mmcartalk

Expert
Messages
4,101
Reactions
2,637
^^^^^ Some good points being made here. Seems to me that perhaps the most sensible thing to do would be for the industry to simply convert to plug-in hybrids....or to keep plug-in hybrids available besides the BEVs. That would vastly lower pollution from ICEs, while also making it much simpler for those who don't (and won't) have access to charging outlets. Plug-in hybrids can work much of the time as pure-electrics anyway, particularly on short trips where the batteries don't drain much and need the gas engines for recharging. Th small gas engines need only run enough to keep the batteries recharged and/or to keep themselves lubed...you don't want a gas engine to sit too long without running.
 

LS500-18

Follower
Messages
180
Reactions
250
I am somewhat disappointed that Lexus is going BEV only by 2030. I think it's caving to political pressure right now. There is no way the grid will be ready for 100% BEV by then anyway, but that's beside the point.

I drove Tesla for 6 years and went back to PHEV and gas. Why? Because bad Tesla quality, I had repairs multiple times per year. When you spend $100K+ on a car (two of them!) you expect better. Also, the DC charging infrastructure was pretty poor. It's getting better but there are still very few BEVs here. When that percentage goes up there will need to be a lot more DC chargers.

Honestly I'd rather have PHEV for the next few years, the wife's RAV4 Prime is about perfect. EV driving most days of the month and zero time spent charging when we leave town. I think that is a far better use of earthly resources than BEVs. It's a shame many companies are skipping PHEV and going straight to BEV (ahem Genesis).

If I lived in California or somewhere with good weather year round and endless DC infrastructure I'd probably go back to BEV a lot sooner. For me, BEV and Tesla specifically was too much headache. Fun car though.
 

Will1991

Moderator
Messages
1,452
Reactions
2,948
To be honest, a couple of years ago I was more into “going all-in BEV’s” than I’m now…

The easier brand to go into a BEV, in my opinion, is Tesla due to the Supercharging network. The way it’s all setup in the navigation is the clear way to go.

And right before Covid hit us, I had a TM3 in order, but after a small test drive I canceled it…. For the price, I was expecting way better interior materials and a overall better ergonomic, specially in the uncomfortable rear seats…

Now, due to the fact my typical distance to drive to work will change dramatically and the fact that’s impossible to charge on route to my fathers house, I’m more into a fuel efficient PHEV, and looking into the amazing NX450h+, it would suit my needs perfectly!

Just couple of liters in my daily driving and an efficient engine for those longer drives.
 

qtb007

Follower
Messages
173
Reactions
224
I am somewhat disappointed that Lexus is going BEV only by 2030. I think it's caving to political pressure right now.
I don't think it is political pressure at all. It's 100% stock market pressure. Toyota would be absolutely happy to do what they've always done... built what customers are asking for with a side of new tech that looks toward the horizon to be prepared for the next big thing. EV start-ups and every other manufacturer declaring their plans to go all electric look like the new shiny and that is where the stock market dollars have been going. Toyota has the money to self fund, but it makes life a whole lot tougher when everyone is throwing money at your competition. Toyota had to make their plan public to show that they had a plan for Wall St.
 

meth.ix

Admirer
Messages
916
Reactions
1,088
Will there be two body styles—a coupe and SUV—for the RZ? The video of the prototype shows a boxier vehicle while the press photos show a much more sloped roofline.
 

ssun30

Expert
Messages
2,859
Reactions
6,579
If everyone is making rational decisions then the world will mainly switch to PHVs because most of the time people are commuting over short distances while making very few long range road trips per year. PHVs are simply a much more efficient way to utilize resources. But they are harder to push politically since they are not exactly zero emissions. Our society is inefficient because we don't always make rational decisions and let emotions take over too easily.
 
Messages
29
Reactions
13
If everyone is making rational decisions then the world will mainly switch to PHVs because most of the time people are commuting over short distances while making very few long range road trips per year. PHVs are simply a much more efficient way to utilize resources. But they are harder to push politically since they are not exactly zero emissions. Our society is inefficient because we don't always make rational decisions and let emotions take over too easily.
Ironic post for a luxury brand forum. Lugging around a redundant ICE powertrain & drivetrain for most of the mileage driven in a given year sounds mighty inefficient to me. Wall Street doesn't want PHEVs, regardless of the politics. Public markets want the next Tesla.
 

thtupid

Fan
Messages
62
Reactions
69
Would be interesting to see what Lexus does for the next generation F cars. The 2UR and RCF are only being kept alive to meet the RCF GT3 platform homologation requirements till 2023 when the GT3 will retire.

Considering the next gen F cars won't show up until 2025 - 2026, it makes me think there will be no twin turbo V6 F cars as had been rumored since the product cycle would be way too short for such a long R&D cycle (and cost).
Wow I actually did not know that about the RC-F and GT3 homologation requirements. Thanks!
 

qtb007

Follower
Messages
173
Reactions
224
Ironic post for a luxury brand forum. Lugging around a redundant ICE powertrain & drivetrain for most of the mileage driven in a given year sounds mighty inefficient to me. Wall Street doesn't want PHEVs, regardless of the politics. Public markets want the next Tesla.
It's also mighty inefficient carrying around an extra 500-800lbs of battery when most people could do their daily driving on a 30kWh battery. PHEV and 80+ kWh BEVs are just different ways to solve the same problem.

I do agree that Wall Street wants BEV and the next Tesla, so that's what everyone is going to build.
 
Messages
29
Reactions
13
It's also mighty inefficient carrying around an extra 500-800lbs of battery when most people could do their daily driving on a 30kWh battery. PHEV and 80+ kWh BEVs are just different ways to solve the same problem.
Not exactly. BEVs require excess capacity to maintain long-term battery health over many charging cycles, the bigger the buffer the better. By contrast, an ICE unit does not benefit the battery at all in normal operation.

On the other hand, Chinese BEVs with smaller batteries remain affordable & abundant, thanks to more developed charging infrastructure there. Stateside, most people lack the dedicated home charging to feel comfortable with smaller batteries & current American infrastructure.

Incidentally, you could similarly argue most folks do not need a V6/8/12 in terms of efficiency, but the affluent pay up regardless. I imagine people pay the BEV range premium for similar reasons, e.g., better performance.
 
Last edited:

Sulu

Admirer
Messages
814
Reactions
1,090
It's also mighty inefficient carrying around an extra 500-800lbs of battery when most people could do their daily driving on a 30kWh battery. PHEV and 80+ kWh BEVs are just different ways to solve the same problem.

I do agree that Wall Street wants BEV and the next Tesla, so that's what everyone is going to build.
Not exactly. BEVs require excess capacity to maintain long-term battery health over many charging cycles, the bigger the buffer the better. By contrast, an ICE unit does not benefit the battery at all in normal operation.

On the other hand, Chinese BEVs with smaller batteries remain affordable & abundant, thanks to more developed charging infrastructure there. Stateside, most people lack the dedicated home charging to feel comfortable with smaller batteries & current American infrastructure.

Incidentally, you could similarly argue most folks do not need a V6/8/12 in terms of efficiency, but the affluent pay up regardless. I imagine people pay the BEV premium for similar reasons, e.g., better performance, simpler maintenance.
You can solve range anxiety with a huge battery to provide 500+ km (300+ mi) of range or minimize the battery size to provide 50+ km (30+ mi) of range and a small ICE as a range extender (as in the BMW i3 with its 2-cylinder range extender or Mazda MX-30 with its small rotary engine range extender). With a range extender, the intention is to run it only to charge up the battery when it is not plugged in, not to provide power boost to the electric motor (as most PHEVs do these days).

Using smaller batteries (with only enough range for most drivers' daily commuting needs) reduces the immediate need to find and extract the metals for these batteries; mining is carbon intensive. Using small range extenders swaps the carbon emissions of mining for the carbon emissions of ICEs.

Using smaller batteries that can be charged overnight at home (in the driveway, along the street, in apartment building / condo parking lots and garages) reduces the need for the infrastructure for expensive, high-speed/high-power chargers.
 

spwolf

Expert
Messages
3,394
Reactions
3,399
range extenders are dead, very few people bought i3 with range extender in the end.

small batteries are also dead, nobody had any sucess with BEVs with small batteries. Honda, Mazda, Europeans, had model with small batteries and all these smart PR graphs how it makes sense - nobody bought them.

Future is very clear for BEV buyers, there is a reason why Tesla's sell well, people want range.
 
Messages
29
Reactions
13
Using smaller batteries that can be charged overnight at home (in the driveway, along the street, in apartment building / condo parking lots and garages) reduces the need for the infrastructure for expensive, high-speed/high-power chargers.
The problem remains many folks do not have access to overnight charging now. A couple charging spaces in a condo garage does not scale. Hence the demand for less frequent charging & longer range in between.
Using small range extenders swaps the carbon emissions of mining for the carbon emissions of ICEs.
A recent MIT study on lifetime carbon emissions drives home the point that this swap ultimately hurts the environment, assuming an OECD energy mix. Once charging infrastructure matures, range extenders will provide little value, making such investments difficult to justify long term.
small batteries are also dead, nobody had any sucess with BEVs with small batteries.
Chinese automakers have succeeded reasonably well making small, cheap BEVs for domestic consumers. In general, I imagine the threshold for range anxiety will come down as more charging infrastructure comes online.
 
Last edited:

ssun30

Expert
Messages
2,859
Reactions
6,579
There's zero argument against the point on resources. A PHV uses 30% the amount of materials compared to BEV period.

The market is clearly choosing the more wasteful solution and that makes it much more urgent for sodium ion battery to mature. If that happens then the "wasteful" part is no longer relevant.
 

Levi

Expert
Messages
2,211
Reactions
2,533
It is funny (sad?) to see some members being brainwashed into a cult. We on LE and CL have been verbally vocal about the lack of "interesting dream cars". I am glad for those (wish could too) that have the privilege of driving the IS 500 or any F model and LC 500. We wanted the LS F and LF 1 with TTV8, we said otherwise Lexus will die as Infiniti and to a lesser extent, because not really equal, Acura.

How could be be so arrogant, thinking to know better than TMC? It is legitimate to question what someone does, even to greatest make mistakes and can be wrong, but now we clearly see why TTV8 and LF1 are not coming, at least not the way we expected. TMC has been well aware and has well studied all the strategies. They have been working on this quite some time, but they know that planning requires deep insight into things not visible to the public. Public opinion though can have a lot of influence that is not predictable. TMC had to keep its plans secret, so as not to destabilise to natural market trajectory. TMC is known for JIT (just-in-time), and I am certain this applies also in their PR strategies.

While other car companies are cooking up BEVs one by one, TMC has a whole portfolio "ready". While other car companies are totally resigning to ICEVs (including HEVs and PHEVs), TMC does not. Without the RWD platform, the electric motors that are applicable to P/HEVs and BEVs, the same battery tech, yet modular and flexible (think first solid state battery in some PHEV), two dedicated scalable platforms, one for all ICEVs and one for BEVs, yet with some cross-sharing, TMC is ready to fight on both fronts (not to forget FCEVs, on which many are in secret working), and will be able to adjust the ICEV/BEV ratio as needed, while managing to try to return profitability from each individually. No other carmaker has planned that. There are barely profitable with ICEVs and go all out to unprofitable (because of scale and volume) BEVs.

I want to remind, that by the time we arrive to 2025 or 2030, a lot of external events can happen. I am not crying "wolf", but that timeframe is quite large for another black swan.

While Tesla is a well valued company, and can grow even more, I do not consider it a stable company, as Alphabet, Amazon or Apple (not talking about corporate ethics).
 
Messages
29
Reactions
13
There's zero argument against the point on resources. A PHV uses 30% the amount of materials compared to BEV period.

The market is clearly choosing the more wasteful solution and that makes it much more urgent for sodium ion battery to mature. If that happens then the "wasteful" part is no longer relevant.
The market ain't dumb. Any sources for your figures? The lifecycle carbon emissions recently calculated by MIT at carboncounter.com show that one PHEV impacts the environment by as much as two BEVs, even after accounting for upfront production costs. Not to mention, the average PHEV range of about 30 miles still falls short of the average roundtrip commute of 32 miles, to say nothing of range anxiety.
 

CRSKTN

Expert
Messages
1,283
Reactions
2,143
The market ain't dumb. Any sources for your figures? The lifecycle carbon emissions recently calculated by MIT at carboncounter.com show that one PHEV impacts the environment by as much as two BEVs, even after accounting for upfront production costs. Not to mention, the average PHEV range of about 30 miles still falls short of the average roundtrip commute of 32 miles, to say nothing of range anxiety.

Their assumptions and methodology aren’t foolproof. Their PHEV utility factor defaults to EPA estimates. In reality those modes will have higher utility factor, which drives down emissions.

it’s also using the greet model, but you’d still need to go and check their assumptions.

I would say PHEV environmental impact is less that BEV assuming right-sized hardware, if you look at a broader scope of emissions.
 
Messages
29
Reactions
13
Their assumptions and methodology aren’t foolproof. Their PHEV utility factor defaults to EPA estimates. In reality those modes will have higher utility factor, which drives down emissions.

it’s also using the greet model, but you’d still need to go and check their assumptions.

I would say PHEV environmental impact is less that BEV assuming right-sized hardware, if you look at a broader scope of emissions.
Of course not, but the MIT lab makes a sound data-driven argument all the same. You can actually adjust the PHEV utility factor from the EPA estimate to 100% (highest), but even with that adjustment, PHEVs still exceed BEVs in lifecycle carbon emissions by as much as 80%.
 
Last edited:

CRSKTN

Expert
Messages
1,283
Reactions
2,143
Of course not, but the MIT lab makes a sound data-driven argument all the same. You can actually adjust the PHEV utility factor from the EPA estimate to 100% (highest), but even with that adjustment, PHEVs still exceed BEVs in lifecycle carbon emissions by as much as 80%.
Trust me, I know. Speak to any expert in the field, the resource argument isn’t there. If you’ve ever tried working the Greet model, you will quickly realize how broad the assumptions required are. It doesn’t properly capture private sector innovation. I personally know of commercially viable technologies that are just starting to be recognized and adopted that could radically change the modelling.

Don’t need to go into how little degradation batteries can deal with before EV applications aren’t feasible.

right sizing batteries is also challenged due to supply chain and market realities. A lot of commercial ev applications could be hugely wasteful unless hardware is bespoke to the application. The criticism of hauling battery you’re not using isn’t exclusive to PHEVs.
In fact it’s exacerbated in BEVs. Most people will never use the buffered capacity they have.
 
Messages
29
Reactions
13
Trust me, I know. Speak to any expert in the field, the resource argument isn’t there. If you’ve ever tried working the Greet model, you will quickly realize how broad the assumptions required are. It doesn’t properly capture private sector innovation. I personally know of commercially viable technologies that are just starting to be recognized and adopted that could radically change the modelling.

Don’t need to go into how little degradation batteries can deal with before EV applications aren’t feasible.

right sizing batteries is also challenged due to supply chain and market realities. A lot of commercial ev applications could be hugely wasteful unless hardware is bespoke to the application. The criticism of hauling battery you’re not using isn’t exclusive to PHEVs.
In fact it’s exacerbated in BEVs. Most people will never use the buffered capacity they have.
Which assumptions for GREET do you find problematic? And what commercially viable technologies do you have in mind? I would rather not predict which future technology hits the market when, so I find the MIT data quite useful for comparing current-gen drivetrains, despite the approximate nature of models in general.

Degradation remains an issue for BEVs for sure, but the typical 8-year/100k mi warranty for 70% minimum battery capacity suffices as reasonable insurance until more resilient batteries like solid-state batteries arrive.

I think you mixed up my points on BEV & PHEV inefficiencies. Excess battery capacity remains a necessary workaround given current charging infrastructure, since most folks do not have access to dedicated charging at home or work. Excess capacity also helps mitigate the degradation you mention.

A deadweight ICE powertrain & drivetrain does not mitigate such degradation while compromising BEV design, hence the inadequate commuting range of most PHEV batteries. If you make the safe assumption battery & renewable tech will advance more quickly than ICE & fossil fuel developments going forwards, streamlining R&D for BEV platforms makes a lot of sense for balance sheets in the long run.