Range extender - please adjust spec to 250 miles of EV Range

[Variable430]

The range extender should get at least 50% of its 500 mile range in pure EV mode otherwise it would be pretty worthless with only 150 miles that you can only get in ideal conditions. In the winter this likely means sub 100 miles pure EV range - not acceptable

 

[dearbulls]

I’m 52 the end of March so I’d say I qualify now but just can’t justify that kind of bank to drive in congested traffic. My Audi TT was as close as I came but even that wasn’t fun cuz I had no where to open it up on a regular basis-but boy did it love the bendy roads

Go to track, or at least autocross

 

[dearbulls]

But is the extra 100 miles worth $8K because that’s the most expensive part of these vehicles. Now you’re at a $70K starting price which means a reasonable build will be $76-80K. This prices out a ton of people when a few stops for extra fuel each year may cost $100 so imagine 8 years is an extra $800 vs. $8,000.

Wait, where did you see the 8k price difference? Was it for the harvester??

 

[dearbulls]

We keep our cars that we purchase 10+ years

Include your BEVs?

 

[J Alynn]

Wait, where did you see the 8k price difference? Was it for the harvester??

I threw a slightly high number figuring costs of battery packs I’ve seen and heard put a 100 miles at somewhere between $6-$7K. Point was adding 100 miles more to Harvester in pure battery for the probably less than 10% of buyers is a lot of added cost versus a couple $100 a year more for a few extra tanks of gas to utilize harvester.

 

[dearbulls]

I threw a slightly high number figuring costs of battery packs I’ve seen and heard put a 100 miles at somewhere between $6-$7K. Point was adding 100 miles more to Harvester in pure battery for the probably less than 10% of buyers is a lot of added cost versus a couple $100 a year more for a few extra tanks of gas to utilize harvester.

Oh, I misunderstood.lol

 

[Variable430]

Include your BEVs?

We bought the i4, it’s in the stable for the long haul. Replaced a 13 year old maxima that we traded in during the pandemic. 3 cars are owned, one lease.

 

[oldgeeksguide]

BEV use electicity to heat up battery and motor, that's a very inefficient way even with heatpump. Having an ICE engine can heat up the battery quickly without wasting energy. Heat is just a byproduct.

Umm, the reason that ice engines generate so much heat is precisely because they’re wasting energy. They’re less than 30% efficient, and most of that other 70% ends up as heat. Some of that heat turns out to be useful, but in no way are ice engines anywhere close to the efficiency of electric motors, even if they end up using some electricity to heat things to operating temp.

 

[Variable430]

I'll remind you that the 15 years lifetime was your assumption, and rationalization for spending an extra $8000 like it was nothing.

That’s close to what we keep our cars for so it’s not an assumption nor a rationalization, it’s math.

 

[CarTechGeek]

That’s close to what we keep our cars for so it’s not an assumption nor a rationalization, it’s math.

Again, you called me out for assuming 15 years, when I was merely answering your 15 year claim.

Bad math is a rationalization. You are ignoring the time value of money. You don't simply divide the extra price/15 years. You you have to consider the alternative investment potential of that $8000. Put it in an index fund and you will have over $20000 in 15 years, as opposed to wasting it on extra battery that is NOT a need but merely a want.

 

[ggrant20]

I find it interesting that there is a fairly even mix of people who want more and those who would be happy with 150mi. I personally would be happier with 150mi than more. Getting 250-300 pure electric so I can complete a whole drive in "EV only mode" isn't my priority and would come with some cons in weight, cost, etc. I've noticed a lot of those folks that are unhappy are describing how far they want to drive completely in EV, which gives me the impression they never want to use the generator unless they need to, or at least as little as possible. That's the interesting part to me because I never considered getting the Harvester for EV only range.

I'm thinking of it completely different (maybe because I've never had an EV) because I associate the Harvester more with a Hybrid, just flipped on it's head. I'm expecting the generator to kick on/off somewhat constantly, especially on longer drives, switching between gas and electric to be most efficient. I picture starting a drive in pure EV at 80%, then the generator kicking on for a few min when the battery depletes, then pure electric, then it kicking on again, etc. With normal Hybrids I don't think I've ever heard someone talk about how they went 23mi with the engine off. Plug-ins introduced the concept of EV-only range with the choice of driving mode but even from that mental model most plug-ins are sub-50mi EV-only, so the 150mi is still amazing.

For my use and lack of expectation to be pure electric, having 500+mi (in any combination) is the key. Having the generator kick on for 1/4 of the drive is a heck of a lot less gas than my current ICE engine, which only gets 350mi range anyway so it's a win-win.

 

[wiescins]

Took me a bit to read this thread, but lots of good perspectives and thought starters.

Initial thought is that I would prefer a larger EV only range, 150 is more than enough for daily commutes, but want more for medium trips as I want to use as little gas as possible. Willing to sacrifice less than 500 total range to accommodate an increase in electric only range. Something like 250 would be great, then see how big a gas tank will fit in the rest of the space to determine total range. 250 + 200 would make me super happy.

After continued reading and thinking on the subject I’m getting more comfortable with the 150 electric range, especially regarding the battery cost comparison to increase to something closer to 250. Why pay more for something very rarely used? That said, I want to use as little gas as possible.

What is the downside of minimal use of the harvester engine?

In an ideal world, I would never use the harvester engine. Is this flawed thinking?

All of my comments are based on driving performance being identical whether utilizing battery (electric only range) or harvester generator extended range. I understand the EREV will be slower than the BEV, but the EREV needs to drive the same regardless of the power source.

 

[J Alynn]

Took me a bit to read this thread, but lots of good perspectives and thought starters.

Initial thought is that I would prefer a larger EV only range, 150 is more than enough for daily commutes, but want more for medium trips as I want to use as little gas as possible. Willing to sacrifice less than 500 total range to accommodate an increase in electric only range. Something like 250 would be great, then see how big a gas tank will fit in the rest of the space to determine total range. 250 + 200 would make me super happy.

After continued reading and thinking on the subject I’m getting more comfortable with the 150 electric range, especially regarding the battery cost comparison to increase to something closer to 250. Why pay more for something very rarely used? That said, I want to use as little gas as possible.

What is the downside of minimal use of the harvester engine?

In an ideal world, I would never use the harvester engine. Is this flawed thinking?

All of my comments are based on driving performance being identical whether utilizing battery (electric only range) or harvester generator extended range. I understand the EREV will be slower than the BEV, but the EREV needs to drive the same regardless of the power source.

What is your hesitation with the BEV as everything you’ve stated seems like you are ideal candidate for the 350 mile BEV

 

[wiescins]

Born in MI, but live in Chicagoland and do a lot of drives back to MI. Many are 200 mile round trips to SW MI where we don't have a good charging option at destination (would like to do these without gas). We do an annual ski trip that is 350 each way (with a good charging option at destination) in cold weather. Visiting friends/family is 300/350 each way without a good charging option at destinations.

We have a Pacifica PHEV with 33 mile electric range, but still new to EV's and have range anxiety about finding and using charging stations along our routes.

The longer trips we will use gas, but would like to do the shorter trips all electric. Based on our Pacifica history, I am confident 150 will cover just about all of our local driving.

It would be good to know the cost difference between the current 150+350 and what something like 250+150 would be. If it's >$5k it could be hard to justify.

 

[Cranky Canuck]

Took me a bit to read this thread, but lots of good perspectives and thought starters.

Initial thought is that I would prefer a larger EV only range, 150 is more than enough for daily commutes, but want more for medium trips as I want to use as little gas as possible. Willing to sacrifice less than 500 total range to accommodate an increase in electric only range. Something like 250 would be great, then see how big a gas tank will fit in the rest of the space to determine total range. 250 + 200 would make me super happy.

After continued reading and thinking on the subject I’m getting more comfortable with the 150 electric range, especially regarding the battery cost comparison to increase to something closer to 250. Why pay more for something very rarely used? That said, I want to use as little gas as possible.

What is the downside of minimal use of the harvester engine?

In an ideal world, I would never use the harvester engine. Is this flawed thinking?

All of my comments are based on driving performance being identical whether utilizing battery (electric only range) or harvester generator extended range. I understand the EREV will be slower than the BEV, but the EREV needs to drive the same regardless of the power source.

I won't comment on the battery size thing because it sounds like you'd probably more than fine with the BEV version.

I can answer your question on the downsides of minimal use of the harvester engine. I've owned plug-in hybrids in the past and happen to know a lot about gas engines from my personal and professional background. The issue with all hybrids, but plug-in hybrids and EREVs (like the Scout) in particular is that the engines tend to see a lot of cold starts and lots and lots on/off cycles. Cold starts and cycles are brutal for engine longevity. Couple that with the fact that most engines in these use cases rarely get up to the temps needed to burn off the combustion byproducts that get into the oil through normal use and you have a recipe for needing a lot of preventative maintenance, wear and tear, and early component failure. What that means for you is that no matter how often you actually use the Harvester (and it sounds like it won't be very often), you will still need to do frequent oil changes and other maintenance prescribed by Scout at a minimum.

That sort of maintenance is both inconvenient and can be expensive since you'll be wondering why it's necessary if you only used the engine twice this year. You might be tempted to not bother with the annual or twice annual oil change and maybe skip it but that wouldn't be smart for reasons I'll explain below.

In a normal combustion vehicle - one whose sole means of propulsion is the gas engine - the oil gets hot enough to burn off all the water and fuel and other crud that inevitably leaks past the piston rings and contaminates the oil. In any kind of hybrid however, especially the ones that plug-in, the oil rarely gets hot enough to burn that stuff off so what you'll find is that manufactures require fairly frequent oil changes regardless of how often the engine is actually used. This is to get rid of that contamination because those combustion byproducts and other gunk make the oil more acidic and worse at lubricating over time which then starts to eat away at seals and such. Automakers try to mitigate these impacts with frequent oil changes and special synthetic oils and "oil refresh" modes where the gas engine just runs regardless of driving conditions, but there's only so much a band-aid like that can do because it's fundamentally a chemistry problem.

The other issue is all the starts. Starts are hard on any engine because the lubricants and whatnot tend to settle down towards the bottom of the engine thanks to gravity. So any start of an engine after having it sit for a while means that for a few moments that engine is operating without enough lubrication. In a conventional gas car that's usually fine, you start it just once per trip so it only experiences those conditions for a limited amount of time during its lifespan, but in a hybrid an engine can see dozens of starts with long intervals in between on a single trip to Costco meaning most if not all of those starts are cold starts without enough lubrication. Over time this adds up quickly and so engines in hybrids (and EREVS) tend to wear out faster.

That's why personally, I have zero interest in the EREV. The ongoing required maintenance will be inconvenient at best and potentially expensive. The very fact that it has a combustion engine will make those vehicles less reliable than the BEV version. The BEV trucks will have decent range and very fast charging so for me there is no point in adding the complexity and hassle of a combustion engine that will inevitably fail before the useful life of the vehicle is over. Mark my words, the battery packs in these trucks will outlast the combustion engines by many years.

 

[J Alynn]

I won't comment on the battery size thing because it sounds like you'd probably more than fine with the BEV version.

I can answer your question on the downsides of minimal use of the harvester engine. I've owned plug-in hybrids in the past and happen to know a lot about gas engines from my personal and professional background. The issue with all hybrids, but plug-in hybrids and EREVs (like the Scout) in particular is that the engines tend to see a lot of cold starts and lots and lots on/off cycles. Cold starts and cycles are brutal for engine longevity. Couple that with the fact that most engines in these use cases rarely get up to the temps needed to burn off the combustion byproducts that get into the oil through normal use and you have a recipe for needing a lot of preventative maintenance, wear and tear, and early component failure. What that means for you is that no matter how often you actually use the Harvester (and it sounds like it won't be very often), you will still need to do frequent oil changes and other maintenance prescribed by Scout at a minimum.

That sort of maintenance is both inconvenient and can be expensive since you'll be wondering why it's necessary if you only used the engine twice this year. You might be tempted to not bother with the annual or twice annual oil change and maybe skip it but that wouldn't be smart for reasons I'll explain below.

In a normal combustion vehicle - one whose sole means of propulsion is the gas engine - the oil gets hot enough to burn off all the water and fuel and other crud that inevitably leaks past the piston rings and contaminates the oil. In any kind of hybrid however, especially the ones that plug-in, the oil rarely gets hot enough to burn that stuff off so what you'll find is that manufactures require fairly frequent oil changes regardless of how often the engine is actually used. This is to get rid of that contamination because those combustion byproducts and other gunk make the oil more acidic and worse at lubricating over time which then starts to eat away at seals and such. Automakers try to mitigate these impacts with frequent oil changes and special synthetic oils and "oil refresh" modes where the gas engine just runs regardless of driving conditions, but there's only so much a band-aid like that can do because it's fundamentally a chemistry problem.

The other issue is all the starts. Starts are hard on any engine because the lubricants and whatnot tend to settle down towards the bottom of the engine thanks to gravity. So any start of an engine after having it sit for a while means that for a few moments that engine is operating without enough lubrication. In a conventional gas car that's usually fine, you start it just once per trip so it only experiences those conditions for a limited amount of time during its lifespan, but in a hybrid an engine can see dozens of starts with long intervals in between on a single trip to Costco meaning most if not all of those starts are cold starts without enough lubrication. Over time this adds up quickly and so engines in hybrids (and EREVS) tend to wear out faster.

That's why personally, I have zero interest in the EREV. The ongoing required maintenance will be inconvenient at best and potentially expensive. The very fact that it has a combustion engine will make those vehicles less reliable than the BEV version. The BEV trucks will have decent range and very fast charging so for me there is no point in adding the complexity and hassle of a combustion engine that will inevitably fail before the useful life of the vehicle is over. Mark my words, the battery packs in these trucks will outlast the combustion engines by many years.

@Cranky Canuck -thank you for that insight. I wish others had that kind of common sense input that general people like me don’t fully think about or just don’t understand since it is “new” technology.

 

[CarTechGeek]

The other issue is all the starts. Starts are hard on any engine because the lubricants and whatnot tend to settle down towards the bottom of the engine thanks to gravity. So any start of an engine after having it sit for a while means that for a few moments that engine is operating without enough lubrication. In a conventional gas car that's usually fine, you start it just once per trip so it only experiences those conditions for a limited amount of time during its lifespan, but in a hybrid an engine can see dozens of starts with long intervals in between on a single trip to Costco meaning most if not all of those starts are cold starts without enough lubrication. Over time this adds up quickly and so engines in hybrids (and EREVS) tend to wear out faster.

This is mostly a myth. I've even seen tests where they did a massive amount of "dry starts" and no extra wear was noted.

If extra starts were a serious issue, the Prius would be a basket case for extra wear, because it's always starting and stopping it's engine, yet taxi companies flocked to these cars and put hundreds of thousands of miles on them and the engines are robust.

Toyota Prius Taxi Running Strong With 600,000 Miles And Original Battery

For those questioning the lifespan of a Toyota Prius battery, one taxi driver has 621,000 reasons why there's no cause for concern.

www.autoguide.com

Even if this were an issue, and EREV would likely have less starts than a conventional ICE car, since most local miles will be on EV with ZERO starts. Long highway trips, where you use the EREV will have it running essentially continuously.

An EREV might be the ideal life for ICE. It removes most/all the short trips where you aren't coming up to operating temperature, so can't boil off the moisture or fuel that makes it into the oil, and you mostly run long trips at full operating temperature, which will boil off anything that shouldn't be in the oil.

 

[dearbulls]

Umm, the reason that ice engines generate so much heat is precisely because they’re wasting energy. They’re less than 30% efficient, and most of that other 70% ends up as heat. Some of that heat turns out to be useful, but in no way are ice engines anywhere close to the efficiency of electric motors, even if they end up using some electricity to heat things to operating temp.

Gasoline has much more energy density for the same volume compared to battery. A less efficient system are less prone to get affected by the same variable such as towing, temperature, etc. this is why you observe much less efficient drop in these situations on an ICE vehicle vs. BEV.

Also, the main goal for ICE is to generate electricity. Heat is just a byproduct which would be wasted otherwise. On a BEV, it has to use energy created by fossil fuel from your power plant that got stored in the battery for range. Any bit of energy used for heating, even if it's efficient of which it isn't on BEV, are taken from what would be used to drive your vehicle. On an EREV generating heat doesn't affect any bit of your efficiency to generate electricity.

Yes, ICE is less efficient IF you are driving the wheels directly, that's in combination of transmission, etc. Your claim used an ICE vehicle's overall efficient to assume for EREV.

 

[MDR]

I have an EV and have given this a lot of thought. At first I was appalled at the 150 limit and 1 second slower acceleration time, but the more I think about it, it should be fine for everyday driving. It would require me to charge more frequently but for commuting I shoudl never need the gas engine. That would come into play only on longer trips.. I can live with it.

 

[J Alynn]

I have an EV and have given this a lot of thought. At first I was appalled at the 150 limit and 1 second slower acceleration time, but the more I think about it, it should be fine for everyday driving. It would require me to charge more frequently but for commuting I shoudl never need the gas engine. That would come into play only on longer trips.. I can live with it.

Several have mentioned the 1 second slower for 0-60mph but in an SUV how critical is that. I’ve had sport sedans and 2+2 coupes that were just over 4.5 seconds and they were tons of fun. There will be nearly no vehicles, let alone SUVs that will pull up next to you on the line to race. Just found it funny but I guess if you already have an EV you get used to that instant torque and speed. That said, I’m excited for 3.5 seconds until the novelty wears off

 

[JungGravy]

I agree. I much prefer a greater EV range. 50% would be a good target.

Couldn't agree more. I was all onboard for the erev for pulling our small camper. But in the winter and mountains I'll need more EV range to drive 2 hours between charging sessions. I want the dino option only for the boonies. And would really love it to be propane so we could also cook and heat. Plus in a real pinch, could fill the erev from the camper's propane.

I still really love the capability, styling, and software in the Traveler. But if this is the plan, I'll be changing my rez to BEV, and we'll pick our campsites to be within 300 mi round trip of civilization