Would you ever consider owning a Electric Hybrid/Full Electric Vehicle?

[gathermewool]

Originally Posted by CR94
Originally Posted by Pelican
... Till then I'll stick to gas. ...
Regular hybrids (i.e., not including plug-ins) ARE purely gasoline powered. The battery is only a buffer, storing relatively small amounts of energy which was all originally wrung from gasoline by the engine. I think the misleading but now-conventional "hybrid" term confuses many people (which is not to say you're necessarily one of them). Plug-in hybrids are the true hybrids, capable of being powered by either gasoline or utility juice.


That's not true. For in-town driving, regenerative braking may recover a moderate amount of energy that would have otherwise been lost to the brakes. If there weren't regenerative braking and other recovery methods employed, I'd agree with you. That's just not the case.

 

[gathermewool]

If I could get an affordable, mid-size or CUV-size, AWD electric vehicle or hybrid, I'd be all for it. My commute is ideal for an electric vehicle, and we'd always have the larger gasser to allow for longer trips.

 

[ThirdeYe]

I'd consider something with a setup similar to the Volt. Electric only until it's out of juice, then runs on gas. Seems ideal.

 

[fdcg27]

Originally Posted by oil_film_movies
Originally Posted by fdcg27
Do the math, though. You'll save a little coin on fuel but not enough to earn back the incremental purchase cost in less than four years or 70-80K of use.
For the Accord Hybrid, there is $2,000 premium for the hybrid (truecar). Although, I'd say its really $1,000 premium since the hybrid performs better than the 1.5T Accord, and I think some standard amenities are thrown in to the hybrid model's base.
Therefore, at 15,000 miles a year in mixed hiway-city driving, it would take 2 or 3 years to make up the real difference (Accord).
https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/savemoney.jsp


I'm a real-life fiscal guy and we deal in real numbers and like to be conservative in forecasting savings, as I was.
You're spot-on with the price premium for a hybrid Accord versus a 1.5T, plus the hybrid has an NA two liter, so no turbo to worry about.
We'll see how my ownership and use of this car goes.
Bet it would bring enough more in resale than a 1.5T to make getting rid of it earlier than I typically would any car economically feasible.

 

[oil_film_movies]

Originally Posted by fdcg27
You're spot-on with the price premium for a hybrid Accord versus a 1.5T, plus the hybrid has an NA two liter, so no turbo to worry about.
Strictly speaking, you lay out $2,000 more. Agree, sans turbo means all the problems with fuel dilution & high turbo oil temperatures doesn't affect the Hybrid. The point I was trying to make is that the Hybrid is more pleasing to drive than the 1.5T. If its like my '18 Equinox 1.5T, the turbo-lag is annoying off the line or hitting it hard when passing, whereas the electric motor in a hybrid launches you immediately when you ask for torque. Driving a C-Max hybrid and Focus Electric may have spoiled me, but there is some value in not waiting for torque to build up.

So, the $2,000 premium does add value to the performance in stop-n-go and passing situations, I think most would agree. ..... As to standard features over the base LX 1.5T, the hybrid base only has Remote Start, worth about $200 really. I guess if you value the better performance at $800 (I would), then the $200 Remote Start feature the Hybrid has would complete the delta-$1,000 true difference.

This is one reason car makers have embraced hybrid tech, as test driving something with instant low-speed torque sells cars.

 

[A_Harman]

Maybe a hybrid if it looks like the fuel cost savings will pay off in a few years.
Chicken will grow teeth before I buy a full electric vehicle.

 

[BHopkins]

Absolutely!!

As much as I enjoy doing my own maintenance on cars, I am really enticed by the idea of significantly reduced car maintenance. No oil and filter changes. No hassle with crankshaft position sensors, O2 sensors, mass air flow sensors, or fuel injectors. No replacing spark plugs. One less air filter to be concerned with. No worrying about valve cover or head gasket seals. If I understand correctly, most electric cars don't have a tranny, so that's another maintenance concern eliminated. No alternator to be worried about replacing.

Any time the number of moving parts can be reduced, reliability increases. I am hoping to live long enough to see the days when we have 20 and 30 year old electric cars on the road, to see how well they hold up. Will they set new standards for what we consider high mileage cars? If I were a betting man, I'd say yes. I'd bet 500,000 mile cars are going to be no big deal. Interiors will wear out long before the powertrains.

So, yea. When they become more mainstream, and used ones are plentiful at reasonable prices, I'm sure I'll be owning one.

 

[CR94]

Originally Posted by gathermewool
Originally Posted by CR94
Regular hybrids (i.e., not including plug-ins) ARE purely gasoline powered. The battery is only a buffer, storing relatively small amounts of energy which was all originally wrung from gasoline by the engine. I think the misleading but now-conventional "hybrid" term confuses many people (which is not to say you're necessarily one of them). Plug-in hybrids are the true hybrids, capable of being powered by either gasoline or utility juice.
That's not true. For in-town driving, regenerative braking may recover a moderate amount of energy that would have otherwise been lost to the brakes. If there weren't regenerative braking and other recovery methods employed, I'd agree with you. That's just not the case.
I didn't say they don't recover energy that would otherwise be lost to brakes. They do (partially, nowhere near 100%). However, you're overlooking the fact that all the energy available for recovery originally came from the engine, directly and indirectly.

Bottom line, you aren't going more than slightly farther in a "regular" hybrid without gasoline than you will in a conventional non-hybrid.

 

[k1xv]

I was thinking of a used electric one, coming off of lease, just for local errands. They really have high rates of depreciation, so you can get a used one pretty cheap.

 

[Snagglefoot]

How about this cool looking Leaf.

 

[exranger06]

Originally Posted by gathermewool
Originally Posted by CR94
Originally Posted by Pelican
... Till then I'll stick to gas. ...
Regular hybrids (i.e., not including plug-ins) ARE purely gasoline powered. The battery is only a buffer, storing relatively small amounts of energy which was all originally wrung from gasoline by the engine. I think the misleading but now-conventional "hybrid" term confuses many people (which is not to say you're necessarily one of them). Plug-in hybrids are the true hybrids, capable of being powered by either gasoline or utility juice.


That's not true. For in-town driving, regenerative braking may recover a moderate amount of energy that would have otherwise been lost to the brakes. If there weren't regenerative braking and other recovery methods employed, I'd agree with you. That's just not the case.

It's still fully gas-powered. The regenerative braking takes the kinetic energy of the car in motion and converts it into electricity to charge the battery. In order to get the car in motion and "create" the kinetic energy, you must accelerate from a stop. And in order to accelerate, you need to burn gasoline. When you use the brakes in a conventional gas powered car, it takes the kinetic energy and converts it to heat (the brakes get hot when you use them) instead of converting it to electricity. The heat doesn't get used for anything and just dissipates into the air and goes to waste. It doesn't change the fact that both types of cars convert the energy stored in gasoline into kinetic energy.

 

[gathermewool]

Originally Posted by exranger06
Originally Posted by gathermewool
Originally Posted by CR94
Originally Posted by Pelican
... Till then I'll stick to gas. ...
Regular hybrids (i.e., not including plug-ins) ARE purely gasoline powered. The battery is only a buffer, storing relatively small amounts of energy which was all originally wrung from gasoline by the engine. I think the misleading but now-conventional "hybrid" term confuses many people (which is not to say you're necessarily one of them). Plug-in hybrids are the true hybrids, capable of being powered by either gasoline or utility juice.


That's not true. For in-town driving, regenerative braking may recover a moderate amount of energy that would have otherwise been lost to the brakes. If there weren't regenerative braking and other recovery methods employed, I'd agree with you. That's just not the case.

It's still fully gas-powered. The regenerative braking takes the kinetic energy of the car in motion and converts it into electricity to charge the battery. In order to get the car in motion and "create" the kinetic energy, you must accelerate from a stop. And in order to accelerate, you need to burn gasoline. When you use the brakes in a conventional gas powered car, it takes the kinetic energy and converts it to heat (the brakes get hot when you use them) instead of converting it to electricity. The heat doesn't get used for anything and just dissipates into the air and goes to waste. It doesn't change the fact that both types of cars convert the energy stored in gasoline into kinetic energy.



Originally Posted by CR94
Originally Posted by gathermewool
Originally Posted by CR94
Regular hybrids (i.e., not including plug-ins) ARE purely gasoline powered. The battery is only a buffer, storing relatively small amounts of energy which was all originally wrung from gasoline by the engine. I think the misleading but now-conventional "hybrid" term confuses many people (which is not to say you're necessarily one of them). Plug-in hybrids are the true hybrids, capable of being powered by either gasoline or utility juice.
That's not true. For in-town driving, regenerative braking may recover a moderate amount of energy that would have otherwise been lost to the brakes. If there weren't regenerative braking and other recovery methods employed, I'd agree with you. That's just not the case.
I didn't say they don't recover energy that would otherwise be lost to brakes. They do (partially, nowhere near 100%). However, you're overlooking the fact that all the energy available for recovery originally came from the engine, directly and indirectly.

Bottom line, you aren't going more than slightly farther in a "regular" hybrid without gasoline than you will in a conventional non-hybrid.



Holy moly, dudes...

 

[4WD]

Own a 2014 Fusion Hybrid my son drives … around town it makes good use of the electric system and does Ok with the 2.0L ICE as needed … comfy car overall (Titanium trim) …

 

[Nick1994]

Sure I'd consider one.

Buying new? Hybrid doesn't seem to make all that much sense unless you do EXTREME miles, doesn't offset the initial higher purchase price fast enough.
Buying used? Depends how used. Used enough that the battery still works and therefore the car is sold at a price of a working battery? But then the battery goes out shortly after and you're left with a high expense.
Buying a used one with a dead battery? Might be a good deal, sold cheap and if repaired cheap, might make sense.

I'm more interested in pure electric though. I've thought about a Leaf, but haven't been able to justify it yet. I'll wait until they get older, then find one with a dead battery and scoop it up for pennies, and swap in a new battery. Haven't looked into it to see how possible that is yet, just an idea though.

 

[SatinSilver]

All of the ex-rental Ford Fusions for sale from Hertz around here are Hybrids. Consumer Reports recommends them along with the Camry and Accord hybrids. This was in the new issue that I was reading this past Monday.

 

[Patman]

For the type of driving I do in my Honda, a Chevy Volt would be a perfect replacement for that car. I would probably log about 90-95% of my driving on pure electric if I had one. And I really like the look of the latest generation as well.

 

[supton]

Sure, although the Prius I drove I flat out didn't care for. Got a ride recently in a Tesla (S? P90? no clue, their full size) which was not bad--no way I'd get one, but the dash looked much cleaner than the Prius.

For my commuting needs it's mostly about the numbers. How can I make it cheap? without being annoying (hypermiling, car with zero NVH suppression, etc).

Rumor is that they are putting in electric charging at work. Considering it's 50 miles each way that could tip me. If only I could get over the depreciation cost (will fuel savings pay for depreciation on a used PEV?).

 

[Rmay635703]

Volt is the best kept secret (2011-2015) if you drive under 40 miles before charging and don't have crazy electric rates. (Specimens sell for $3500 on up)

If you live in a year round warm area and have a slower commute the math is even better and you can extend that up to 100 miles.

Most Volts require minimal maintenance and unlike the Leaf don't have battery degradation issues.

Sparky the Volt is over 450,000 miles on original battery, motor and brakes.
Just wheel bearings and a pesky sensor issue a couple times.

https://www.voltstats.net/Stats/Details/1579

His stats aren't bad considering he was driving 85mph + the whole way.
And he got free workplace charging

 

[ZZman]

Originally Posted by SatinSilver
All of the ex-rental Ford Fusions for sale from Hertz around here are Hybrids. Consumer Reports recommends them along with the Camry and Accord hybrids. This was in the new issue that I was reading this past Monday.


I drove a Fusion rental that was a hybrid. Got awesome mileage and I really liked it.

 

[Broo]

For a daily driver, yes of course, makes total sense. I would however go fully electric rather than hybrid.

The price isn't yet down to what I could pay however.