Electric SUVs in the pipeline

[WhitePuma]

I am dreaming of my next vehicle. It will be an all-electric intermediate SUV. I know there are already some in the market, but the current options are limited and the prices are not so great.

What do the next 3-5 years look like for new brands of electric SUVs to hit the market?

[MGBMartin]

The first that springs to mind is the Chevy Blazer but there are many others supposed to be out soon like
Hyundai EV 9, and 7. Ford has an Explorer EV in the works.
There are many others I’m sure.
I’ve seen articles on the online automotive websites with lists of upcoming EVs.

[MCST]

I doubt there will be any new brands, but most of the legacy brands will probably offer a handful of electric SUVs.

The biggest problem with electric SUVs right now is range. You need a bigger battery to power a bigger vehicle. That’s definitely the limiting factor for SUVs. Aside from the model Y, it’s hard to find an all-wheel-drive, true “SUV” that has a decent electric range. I’m excited to see what the Volvo EX 90 turns out like. Between Volvo and their offshoot Polestar, they are really investing a lot in electric tech.

Most of the Japanese brands have not invested in EV technology, which they are quickly finding out is a mistake. I think Honda, Toyota are really banking on people continuing to buy hybrids and plug-in hybrids. The first all electric by Toyota/Subaru was a complete mess. Poor range, slow charging, very expensive.

I think the same can be said about most of the US brands, Tesla aside. They got so comfortable producing big SUVs and pick up trucks that they are way behind on developing EV technology. Ford is probably in the best position, but the Mach E and the lightning both had their issues, and are very expensive.

I certainly would not want to buy the first generation of US electric cars. I’m sure the legacy auto makers have a lot to work out before they are ready for prime time.

[windaar]

Toyota are really banking on people continuing to buy hybrids and plug-in hybrids

PHEVs are the best of both worlds, and probably the best choice for many. Charge in your garage for an all-electric commute every day. If you take a road trip there is no range anxiety, just fill up with gas when you need and keep going.

[snackdog]

The Fisker Ocean is amazing.

[anoop]

Here you go:
Future Electric Vehicles: The EVs You'll Soon Be Able to Buy

[Link formatted by moderator oldcomputerguy]

[unclescrooge]

Toyota are really banking on people continuing to buy hybrids and plug-in hybrids

PHEVs are the best of both worlds, and probably the best choice for many. Charge in your garage for an all-electric commute every day. If you take a road trip there is no range anxiety, just fill up with gas when you need and keep going.

That's what I originally thought, but isn't there twice as much complexity and things that can break?

[cadreamer2015]

That’s what I originally thought, but isn't there twice as much complexity and things that can break

In theory, yes. In practice our Toyota RAV4 Prime has performed flawlessly for 2 1/2 years and 66,000 miles. Sample size of one.

[WestCoastPhan]

Aside from the model Y, it’s hard to find an all-wheel-drive, true “SUV” that has a decent electric range.

Rivian R1S

[PottedPlant]

I would call our VW ID.4 a SUV. You might not.
For us, 250 mile range in temperate weather is plenty.
We charge at home with fuel costs of 5.6¢/mile.

[runswithscissors]

There are countless electric crossovers available now but in my opinion only one electric SUV, the Rivian R1S. The Kia EV9 and Volvo EX90 which I would also consider as SUVs will be available next year. I don't know of any other electric SUVs coming out in the next couple years but 3+ years out there may be more options. Standard operating procedure for manufacturers is to state the delivery dates for their EVs at least 2 years before they are actually delivered. So all the models that are supposedly coming out in 2024 will likely be available 2026.

[stoptothink]

That’s what I originally thought, but isn't there twice as much complexity and things that can break

In theory, yes. In practice our Toyota RAV4 Prime has performed flawlessly for 2 1/2 years and 66,000 miles. Sample size of one.

We have 25+ years of data on hybrids. For most models, the hybrid version is at least as reliable as the ice version and have similar overall maintenance costs.

[idc]

Toyota are really banking on people continuing to buy hybrids and plug-in hybrids

PHEVs are the best of both worlds, and probably the best choice for many. Charge in your garage for an all-electric commute every day. If you take a road trip there is no range anxiety, just fill up with gas when you need and keep going.

That's what I originally thought, but isn't there twice as much complexity and things that can break?

In my experience reliability is affected more by pushing components to their limits than by complexity. The ICE engine in PHEVs rarely functions at its peak as it is always assisted by the electric engine when it needs sudden bursts of peak power, especially when cold. Also, brakes are a lot less impacted as there is a lot of regenerative breaking in play. As long as you can charge the PHEV regularly and use it in town in electric mode mostly, it will likely be more reliable than a regular ICE or even than a hybrid. For some it is the best of both worlds at the moment, until the EV battery technology allows for fast enough charging and the charging infrastructure is as available as gas stations.

[telemark]

Hybrids have a track record of being extremely reliable. Some of this is because (almost) all Toyotas are very reliable, and some is because they are mechanically simpler than traditional ICE vehicles. The transmission in Toyota's Hybrid Synergy Drive is just a planetary gear and some reduction gearing, no clutch or bands or belts to wear out. There's no starter or alternator, and things like air conditioning and coolant pumps all run off electric motors (so that they can operate with the engine off), thus no belts. For all-wheel drive they just stick some electric motors in back.

That said, every model year of every car will have its own specific issues, so do your research.

[sandramjet]

We have 25+ years of data on hybrids. For most models, the hybrid version is at least as reliable as the ice version and have similar overall maintenance costs.

I certainly believe that hybrid models are similar in maintenance to ICE .... but I suspect the comparison to a true EV would be much different. In my EV experience so far, (5 years/120k miles) the only maintenance I have had is tires and just 2 months ago had a headlight burn out. No oil changes, brake jobs, etc. So my maintenance cost has been virtually nil compared to my ICE car (Toyota corolla)....

[illumination]

Right now is probably a good time to buy an electric car, the manufacturers are really having problems moving them. Lots of incentives because inventory is piling up.

https://money.com/why-americans-not-buy ... tric-cars/

https://www.businessinsider.com/electri ... ty-2023-10

[harikaried]

Right now is probably a good time to buy an electric car https://money.com/why-americans-not-buy ... tric-cars/

The article says "EVs are too expensive" with a quote that it's the #1 barrier as a comparable ICE is usually $10,000 cheaper. Our last ICE was a Forester, and now Model Y starts at $36,490 after $7,500 federal tax credit, so I suppose Forester starting at $27k is comparable in some sense, but clearly for us, we valued the premium features (and fuel/maintenance/etc. savings) of the Tesla over Subaru.

[02nz]

I certainly would not want to buy the first generation of US electric cars. I’m sure the legacy auto makers have a lot to work out before they are ready for prime time.

I wouldn't either, since the first generation of U.S. electric cars came out around about a century ago.

Even if we consider only contemporary EVs, i.e., those that have come out since 2010 or so, most manufacturers are on their second or third generation. The idea that EVs are some sort of new and unproven tech is just absurd.

[slicendice]

I like the stats on the new 2025? ram 1500 truck with the onboard generator. 100+ all electric miles + V6 engine coupled to a generator and 27 gallon tank. So if you are not towing long distance or driving off the beaten path, you have essentially an all electric truck. If you need more power for towing long distance you have it onboard. I think if real world stats measure up, it should sell really well at least in the US. Eventually when the charging infrastructure improves you may never need the gas, but that may not be for another 5 to 10 years.

[runswithscissors]

I like the stats on the new 2025? ram 1500 truck with the onboard generator. 100+ all electric miles + V6 engine coupled to a generator and 27 gallon tank. So if you are not towing long distance or driving off the beaten path, you have essentially an all electric truck. If you need more power for towing long distance you have it onboard. I think if real world stats measure up, it should sell really well at least in the US. Eventually when the charging infrastructure improves you may never need the gas, but that may not be for another 5 to 10 years.

As an EV-only household for over 10 years, I never understood why this architecture wasn't used in more EVs. I know the Chevy Volt was similar but had a short electric range of around 50 miles. If they could have bumped that to 100 miles with an onboard gas generator that could provide another 250 miles of electric range you'd capture a large swath of potential buyers. Zero range anxiety. Zero dependence on reliable charging infrastructure. Lugging around 100+ kilowatt-hours of batteries seems a bit unnecessary (and expensive) for the vast majority of drivers.

[Valuethinker]

I certainly would not want to buy the first generation of US electric cars. I’m sure the legacy auto makers have a lot to work out before they are ready for prime time.

I wouldn't either, since the first generation of U.S. electric cars came out around about a century ago.

Even if we consider only contemporary EVs, i.e., those that have come out since 2010 or so, most manufacturers are on their second or third generation. The idea that EVs are some sort of new and unproven tech is just absurd.

I suppose one issue is the technology change is moving very fast.

One could argue against that, but the key technologies have moved a long way since a 2011 Nissan Leaf (deliberately choosing a car with a deficient battery technology):

- increased power density of lithium cells & lower cost
- better software & management

These are not step changes in technology but rather cycles of continuous small innovations leading to better performance. But Internal Combustion Engine cars of the 1960s are not what we drive now. Modern engines have much higher horsepower: weight ratios and far lower emissions, due to technological innovation. The "muscle" cars of that era hardly rank against ordinary consumer vehicles, now, I believe. And of course safety equipment is on another plane - and I remember quite well that the possibility of mandatory airbags was a significant election issue (the first President Bush raised it - but I think in his 1980 primary campaign not the 1988 Election). Hard to imagine that now.

[Valuethinker]

We have 25+ years of data on hybrids. For most models, the hybrid version is at least as reliable as the ice version and have similar overall maintenance costs.

I certainly believe that hybrid models are similar in maintenance to ICE .... but I suspect the comparison to a true EV would be much different. In my EV experience so far, (5 years/120k miles) the only maintenance I have had is tires and just 2 months ago had a headlight burn out. No oil changes, brake jobs, etc. So my maintenance cost has been virtually nil compared to my ICE car (Toyota corolla)....

Do you drive a Tesla?

(apologies if you said upthread & I missed it)

[YeahBuddy]

Future Electric Vehicles: The EVs You'll Soon Be Able to Buy

[Link formatted by moderator oldcomputerguy]

[onourway]

I like the stats on the new 2025? ram 1500 truck with the onboard generator. 100+ all electric miles + V6 engine coupled to a generator and 27 gallon tank. So if you are not towing long distance or driving off the beaten path, you have essentially an all electric truck. If you need more power for towing long distance you have it onboard. I think if real world stats measure up, it should sell really well at least in the US. Eventually when the charging infrastructure improves you may never need the gas, but that may not be for another 5 to 10 years.

As an EV-only household for over 10 years, I never understood why this architecture wasn't used in more EVs. I know the Chevy Volt was similar but had a short electric range of around 50 miles. If they could have bumped that to 100 miles with an onboard gas generator that could provide another 250 miles of electric range you'd capture a large swath of potential buyers. Zero range anxiety. Zero dependence on reliable charging infrastructure. Lugging around 100+ kilowatt-hours of batteries seems a bit unnecessary (and expensive) for the vast majority of drivers.

There are lots of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles. Most of them don't have anywhere near 100 miles of range because having 30-50 miles is enough to allow the vast majority of most people's driving to occur on electric. Doubling the size of the batteries would only increase the number of electric miles driven by a small amount while dramatically increasing, cost, weight, and packaging concerns. The Federal tax credit was designed around this understanding, and can be fully captured with one of these smaller batteries.

[cmr79]

There are countless electric crossovers available now but in my opinion only one electric SUV, the Rivian R1S. The Kia EV9 and Volvo EX90 which I would also consider as SUVs will be available next year. I don't know of any other electric SUVs coming out in the next couple years but 3+ years out there may be more options. Standard operating procedure for manufacturers is to state the delivery dates for their EVs at least 2 years before they are actually delivered. So all the models that are supposedly coming out in 2024 will likely be available 2026.

What is your definition of SUV vs crossover for electric vehicles? For EVs designed on a dedicated skateboard platform, it seems like even the cars use a "body on frame" design style that usually differentiates the two from a technical perspective. The Kia EV9, for example, shares it's platform with cars (Hyundai Ioniq 6) and things that look more like traditional crossovers (Genesis GV60).

[cmr79]

Right now is probably a good time to buy an electric car, the manufacturers are really having problems moving them. Lots of incentives because inventory is piling up.

https://money.com/why-americans-not-buy ... tric-cars/

https://www.businessinsider.com/electri ... ty-2023-10

Inventory/EV sales have become very regional in the US, and as the overall pace of EV sales continues to increase, it would stand to reason that the manufacturers and dealerships will supply more EVs to the coasts, Colorado, etc where demand is stronger and fewer to areas like the South and Great Plains states where demand is weaker. It is unequivocally easier to get an EV than it was a year ago, but that is mostly because of supply and location- or brand-specific demand rather than for overall US EV demand, which continues to increase. A lot of media publications conveniently forget to quote the overall sales and proportion of vehicle sales data...

[zlandar]

Toyota are really banking on people continuing to buy hybrids and plug-in hybrids

PHEVs are the best of both worlds, and probably the best choice for many. Charge in your garage for an all-electric commute every day. If you take a road trip there is no range anxiety, just fill up with gas when you need and keep going.

It is also the worst of both worlds. You are still stuck with the maintenance of an ICE. More ICE and EV components that can break.

The battery capacity is a fraction of a true EV. The range is further reduced by the weight of the ICE engine/motor.

Better option is to have an EV and ICE.

[cmr79]

I like the stats on the new 2025? ram 1500 truck with the onboard generator. 100+ all electric miles + V6 engine coupled to a generator and 27 gallon tank. So if you are not towing long distance or driving off the beaten path, you have essentially an all electric truck. If you need more power for towing long distance you have it onboard. I think if real world stats measure up, it should sell really well at least in the US. Eventually when the charging infrastructure improves you may never need the gas, but that may not be for another 5 to 10 years.

As an EV-only household for over 10 years, I never understood why this architecture wasn't used in more EVs. I know the Chevy Volt was similar but had a short electric range of around 50 miles. If they could have bumped that to 100 miles with an onboard gas generator that could provide another 250 miles of electric range you'd capture a large swath of potential buyers. Zero range anxiety. Zero dependence on reliable charging infrastructure. Lugging around 100+ kilowatt-hours of batteries seems a bit unnecessary (and expensive) for the vast majority of drivers.

There are lots of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles. Most of them don't have anywhere near 100 miles of range because having 30-50 miles is enough to allow the vast majority of most people's driving to occur on electric. Doubling the size of the batteries would only increase the number of electric miles driven by a small amount while dramatically increasing, cost, weight, and packaging concerns. The Federal tax credit was designed around this understanding, and can be fully captured with one of these smaller batteries.

I think that the point was that the powertrain of an EV with a smaller battery but a "range extender" gas engine is simpler than a true PHEV powertrain. I would worry that running the range extender is less efficient, though, and puts the battery under significantly increased stress, making this a good option only if using the range extender function is truly infrequent. Granted, many people who bought BMW i3s got gas range extender engines, and there really haven't been any comparative issues with the batteries of range-extended i3s vs non-range extended i3s to my knowledge, so maybe this is only a theoretical issue.

[onourway]

I think that the point was that the powertrain of an EV with a smaller battery but a "range extender" gas engine is simpler than a true PHEV powertrain. I would worry that running the range extender is less efficient, though, and puts the battery under significantly increased stress, making this a good option only if using the range extender function is truly infrequent. Granted, many people who bought BMW i3s got gas range extender engines, and there really haven't been any comparative issues with the batteries of range-extended i3s vs non-range extended i3s to my knowledge, so maybe this is only a theoretical issue.

Perhaps that was the main point, rather than the range. However, if that was genuinely more efficient than the planetary gear setup widely used, I am certain it would have been adopted. The i3 has gotten terrible reviews in large part because the range extender is so crude. If it'd been a more traditional PHEV I suspect it would have been more successful.

[cmr79]

I certainly would not want to buy the first generation of US electric cars. I’m sure the legacy auto makers have a lot to work out before they are ready for prime time.

I wouldn't either, since the first generation of U.S. electric cars came out around about a century ago.

Even if we consider only contemporary EVs, i.e., those that have come out since 2010 or so, most manufacturers are on their second or third generation. The idea that EVs are some sort of new and unproven tech is just absurd.

I suppose one issue is the technology change is moving very fast.

One could argue against that, but the key technologies have moved a long way since a 2011 Nissan Leaf (deliberately choosing a car with a deficient battery technology):

- increased power density of lithium cells & lower cost
- better software & management

These are not step changes in technology but rather cycles of continuous small innovations leading to better performance. But Internal Combustion Engine cars of the 1960s are not what we drive now. Modern engines have much higher horsepower: weight ratios and far lower emissions, due to technological innovation. The "muscle" cars of that era hardly rank against ordinary consumer vehicles, now, I believe. And of course safety equipment is on another plane - and I remember quite well that the possibility of mandatory airbags was a significant election issue (the first President Bush raised it - but I think in his 1980 primary campaign not the 1988 Election). Hard to imagine that now.

I think the ICE engine comparison from the 1960s is a good one. Many will point out the rapid evolution of EVs, especially battery technology, as a reason to hold off from buying one now--"It will be obsolete and depreciate 100% in the next few years!" This seems to be to be a silly argument, as the changes we are seeing now, while constant, are all (as you said) incremental. The next expected jump forward, solid state batteries, are still years away from production EVs and will both be much more expensive initially on a kWh basis and will have concerns about longevity (theoretically this should be better, but they can swell and crack with rapid charging cycles and ensuring QC and developing techniques to avoid this remains a big challenge...I wouldn't want to buy the very first generation of solid state battery for my next EV, though I would for a smaller application like a cell phone/tablet/computer).

I anticipate most of the technological advances in EVs that actually affect consumers over the next 3-5 years will be:
1) Expansion of public charging
2) Expansion of public charging
3) Expansion of public charging
4) Improved cost, energy density and charging speeds of existing Li ion battery technology, especially lithium phosphate
5) Improved EV motor efficiency

The result of this will be cheaper EVs with similarly sized to smaller batteries that cover more use cases for longer trips for a greater percentage of people. Other countries are already ahead of the US in charging infrastructure, which is probably the main reason that the US lags behind in adoption with significant regional variation (politics is another US issue responsible for regional differences, but that is off-topic).

I don't anticipate that my current EV, with relatively slow charging, relatively short range and a medium-sized battery will be any less useful to me in 5 years. We are at 9 months of ownership and still haven't used a DCFC...there just aren't many trips we take over 200 miles where we can't destination charge. If anything, the potential value and utility of my non-Tesla vehicle will increase in the upcoming year when we get access to the Supercharger network, which will add convenience to driving the EV to a family beach house (there is no non-Tesla DCFC near where we go, but there is a very convenient Supercharger location) in the event that there was some sort of issue where we couldn't adequately destination charge (unlikely).

[cmr79]

I think that the point was that the powertrain of an EV with a smaller battery but a "range extender" gas engine is simpler than a true PHEV powertrain. I would worry that running the range extender is less efficient, though, and puts the battery under significantly increased stress, making this a good option only if using the range extender function is truly infrequent. Granted, many people who bought BMW i3s got gas range extender engines, and there really haven't been any comparative issues with the batteries of range-extended i3s vs non-range extended i3s to my knowledge, so maybe this is only a theoretical issue.

Perhaps that was the main point, rather than the range. However, if that was genuinely more efficient than the planetary gear setup widely used, I am certain it would have been adopted. The i3 has gotten terrible reviews in large part because the range extender is so crude. If it'd been a more traditional PHEV I suspect it would have been more successful.

Agreed; it was very early technology. I was commenting more that it didn't seem like battery failure was a major differential issue between range-extended i3s and regular i3s though, not that the i3 didn't have issues. I am generally against charging any EV battery with a gasoline engine because it is inherently inefficient--thus, it is a poor global solution to the problem of EV range.

If you are running the engine at its most efficient RPM and don't need all of that power to maintain highway speed and therefore use excess power to charge the high voltage battery, do you actually use less fuel overall vs if you run the engine at lower RPM and don't charge the battery other than from regenerative braking until you can plug in next? Because of the inherent energy losses in running the engine and charging/discharging the battery, I would guess you are better off running the engine less, or at least at a less efficient, lower power RPM rather than running it to charge the battery. I couldn't find analysis of this though and could certainly be wrong.

[MBB_Boy]

Aside from the model Y, it’s hard to find an all-wheel-drive, true “SUV” that has a decent electric range.

Rivian R1S

Headed to look at one today!

[Point]

Weight, weight, weight. Weight is the problem with EVs now, and that impacts size. At some future date battery tech will change and weight will come down. When weight comes down, range will improve significantly. Until then, cost will be very high on SUVs with high range. If cost isn’t a factor, go for it. But don’t expect 12-15 years of use and maintaining range capability like with an ICE car. But even ICE cars will become less long in the tooth capable as they add more and more electric screens and tech- this stuff just lessens the potential for a long running car… it just doesn’t last. And expect to buy extended warranties to avoid huge repair costs on electronics.

I’m thinking my next car will be an AWD hybrid Prius. Even though I like to sit higher, the range and reliability is hard to beat. Space, however…

[andypanda]

"The Fisker Ocean is amazing."

I just looked at the site (while waiting on a callback from Brighthouse.) Nice station wagon, but it has terrible numbers for an SUV
that gets used towing and offroad.

"Ground Clearance (CVW) 6.5” (20” wheels) / 7.1” (22” wheels)"

"Towing Capacity 4,012 lb"

"Approach Angle 15.9˚ (20” wheels) / 17.0˚ (22” wheels)
Breakover Angle 12.9˚ (20” wheels) / 13.4˚ (22” wheels)
Departure Angle 20.3˚ (20” wheels) / 21.5˚ (22” wheels)"
_____________

Because I have one and tow a boat off road and frequent Cape Hatteras National Seashore, "4Runners have 9.6 inches of ground clearance, an approach angle of 33 degrees, and a departure angle of 26 degrees."

And a 4Runner will tow 5,000 pounds even though it is only an intermediate SUV.

The Fisker's 20" and 22" wheels would need to be replaced with something in the 17" range to be of any use on the beach in deep soft sand. The factory tires have teeny sidewalls that limit the usefulness when deflated to 15# or 18#.

[Glockenspiel]

Whichever company can produce the first affordable Toyota Highlander EV, Honda Pilot EV, Kia Telluride EV, or similar sized EV, at a good price, will do extremely well.

[Glockenspiel]

Aside from the model Y, it’s hard to find an all-wheel-drive, true “SUV” that has a decent electric range.

Rivian R1S

Headed to look at one today!

Yep. In my mind, this is the one I keep seeing on the road that seems like the perfect fit for our family. At least two of my neighbors within a block from me, have one!

[telemark]

Toyota are really banking on people continuing to buy hybrids and plug-in hybrids

PHEVs are the best of both worlds, and probably the best choice for many. Charge in your garage for an all-electric commute every day. If you take a road trip there is no range anxiety, just fill up with gas when you need and keep going.

It is also the worst of both worlds. You are still stuck with the maintenance of an ICE. More ICE and EV components that can break.

Fewer ICE components, actually, and EV components aren't known for breaking. You are still stuck with needing regular oil and coolant changes, but you also get regenerative braking.

The battery capacity is a fraction of a true EV. The range is further reduced by the weight of the ICE engine/motor.

Better option is to have an EV and ICE.

That gives you all the oil changes and regular maintenance of a hybrid, plus a more complicated drive train, belts and pulleys and a starter and an alternator to break down, more brake wear, plus now you're paying for insurance on two vehicles.

[dsmclone]

I am dreaming of my next vehicle. It will be an all-electric intermediate SUV. I know there are already some in the market, but the current options are limited and the prices are not so great.

What do the next 3-5 years look like for new brands of electric SUVs to hit the market?

I was looking at Motor Trend or C&D the other day and the amount of new EV's coming to the market in the next 3-5 year is pretty impressive. In 3 years, all of them will have the NACS plug. A lot of them will use the same base setup. For example, Hondas first SUV EV will be based on the Chevy Blazer EV. Same with Acura. Cadillac and multiple chevys will also use these same shared components. Hyundai and Kia have some SUV's really close to being introduced. Polestar is another with a lot of future models.

The only thing that keeps me away from the GM options is their history with infotainment and them moving away from allowing Android Auto/Apple Carplay. Tesla doesn't have that integration either but they've proven to put out good software that just keeps improving. GM....yeah no

[ClassII]

Whichever company can produce the first affordable Toyota Highlander EV, Honda Pilot EV, Kia Telluride EV, or similar sized EV, at a good price, will do extremely well.

I think the Kia EV9 that's coming down the chute very soon is going to be quite the contender in that space. They're pricing it pretty aggressively (though just like a Highlander it goes into the stratosphere quick with options).

I think we're very rapidly getting to where these cars are quite comparable in price to non-EVs which make them hard to beat when you add in fuel costs. I wonder if in 10 years form now it'll be like looking back on a world before smartphones and it'll just seem crazy we ever dealt with gas cars for all this time. Buying a gasoline car in 2033 might be as odd as buying a flip phone today. Sure people do it but you're going to get some looks at the store.

[slicendice]

I like the stats on the new 2025? ram 1500 truck with the onboard generator. 100+ all electric miles + V6 engine coupled to a generator and 27 gallon tank. So if you are not towing long distance or driving off the beaten path, you have essentially an all electric truck. If you need more power for towing long distance you have it onboard. I think if real world stats measure up, it should sell really well at least in the US. Eventually when the charging infrastructure improves you may never need the gas, but that may not be for another 5 to 10 years.

As an EV-only household for over 10 years, I never understood why this architecture wasn't used in more EVs. I know the Chevy Volt was similar but had a short electric range of around 50 miles. If they could have bumped that to 100 miles with an onboard gas generator that could provide another 250 miles of electric range you'd capture a large swath of potential buyers. Zero range anxiety. Zero dependence on reliable charging infrastructure. Lugging around 100+ kilowatt-hours of batteries seems a bit unnecessary (and expensive) for the vast majority of drivers.

There are lots of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles. Most of them don't have anywhere near 100 miles of range because having 30-50 miles is enough to allow the vast majority of most people's driving to occur on electric. Doubling the size of the batteries would only increase the number of electric miles driven by a small amount while dramatically increasing, cost, weight, and packaging concerns. The Federal tax credit was designed around this understanding, and can be fully captured with one of these smaller batteries.

I think that the point was that the powertrain of an EV with a smaller battery but a "range extender" gas engine is simpler than a true PHEV powertrain. I would worry that running the range extender is less efficient, though, and puts the battery under significantly increased stress, making this a good option only if using the range extender function is truly infrequent. Granted, many people who bought BMW i3s got gas range extender engines, and there really haven't been any comparative issues with the batteries of range-extended i3s vs non-range extended i3s to my knowledge, so maybe this is only a theoretical issue.

I think the range extender on the ram runs as a generator at constant maximumefficie cy/output to provide electricity directly to the electric motors as needed with the excess being dumped into the battery. While it is true there are lots of plug in hybrid electric vehicles, most of them have less than 40 mi of ev only range. A lot of people live 50-100 mi from something they visit often and carry a load/tow something to get there which cuts your ev range roughly in half. In addition the charging infrastructure wherever there is is typically not a fast charging facility if it exists at all (and is functional). If I were to buy an SUV/truck it would be because I need that type of vehicle to do certain things. Most or all of the current offerings in the plugin hybrid segment I think are not even respectable tow vehicles. In the truck/SUV class I think this type of setup makes more sense given current limitations in charging infrastructure than ev only-- although I do love the looks of the R1S!

[Kenkat]

Just posting to point out the irony in the use of “pipeline” in a discussion of electric SUVs. Carry on.

[runswithscissors]

I like the stats on the new 2025? ram 1500 truck with the onboard generator. 100+ all electric miles + V6 engine coupled to a generator and 27 gallon tank. So if you are not towing long distance or driving off the beaten path, you have essentially an all electric truck. If you need more power for towing long distance you have it onboard. I think if real world stats measure up, it should sell really well at least in the US. Eventually when the charging infrastructure improves you may never need the gas, but that may not be for another 5 to 10 years.

As an EV-only household for over 10 years, I never understood why this architecture wasn't used in more EVs. I know the Chevy Volt was similar but had a short electric range of around 50 miles. If they could have bumped that to 100 miles with an onboard gas generator that could provide another 250 miles of electric range you'd capture a large swath of potential buyers. Zero range anxiety. Zero dependence on reliable charging infrastructure. Lugging around 100+ kilowatt-hours of batteries seems a bit unnecessary (and expensive) for the vast majority of drivers.

There are lots of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles. Most of them don't have anywhere near 100 miles of range because having 30-50 miles is enough to allow the vast majority of most people's driving to occur on electric. Doubling the size of the batteries would only increase the number of electric miles driven by a small amount while dramatically increasing, cost, weight, and packaging concerns. The Federal tax credit was designed around this understanding, and can be fully captured with one of these smaller batteries.

A plug in hybrid uses a different drivetrain architecture vs what the Ram is proposing. The Ram is essentially a BEV that is combining a gas generator to charge the batteries when they run low. The engine does not provide any power to the wheels. It charges the battery and does nothing more. This architecture means the performance of the onboard internal combustion engine which is tied to an onboard electric generator (which charges the battery) is much lower than what's required of a conventional engine in a conventional PHEV.

Much lower performance needs means much smaller engine and other ICE components to provide X needed power "on demand" which all PHEVs require. This much smaller engine means much lower cost and much lower weight. And with a larger battery and corresponding electric-only range, the engine will be used infrequently meaning less maintenance/operating costs for the ICE.

If you look at the typical operating parameters of a gas engine... it only takes about 30-40 HP for a vehicle to maintain 65-75 mph speed on a highway. Knowing this and using a little predictive charging logic (e.g. you are headed for a 30 mile uphill run), a 30 or 40 HP engine is all that's really needed in a BEV with range extender. This is a fraction of the output of current engines used in PHEVs.

So a BEV with range extender vs PHEV would have a much smaller ICE, no multi-speed transmission and a smaller gas tank. The only trade off would be the need to double or triple the size of the current PHEV battery. But PHEV batteries are so tiny this would still result in batteries 1/3 the size of current BEVs. Overall a BEV with range extender would likely be significantly lighter, provide a more usable everyday electric range, have lower operating costs and remove ALL range anxiety. This would ultimately allow for sales of electric vehicles in areas that currently have little to zero reliable charging infrastructure.

One thing I hated about the PHEV we had in our household years back was always needing to plug it in. I mean every day. Sometimes twice a day. With a 100 mile electric only range we would need to plug it in maybe twice a week. These little conveniences make a difference. It's a little surprising that the PHEVs from 10 years ago have the exact same range (or more) than those today. I would expect 50 miles to be the standard today but there are countless PHEVs that have ranges of 20-25 miles. Abysmal IMHO

[slicendice]

One thing I hated about the PHEV we had in our household years back was always needing to plug it in. I mean every day. Sometimes twice a day. With a 100 mile electric only range we would need to plug it in maybe twice a week. These little conveniences make a difference. It's a little surprising that the PHEVs from 10 years ago have the exact same range (or more) than those today. I would expect 50 miles to be the standard today but there are countless PHEVs that have ranges of 20-25 miles. Abysmal IMHO

Also a little excess battery capacity for day to day driving provides a buffer for less than ideal operating conditions (hills, speed, ambient temperature), the expected 10% degradation in capacity, and only needing to charge to 80% (the fastest part of the charging cycle) at most once a day, taking advantage of cheapest time of day electric rates, for day to day use to improve battery longevity. I think the tax credit language should be revised to require 50 to 60 mi minimum for the battery. IMO the fastest way to 90+% electrification in transportation is through doing things like they are doing with the RAM. It removes a lot of the excuses/reasons for not buying a primarily electric vehicle.

[cmr79]

One thing I hated about the PHEV we had in our household years back was always needing to plug it in. I mean every day. Sometimes twice a day. With a 100 mile electric only range we would need to plug it in maybe twice a week. These little conveniences make a difference. It's a little surprising that the PHEVs from 10 years ago have the exact same range (or more) than those today. I would expect 50 miles to be the standard today but there are countless PHEVs that have ranges of 20-25 miles. Abysmal IMHO

Also a little excess battery capacity for day to day driving provides a buffer for less than ideal operating conditions (hills, speed, ambient temperature), the expected 10% degradation in capacity, and only needing to charge to 80% (the fastest part of the charging cycle) at most once a day, taking advantage of cheapest time of day electric rates, for day to day use to improve battery longevity. I think the tax credit language should be revised to require 50 to 60 mi minimum for the battery. IMO the fastest way to 90+% electrification in transportation is through doing things like they are doing with the RAM. It removes a lot of the excuses/reasons for not buying a primarily electric vehicle.

To build on the battery size comments a bit further, smaller battery packs also need larger buffers (20% for RAV4 Prime vs 10% for BZ4X, for example) and will further undergo much larger charge/discharge percentage cycles, which isn't good for longevity of lithium ion batteries. For most PHEVs, you NEED to charge the battery pretty completely and the discharge it pretty completely for daily driving (say 30 miles/day from a vehicle with a maximum EV range estimate of 40 miles) vs using maybe 10-15% of a BEVs range daily for the same commute.

There are other technologies like mixed lithium chemistry packs that might end up being a better solution to those who primarily need a commuter-range vehicle and occasionally need to make a longer trip, but for now, I see both range extending gas engines and PHEVs to be similar examples of transitional technologies that fit well now but are far more likely to be obsolete in 10 years due to improvements in charging infrastructure and incremental changes to lithium ion battery technology. Depending on one's use case, though, they absolutely may be the best option TODAY.

[kleiner]

Whichever company can produce the first affordable Toyota Highlander EV, Honda Pilot EV, Kia Telluride EV, or similar sized EV, at a good price, will do extremely well.

I want an EV that's exactly my 2021 Honda CR-V except in electric form. Must have physical buttons and Apple CarPlay and must not have a glass roof. Everything currently on the market is a lot bigger or a lot smaller. The VW ID.4 comes close in terms of dimensions but, unfortunately has a glass roof and lacks physical buttons.

[cmr79]

Whichever company can produce the first affordable Toyota Highlander EV, Honda Pilot EV, Kia Telluride EV, or similar sized EV, at a good price, will do extremely well.

I want an EV that's exactly my 2021 Honda CR-V except in electric form. Must have physical buttons and Apple CarPlay and must not have a glass roof. Everything currently on the market is a lot bigger or a lot smaller. The VW ID.4 comes close in terms of dimensions but, unfortunately has a glass roof and lacks physical buttons.

My Mercedes EQB is almost exactly the same size as a CR-V, has physical buttons, and is available without a sunroof (though mine has one--but it has a power physical cover and doesn't reduce headroom). It is nearly identical on the inside to the gas-powered GLB. Granted, it does cost a good bit more than a CR-V, but you didn't list that as a dealbreaker.

[OldSport]

Really wish Acura still made the Sport Hybrid MDX. Our location and use cannot support all electric. Plug in Hybrid OK, but very much would like the improved efficiency of regular Hybrid over pure gas. The new MDX is gas only and so much worse fuel economy than the last generation Sport Hybrid

I'm all about hybrid and not ready to adopt electric, but I like the Acuras design and execution.

[runswithscissors]

Whichever company can produce the first affordable Toyota Highlander EV, Honda Pilot EV, Kia Telluride EV, or similar sized EV, at a good price, will do extremely well.

I want an EV that's exactly my 2021 Honda CR-V except in electric form. Must have physical buttons and Apple CarPlay and must not have a glass roof. Everything currently on the market is a lot bigger or a lot smaller. The VW ID.4 comes close in terms of dimensions but, unfortunately has a glass roof and lacks physical buttons.

I 100% agree. I'd also like to add physical ac vent vanes to control flow of air. The one thing I can't stand with EVs is that the manufacturers somehow believe we all want to give up safety and function to have a big cool touchscreen or other pointless oooh and aaaah features that require the driver to take their eyes off the road far more than they did before. Glass roofs should always be an option for those that want the oooh and aaah. Don't force it on the rest of us. Most EV buyers are pragmatic and practical yet they integrate UI that are both frustrating and dangerous to use.

It's the primary reason I'm holding off on the Rivian RS1. Rivian went way too far with useless cool tech. Trying to fix technology that needs zero fixing.

Unfortunately the next couple years will likely continue to bring less practical EVs to the market. The more user friendly ones will hopefully come in 2026 and beyond when auto manufacturers understand safety and practicality should be more important than the cool factor.

[stoptothink]

It's the primary reason I'm holding off on the Rivian RS1. Rivian went way too far with useless cool tech. Trying to fix technology that needs zero fixing.

My exact first impression after driving in my wife's colleague's R1T a few weeks ago.

[kleiner]

Whichever company can produce the first affordable Toyota Highlander EV, Honda Pilot EV, Kia Telluride EV, or similar sized EV, at a good price, will do extremely well.

I want an EV that's exactly my 2021 Honda CR-V except in electric form. Must have physical buttons and Apple CarPlay and must not have a glass roof. Everything currently on the market is a lot bigger or a lot smaller. The VW ID.4 comes close in terms of dimensions but, unfortunately has a glass roof and lacks physical buttons.

My Mercedes EQB is almost exactly the same size as a CR-V, has physical buttons, and is available without a sunroof (though mine has one--but it has a power physical cover and doesn't reduce headroom). It is nearly identical on the inside to the gas-powered GLB. Granted, it does cost a good bit more than a CR-V, but you didn't list that as a dealbreaker.

Thanks - that's a good suggestion - will definitely keep in mind.