back
102 comments
The whole "liters per 100 km" or "g CO2 per km" approach doesn't work with plugin hybrids because it depends much more on the use case than with regular ICE cars.

Someone can commute completely with electric power and do a few longer trips per year, getting the average emissions way way down.

And someone else who can't charge at home or at work and who drives long distances daily might be using just as much gasoline as a regular car.

What are some good metrics instead of these emissions? Pure electric range? Charging speed? Required charging frequency with some typical usage profiles?

It also greatly depends on how they are driven. I was chatting to a Lexus dealer a couple of years ago and asked about the claimed 5.5l/100km of the RX450h (SUV). He said "the way our customers typically drive, it's closer to 10l/100km". If you drive like a grandpa you probably can get the claimed economy, but most people aren't going to do that.
I drive a 2007 station wagon like a grandpa. Average diesel consumption? 4.0l/100km. For those less into SI units, that's over 200 megabarleycorn per rundlet! [0]

Back on topic, PHEV's often get preferential tax treatment. My old car gets punished, barred even from some cities. That makes sense only if completely disregarding actual usage.

I can't possibly justify the ecological expense of selling a car that sees under 5000 km/year of usage, but misaligned government incentives increasingly push me to.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_units#Length [1] https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https...

In proper US customary units, that's 62 square mil.

The Chevy Volt only gets about 90 square mil on its generator, but its battery is more like 33 square mil-e.

WLTP "high" is essentially "rural road in the summer with a 70-90km/h speed limit" - achievable, but not commonly the case.
It's attainable in eco-mode but no one will drive it only in eco-mode because it's so slow.

Source, I own this exact SUV.

In sport+ mode, I get close to what you mentioned.

I have a regular, petrol powered SUV and regularly get 13l/100km. If I go granny mode I can get it down to 10l or less. Now I don't feel so bad for not hitting these magical consumption claims. It has 380hp (280kw) and wants to be driven as such.
They did some research in the UK (can't find the BBC article right now, it was maybe 2 months ago) and by huge margins most folks drove hybrid in most eco-unfriendly way possible (little to no charging due to poor infrastructure and costs). So hybrids ended up as biggest polluting passenger cars in real world, when averaged.

I can imagine ie some nordic countries could have better stats though.

>So hybrids ended up as biggest polluting passenger cars in real world, when averaged.

like the article itself, that statement is subject to a lot of conditions to the extent that it is meaningless without clearly stating all those conditions. For example, even without charging i average 48mpg on the previous gen Prius Plugin (and i do drive 85-90 on 237 - better aerodynamics results in very good mileage even at speed). You need very-very special setup, far-far from real world, for that to become "biggest polluting" .

This lines up perfectly with my predictions for the future of UK roads - they will be filled with leased, oversized hybrid SUVs, driven by people who care about nothing except getting to their destination.

These vehicles will be hybrids, because it's now almost impossible to sell a new ICE only car in Europe/the UK. Following from that, they will be SUV-sized, because hybrids add lots of extra drivetrain components and weight. Also following from that, they will be leased, because of the increased cost.

I am particularly aggrieved about this, because I generally cycle everywhere I can, and despise this new "green" future for motoring. I also tend to buy 10 year old second hand cars, which was already getting hard enough with all of the extra electronics on newer cars. The idea of buying a 10 year old, ex-lease, completely thrashed, hybrid SUV - well. I'd rather walk.

If I remember correctly a lot of that came from fleet cars. Often the drivers never got as far as unwrapping the charging cable. They weren't paying for the fuel so they didn't care or they never had somewhere to plug in.
On-board computers that send data home about how many times they have been refuelled and charged? I suppose it might not go down well with car buyers, though.
I do think that a consumption-based tax can be implemented for PHEV's using the data from the onboard computer. When you pay your annual tax or go for the inspection, you either take a readout of the car's consumption metrics from the OBC or have the shop/DMV do it.

Then you charge tax based on the consumption. Thus, someone who used electric a lot gets charged less than someone who didn't, which is what the incentives for PHEV's are supposed to encourage anyway.

this paragraph shows the bias

"The BMW X5, Volvo XC60 and Mitsubishi Outlander emitted 28-89% more CO2 than advertised when tested by Emissions Analytics on a fully charged battery in optimal conditions. On an empty battery, they emitted three to eight times more than official values. When driven in battery-charging mode, which could become more common as motorists charge up ahead of using electric mode in low-emissions zones, the PHEVs emitted three to 12 times more."

1) when empty, they emit more CO2 than their average assumed values. this is obvious. its just using gas, no battery.

2) when using the gas engine to charge the battery (i.e. instead of just generate enough electricity to move the car as desired), of course it is the worst performing. you're running the generator at full blast.

I had a Chevy Volt in palo alto where I was able to charge every night. I used it for commuting around (including a regular weekend trip to SF and other trips as far north as berkeley). As I was able to charge regularly (either 220v or 110v), I filled up the gas tank once a year (and that's because the car forces you to not have gas over a year old on average). Now, I don't have the ability to calculate how much CO2 was produced because of my charging times, but in terms of actual CO2 produced by the car, I'd put my experience over any other traditional ICE car.

Similarly, drove the car cross country. While I wasn't able to charge regularly, the electric motor handled the ups and downs of the terrain much better than all the other ICE cars I passed with ease.

I have a Chevy Volt as well. But we also have an Outlander PHEV. I wouldn't call the Volt a PHEV or include it in the same category as the Outlander at all. The Volt is an electric car that happens to have an ICE as backup. the Outlander PHEV is a soft hybrid with a bigger battery. It's pretty much impossible to drive it without using the gas engine, even when you hit the "EV" button. And from my impression that's the case with pretty much every PHEV other than the Volt.

But we needed a people mover that fits kids, dogs, skis, etc. for longer trips. So that was the best compromise.

It's a shame they killed the Volt and screwed up in marketing it. Such an amazing piece of engineering. I don't like GM's products generally, but I would have bought an Equinox type vehicle with a Voltec drivetrain and paid good money for it.

GM indicates that they think the EV transition is happening sooner than people and has no plans for another PHEV, just a large slate of EVs between 2023-2030. The Volt is mentioned as a transition option no longer necessary, according to current GM plans. Relatedly, all of the German automakers currently expect to be entirely EV by 2030. (Asian automakers are interestingly split by how much they rely on US car sales versus Chinese car sales. Those selling to China are on a very fast ramp to all EV production and those with much more reliance on US sales are still hedging their bets.)

There's an interesting feeling in the air that it could be a surprisingly fast switch in the next few years. I've loved my Volt and it was a great purchase in 2011, but in 2020 it does feel like a transition tech that I wouldn't buy again (especially as commute changes and electric reliability have moved me more and more to the "gas up once a year only because the Volt makes me" group), I'd personally go for a proper EV next time. It will be interesting to watch the next few years because I think things are about to go "weird" quickly (in rapid shifts in gas prices and availability).

The dirty little secret is that other studies have found that these low-range PHEVs (the three cited above have a useful electric-only range of <10 miles), unlike the Volt, are not often charged by their owners. And, even when they are, the short range means that most miles are driven on dino juice.

So, emissions when not charged are extremely relevant. That’s not editorial bias. It’s reality.

The Volt (and Clarity PHEV) are almost in a different class. Their large batteries make them more similar to an i3, and a 5-8 year old Volt has more range than a similarly-aged Leaf (unless the owner was extraordinarily lucky and lived in a cold climate)

a plugin hybrid with less than 10 miles of range shouldn't be considered a plugin hybrid. So, this would seem to be against a certain class of PHEVs, not the concept in general. I would argue that any PHEV that the government wants to recognize as such, should be required to have a minimum range of 40-50 miles.
You missed this line:

>"The BMW X5, Volvo XC60 and Mitsubishi Outlander emitted 28-89% more CO2 than advertised when tested by Emissions Analytics on a fully charged battery in optimal conditions.

Hybrids are designed by manufacturers who want to pass emissions legislation, and bought by customers who just want a car (in my experience, here in the UK that means "I want an oversized car so I feel safe as I blast around small roads at excessive speed).

Can't speak for the UK, but in the Netherlands the tax deduction laws have changed (already 4 years ago) to no longer give lease-car drivers a tax advantage when driving a hybrid. Only full electric cars were eligible for a lower tax rate - the hybrids were taxed like regular ICU cars.

I have personally driven a C350e - a hybrid with an amazingly short range - and I really like the concept. If you compare the fuel consumption with similar cars (same, weight, size) it is much more fuel efficient. And indeed, that greatly depends on how disciplined the driver is. I charge wherever I can, manually set the car to 'full electric' until I run out of charge and don't "blaze around small roads at excessive speed". The 1600 kg Mercedes can run a comfortable 1 liter per 30 kms and more.

So sure, the fancy stories told by the salesmen, you are never going to see happen. But better fuel consumption without the charging stress (anyone seen the Tesla's waiting in line for supercharger-stations during the previous winter when we still were allowed to ski?) is easily done.

And if that weight and cost budget was just used for batteries, instead of an engine and drivetrain, you'd get a much better electric vehicle.
I went through 2 Chevy Volt leases and loved that car. Averaged 150mpg lifetime.

Now I’ve got a Pacifica Minivan plug-in hybrid which has a similar value proposition but the drive train is noticeably different than the Volt’s all electric plus a generator approach.

There are a few simple things one could do:

* Limit the power of the ICE to 80HP or whatever, so that these cars are not fun to drive with gas

* Only pay out the tax rebates if the computer shows a sufficient number of charging events, say a year after purchase

* Give employees "electricity cards" similar to the "fuel cards" they receive today for refueling company cars

Just stop all subsidies for hybrid cars, as it creates too much of the wrong incentives. If somebody really needs a hybrid car, he can pay for it full price, or buy a subsidized full electric (or wait a few years more until cheaper options are available).

I'm planning to buy a full electric car next year, and it will be the first time I buy a new car.

Or stop all subsidies for hybrids + electrics and just tax fuel like hell? That way, buying a plug-in hybrid to actually plug it would save money, while using it as an ICE car wouldn't.
I do think PHEV's are a good stop-gap, especially given that Li-ion batteries are expensive and there's not enough manufacturing capacity for the demand. Meanwhile there's plenty of experience and R&D that's gone into optimizing gas engines.

Most trips are short and easily covered by battery. The gas engine then comes in on the highway. I really think that's the best of both worlds. Especially given that BEV's aren't cheaper or lighter - because the missing gas engine's weight and cost is more than compensated by the additional batteries needed.

Congrats on your upcoming purchase. Most people cannot afford an electric car and for those who can, not everyone lives in a place with good charging infrastructure so hybrid cars are still quite useful.
In light of this it appears that the CARB's approach, where a car is classified as a "range-extended battery electric vehicle"(and thus qualifies for high incentives) only if its range with the battery depleted is no greater than the range on battery alone, makes a lot of sense.
While hybrids can help reduce overall emissions, it also matters where the emissions occur. Running on batteries in the city reduces emissions (to zero) in areas that already have terrible air quality. For longer journeys outside of the city, the air quality is better and there's less population density to be affected. So they can still be a net win even if they are just shifting emissions from one place to another.
Shame they don't write about people like me, which drive on pure electric all the time. ICE kicks in once per month on on longer journeys. So effectively i have +inf times lower emission.
Of the PHEVs for sale right now, there's almost none that could really be driven pure electric. Only the Volt really let you do that, and it's no longer for sale. Pretty much all of them will fire up the ICE if you hit the accelerator hard or need to go highway speeds, etc.
My PHEV - mini countryman - can go up to 140km/h on pure electric. It even has an option in the car settings where driving on pure electric can be the default setting. Same goes for BMW PHEVs and Porsche ones.
Prius Prime RAV4 Prime Honda Clarity

(see these all over the place in SoCal)

If most of the companies emit 400% of the allocated CO2 quota and you 10% of the quota, statistically your usage can't compensate for the scam that's going on with the current incentives :(
You're right. This is why not cars, but fuel - you know, like the source of the carbon - should be controlled/taxed. I also think that any car can be driven in an inefficient manner. The 1.7t PHEV I use has been amazing in terms of fuel economy, but I know people that burn more fuel in their hybrids than in V8 ICE sportcars.
Is this a reputable news source (genuine question)? Some of the lines are hyperbole: "Plug-in hybrids are fake electric cars, built for lab tests"
T&E across Europe are biased (not in a bad sense but they will drive their agenda as strongly as the other side) ecological association. In my country they will oppose all personal transportation but bicycle and public transportation. That's why this kind of "study" should be read with a grain of salt.
>Plug-in hybrids are fake electric cars, built for lab tests

That is a very reasonable assumption. Euro emissions legislation makes it practically impossible to sell a new ICE-only car, so hybrid cars are designed to be the nearest thing while fulfilling the letter of the legislation.

That is a bullshit assertion, proven by the fact that every cost conscious Uber and Minicab driver in competitive markets has switched to HEVs, and many to PHEVs. (Of course none of them are using HEV SUVs though).
> On an empty battery, they emitted three to eight times more than official values.

One would expect that after VW dieselgate there would be very close and frequent testing by all possible cars by regulatory bodies (or even competition). What a fail.

Let's not forget countries like UK want to have electric and hybrid-only cars allowed in mere 9 years (with most being hybrids). As usually with many eco-related changes that cost billions from ordinary folk's pockets, good intentions pave road to hell once money and politics get involved.

I know what our next car will be if/once 2nd baby comes - diesel bmw 530xd wagon. One hell of an utility and proper fun driving with minimal real consumption, euro6 emissions. If lucky with good state of crucial parts, will last 10 years easily. We do long hauls quite often (1500km drive in 1 day or spread to 2). At one point happy to switch to electric, but right now they are too costly & cumbersome, plus we always buy used for 25-30% of the price which isn't a thing with electric. Used hybrid - no thank you.

> One would expect that after VW dieselgate there would be very close and frequent testing by all possible cars by regulatory bodies (or even competition). What a fail.

The governments were more interested in keeping their car industries chugging happily (and keeping voters' jobs, and probably their own political jobs), so they preferred to keep the easy emissions test: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/sep/24/uk-franc...

I think the used market is going to become quite interesting in a decade or two. Right now I could buy a reasonable runner for as little as £1K. It might not be that desirable but if you were on a really tight budget it would get you to and from work.

I don't see that being the case once we shift to electric. If you look at old Nissan Leafs now the range is abysmal but the cost of a new battery if £5K.

I have a feeling the bottom end of the market is going to disapear.

>1500km drive in 1 day or spread to 2

That's got to be hell with kids or even just as you get a bit older.

Interesting point, at one point old cars will be un-roadworthy (because e.g. they'd have to have a bit of electric powertrain), so no one will even be able to buy them used (unless to export so they can keep polluting in poorer countries, but hey, climate saved! /s).

But didn't California have this in the last decades with their tough emissions standards?

A bit of anecdotal "evidence".

I bought the 2020 Ford Kuga/Escape PHEV this summer, which has been recalled because of battery issues, thus forcing me to drive with discharged battery. Even then, we frequently drive 30-50% of our range on pure electric, because of regenerative charging. In practice it means that our big dirty 2.5L engine, even though it pollutes more, actually gets us to 20 km/l in the city. I'm not saying that's great, but if i could charge the car, all those city drives would effectively be pure electric. On the open road i think we currently average about 18 km/l, and i have a heavy foot :)

In comparison, my previous car a 2016 Ford Focus EcoBoost, ran on average 10-12 km/l.

I was discussing with someone in Germany (when looking for a car) about the plugin hybrids and how a lot of companies here buy them for the low taxes and subsidies and then use them almost exclusively as standard ICE cars or to the minimum possible in E mode as the infrastructure is not there yet and in the end, why bother any more? you got the tax cuts and subsidies...
I also live in Germany and the last Firmenwagen I was assigned (this year) was a diesel Passat. A PHEV would have been an improvement.

Its a chicken vs egg situation. If they had given me a PHEV, I would barely have been able to use the battery mode because of the lacking infrastructure and defective Ladesäulen (charging stations) everywhere. However a few colleagues of mine have houses and garages, and for them it would have made a lot more sense. However all of us needed to cover long distances for client visits and thus, BEVs aside from Tesla LR models were totally out of the picture.

What about non plugin hybrids? One has to assume that since they must be monitored as a closed system (ie you can't assume the battery will be charged externally but rather account it in the consumption/pollution measuring), that those won't he able to get away with these tricks.
You could end up in this situation without malice. Obviously, you need to meet regulations, so the conditions they outline is what you optimize for. I suppose you have to go out of your way to consider the bigger picture.