it did about 38mpg.

A hybrid is arguably the worst of both worlds, and I'd rather have a pure EV I think, but the only one that appeals at the moment is a Tesla S and I wasn't prepared to spend that much. I'd be much happier with the Merc if it had a bit more electric range than it does, but it's a balancing act. More battery capacity weighs more, so you end up dragging around even more dead weight when the battery is flat, which hurts economy and performance.

[Clem2k3]

Broadly speaking hybrids and EVs fall into 4 groups in my mind:

Soft Hybrids
These are your prius type things, they have a tiny battery which is mostly used to aid stop-start stuff. EV only range is minimal (<5miles) or so if it is possible at all. They do not plug in at all. They act to improve the efficiency of the ICE engine a bit but thats all. They were a good leaping off point whilst we sort out the tech but really are old hat now and should start to disappear (despite Toyotas most recent "you dont have to plug in" adverts). Ultimately a stop-gap they really dont confer enough advantages nowadays to outweigh the problems.

Plug-in Hybrid EVs
These are super popular at the moment. They have a larger battery than soft hybrids and are able to run for about 20-30 miles on EV only. This allows them to do short commute work very cheaply. Typically they arent as efficient as their ICE stablemates (correct me if I am wrong) for long journeys when the petrol engine kicks in. I believe their popularity is largely due to their beneficial tax setup (especially as company cars) as a hybrid more than their inherent economies but that will vary largely by use case. Main disadvantages are that you need to plug them in to get the benefits (really isnt that big an issue assuming you have a drive) and the aforementioned efficiency.

Range Extended EVs
These are the cars where the electric motor is the only one connected to the wheels. The engine merely runs to charge the battery. Battery is much bigger than the other types above and can run the car for significant range (80 miles ish?). These are basically best thought of as EVs with an emergency generator (as opposed to PHEV which is a petrol car with an electric motor for short trips). This is the next step for EVs I think and we'll see a lot of them. The two new London Taxis are this type for example and there is an i3 of this type.

Pure EVs
The future ... but perhaps not quite the present. Just a battery and a motor and all the advantages and disadvantages that come with that.

[sjg]

Clem2k3 said:

Soft Hybrids
These are your prius type things, they have a tiny battery which is mostly used to aid stop-start stuff. EV only range is minimal (<5miles) or so if it is possible at all. They do not plug in at all. They act to improve the efficiency of the ICE engine a bit but thats all. They were a good leaping off point whilst we sort out the tech but really are old hat now and should start to disappear (despite Toyotas most recent "you dont have to plug in" adverts). Ultimately a stop-gap they really dont confer enough advantages nowadays to outweigh the problems.

This can be broken down further, systems like Toyota's that are capable of moving the car for a while on battery only and ones like the Honda IMA system that just use the motor/battery to boost power.

The Toyota system is good - they achieve very decent economy, but converse to conventional cars they get better economy in stop-start traffic. The engines are Atkinson-cycle ones which are very efficient but would feel awful to drive without the hybrid system helping to boost it as needed. It also seems about as reliable as petrol engines can get - no belts to wear or break, engine not put under undue stress because of the hybrid system. Regen on braking saves lots of wear on brake components too, it hardly touches them.

They're a really good solution for right now, for the people that can't charge up a car. The cases cited in every thread about EVs - no driveway/garage, no work charging, no other local infrastructure, need to drive for hundreds of miles in one sitting. Just put petrol in and go.

[saaby93]

Toyoat are now marketing their hybrids as 'charging themselves as you drive' saves having to mess about plugging it in somehere to charge up overnight or finding you havent got enough charge yet
The problem with range extenders is they dont seem to be that efficient
If youre using a petrol engine to charge a battery (with what 50 efficiency) then use the battery to drive an electric motor with losses too, why not just connect the petrol engine to the wheels

[Clem2k3]

saaby93 said:

Toyoat are now marketing their hybrids as 'charging themselves as you drive' saves having to mess about plugging it in somehere to charge up overnight or finding you havent got enough charge yet
The problem with range extenders is they dont seem to be that efficient
If youre using a petrol engine to charge a battery (with what 50 efficiency) then use the battery to drive an electric motor with losses too, why not just connect the petrol engine to the wheels

Because the petrol engine is really intended as a backup for when you absolutely HAVE to do a long journey. Its an answer to the people that say "sure an EV would work for me but every 15 years I want to drive to France"

Also on the subject of losses, an EV drivetrain with inverter is probably no more lossy than a gearbox/diff arrangement that the petrol engine would need to drive the wheels. The range extender concept also avoids the use of (even more lossy) multi-output gearbox arrangements that are needed for hybrids where either drive motor can power the wheels such as the Toyota one.

Edit: 50% efficiency?! Where does that number come from?

[raspy]

Chris-S said:

A hybrid is arguably the worst of both worlds, and I'd rather have a pure EV I think, but the only one that appeals at the moment is a Tesla S and I wasn't prepared to spend that much. I'd be much happier with the Merc if it had a bit more electric range than it does, but it's a balancing act. More battery capacity weighs more, so you end up dragging around even more dead weight when the battery is flat, which hurts economy and performance.

I have to disagree. My non plug in Prius hybrid is getting me 75-85mpg at the moment in my daily travels, including cruising at 40-50mph on some A roads in London. I'm very surprised with it's efficiency for my trips.

It's a good stop gap for me until my Model 3 EV arrives next year :-)

IIRC, some people were buying plug in hybrids simply for tax reasons, and never plugging them in though.

[Chris-S]

I should say that our Merc PHEV suits us particularly well. Our normal day to day driving, such as it is, uses no petrol at all and at this time of year, we are charging the car for free from the sunshine on the roof.

We did a 40 mile round trip today that returned just over 70mpg. Not too bad at all really, but you can't deny the reality that having both power trains has a cost in efficiency terms.

I'm interested to see what the Tesla 3 looks but perhaps more interested in the I-Pace, depending on price.

You are spot on about some PHEV users never plugging them in and just using them as a tax dodge though, but I suppose you can't blame them if the rules allow it, but it does seem a bit short sighted.