Self Charging Hybrid benefits??

ComicGeek

bhjm said:

ComicGeek said:

My wife has a mild hybrid - not bought because of that, and seems a pointless addition in my view.

I have a self charging 4x4 hybrid which has fuel efficiency much higher than the equivalent diesel/petrol versions. Yes, I could get better mpg with a smaller car etc, but this gives me the highest mpg for the type of vehicle I need for work without being full electric. I can also get 600 miles from a tank of fuel, which is one of the biggest benefits of the hybrid element of car, and some local journeys I can do mainly on electric only.

so you bought a PHEV i guess.
And although its marketed as 4x4 - its more an AWD rather than a fully equipped 4x4. Neither the Rav 4 nor the Outlander are real 4x4.
and both are not "self charging hybrids" - they are plugin in vehicles, while the outlanders engine is more a kind of a range extender, the rav for is more kind of a full hybrid, basically its a bigger prius engine with a bigger battery pack.

No, the RAV4 isn't a PHEV, that's the one I've got. It's definitely a self charging hybrid.

Yes it is an AWD rather than 4x4, but works brilliantly for what I need it for.

Not very exciting to drive, but very practical. When I want to enjoy driving, I drive my wife's petrol guzzling Volvo XC60!

bhjm

ComicGeek said:

bhjm said:

ComicGeek said:

My wife has a mild hybrid - not bought because of that, and seems a pointless addition in my view.

I have a self charging 4x4 hybrid which has fuel efficiency much higher than the equivalent diesel/petrol versions. Yes, I could get better mpg with a smaller car etc, but this gives me the highest mpg for the type of vehicle I need for work without being full electric. I can also get 600 miles from a tank of fuel, which is one of the biggest benefits of the hybrid element of car, and some local journeys I can do mainly on electric only.

so you bought a PHEV i guess.
And although its marketed as 4x4 - its more an AWD rather than a fully equipped 4x4. Neither the Rav 4 nor the Outlander are real 4x4.
and both are not "self charging hybrids" - they are plugin in vehicles, while the outlanders engine is more a kind of a range extender, the rav for is more kind of a full hybrid, basically its a bigger prius engine with a bigger battery pack.

No, the RAV4 isn't a PHEV, that's the one I've got. It's definitely a self charging hybrid.

Yes it is an AWD rather than 4x4, but works brilliantly for what I need it for.

Not very exciting to drive, but very practical. When I want to enjoy driving, I drive my wife's petrol guzzling Volvo XC60!

so its then the normal rav 4 hybrid. 

May I ask you, what do you understand under self charging?

AdrianC

ComicGeek said:

Yes it is an AWD rather than 4x4

How many wheels does it have?

Ditzy_Mitzy

AdrianC said:

ComicGeek said:

Yes it is an AWD rather than 4x4

How many wheels does it have?

Aww come on now, you're just pointlessly picking holes.  You know he/she means 'AWD' in the sense of a car that's primarily two wheel drive but has the ability to very occasionally send power to the generally undriven wheels rather than '4x4' in the sense of a proper fully engaged four wheel drive or mechanical transfer case off-roading setup.  It's a commonly drawn distinction and I've heard it expressed in those terms elsewhere.  

Petriix

'Self-charging' is, at best, a marketing gimmick and, at worst, a scam. It implies that the energy is free and somehow better than vehicles which have to be charged. Of course the 'self' part of the charging comes from running a fossil fuel engine and they are just not all that efficient.

In practice, an 'unable to plug in' hybrid (as I like to call them) is a very expensive, overly complicated anachronism born out of the legacy car manufacturers' inability to move with the times and some ill-conceived tax incentives. They may achieve slightly better mpg (and lower emissions) around town but, on average, they are no more economical than a typical modern diesel car. My 16 year old Peugeot estate averaged around 55 mpg over the 11 years I owned it. There are much more economical diesel cars available now.

In theory a 'plug-in hybrid' could be used in a reasonably economical way if people bothered to charge them as most daily driving could be done on pure electric. However, most are never actually charged; having been acquired purely for the overly generous tax breaks and fake emissions savings. Most are also poorly designed so as to not allow the heating to work without the combustion engine running.

The problem with hybrids is they have to carry around all the weight and complexity of both fuel systems. They solve a largely psychological problem which is that people think they need to be able to drive enormous distances every day when the reality is that long journeys make up a tiny proportion of the overall way people use cars.

Fully electric vehicles are rapidly becoming longer range and more affordable. While a new MG5 will cost you about the same as a used 2020 Toyota C-HR hybrid, the running costs will be around £1000 per year lower for the pure EV. 

AdrianC

Ditzy_Mitzy said:

AdrianC said:

ComicGeek said:

Yes it is an AWD rather than 4x4

How many wheels does it have?

Aww come on now, you're just pointlessly picking holes.  You know he/she means 'AWD' in the sense of a car that's primarily two wheel drive but has the ability to very occasionally send power to the generally undriven wheels rather than '4x4' in the sense of a proper fully engaged four wheel drive or mechanical transfer case off-roading setup.  It's a commonly drawn distinction and I've heard it expressed in those terms elsewhere.  

Yes, a lot of people spout things that are utterly incorrect. That doesn't affect what it actually means...

4x4 = four wheels, four driven wheels
AWD = All wheels driven. It includes 4x4, 6x6, 8x8
4wd = Four wheels driven. It includes 4x4, 6x4, 8x4

Part-time or full-time is a separate question. But if you want some illustrations of how part- or full-time does not affect anything very much in terms of off-road ability...
Part-time 4x4...



Full-time 4x4...

Stubod

Petriix said:

'Self-charging' is, at best, a marketing gimmick and, at worst, a scam. It implies that the energy is free and somehow better than vehicles which have to be charged. Of course the 'self' part of the charging comes from running a fossil fuel engine and they are just not all that efficient.

In practice, an 'unable to plug in' hybrid (as I like to call them) is a very expensive, overly complicated anachronism born out of the legacy car manufacturers' inability to move with the times and some ill-conceived tax incentives. They may achieve slightly better mpg (and lower emissions) around town but, on average, they are no more economical than a typical modern diesel car. My 16 year old Peugeot estate averaged around 55 mpg over the 11 years I owned it. There are much more economical diesel cars available now.

In theory a 'plug-in hybrid' could be used in a reasonably economical way if people bothered to charge them as most daily driving could be done on pure electric. However, most are never actually charged; having been acquired purely for the overly generous tax breaks and fake emissions savings. Most are also poorly designed so as to not allow the heating to work without the combustion engine running.

The problem with hybrids is they have to carry around all the weight and complexity of both fuel systems. They solve a largely psychological problem which is that people think they need to be able to drive enormous distances every day when the reality is that long journeys make up a tiny proportion of the overall way people use cars.

Fully electric vehicles are rapidly becoming longer range and more affordable. While a new MG5 will cost you about the same as a used 2020 Toyota C-HR hybrid, the running costs will be around £1000 per year lower for the pure EV. 

...thank you for this...it sums up my own thoughts exactly.

I am looking to change my car and before lock-down I visited a few dealers and they tried to sell me a non plug in hybrid. When I asked them what the actual benefits were they were unable to tell me?

I can see that if you are fortunate enough to be a "two car family", it may make sense to have one car that is all electric with a decent range to do (probably) 90% of your journeys and a "full fat" ic car for the odd longer journey, but for us, (with no daily commute) I can't see any point in a hybrid.

bhjm

Petriix said:

In theory a 'plug-in hybrid' could be used in a reasonably economical way if people bothered to charge them as most daily driving could be done on pure electric. However, most are never actually charged; having been acquired purely for the overly generous tax breaks and fake emissions savings. Most are also poorly designed so as to not allow the heating to work without the combustion engine running.

The problem with hybrids is they have to carry around all the weight and complexity of both fuel systems. They solve a largely psychological problem which is that people think they need to be able to drive enormous distances every day when the reality is that long journeys make up a tiny proportion of the overall way people use cars.

plugin hybrids were mostly bought by companies due to the incentives - thats why they aren`t charged up. But yes, I agree with you they carry around more weight - but if we want to speak about weight as well, maybe we should get rid of all the comforting and electric helpers too
depending on the type of hybrid, even suzuki markets some of the cars as hybrids, although they use the starter motor as a motor assistant while accelerating.  WHich is for me not a proper hybrid - but is is one in fact in some sort of, but it carries much less weight.

bhjm

AdrianC said:

Ditzy_Mitzy said:

AdrianC said:

ComicGeek said:

Yes it is an AWD rather than 4x4

How many wheels does it have?

Aww come on now, you're just pointlessly picking holes.  You know he/she means 'AWD' in the sense of a car that's primarily two wheel drive but has the ability to very occasionally send power to the generally undriven wheels rather than '4x4' in the sense of a proper fully engaged four wheel drive or mechanical transfer case off-roading setup.  It's a commonly drawn distinction and I've heard it expressed in those terms elsewhere.  

Yes, a lot of people spout things that are utterly incorrect. That doesn't affect what it actually means...

4x4 = four wheels, four driven wheels
AWD = All wheels driven. It includes 4x4, 6x6, 8x8
4wd = Four wheels driven. It includes 4x4, 6x4, 8x4

Part-time or full-time is a separate question. But if you want some illustrations of how part- or full-time does not affect anything very much in terms of off-road ability...
Part-time 4x4...



Full-time 4x4...

bad examples tbh.
the mitsubishi and the land rover can in fact drive in 4x4 all the time. 

an AWD is a car where all wheels can be driven by the engine, BUT are electronically locked into the drivetrain. While a 4x4 has normally a centre locking diff which mechanically locks the front and rear axle to the drivetrain.

AdrianC

bhjm said:

AdrianC said:

Ditzy_Mitzy said:

AdrianC said:

ComicGeek said:

Yes it is an AWD rather than 4x4

How many wheels does it have?

Aww come on now, you're just pointlessly picking holes.  You know he/she means 'AWD' in the sense of a car that's primarily two wheel drive but has the ability to very occasionally send power to the generally undriven wheels rather than '4x4' in the sense of a proper fully engaged four wheel drive or mechanical transfer case off-roading setup.  It's a commonly drawn distinction and I've heard it expressed in those terms elsewhere.  

Yes, a lot of people spout things that are utterly incorrect. That doesn't affect what it actually means...

4x4 = four wheels, four driven wheels
AWD = All wheels driven. It includes 4x4, 6x6, 8x8
4wd = Four wheels driven. It includes 4x4, 6x4, 8x4

Part-time or full-time is a separate question. But if you want some illustrations of how part- or full-time does not affect anything very much in terms of off-road ability...
Part-time 4x4...
Mk2 Shogun
Series 3 Landy

Full-time 4x4...
BMW 320d X-drive
Audi s3

bad examples tbh.
the mitsubishi and the land rover can in fact drive in 4x4 all the time. 

(Images trimmed to save space)

No, they were examples deliberately chosen to illustrate how much emphasis is placed on irrelevances when trying to get out of a self-dug hole.

Don't get a Series and a Defender confused. The Series is part-time 4wd, and has no centre diff at all - drive it on tarmac in 4wd, and you WILL snap a half-shaft sooner or later. Yes, the Shogun can be used on-road in 4wd - it has a lockable centre diff, which when locked acts the same as the lack of a centre diff on the LR. The Mk1 Shog had a transfer box more like the Series, no centre diff, so couldn't be used on-tarmac in 4wd.
I've owned a Mk2 Shog in the past and now own a Series, btw.

an AWD is a car where all wheels can be driven by the engine, BUT are electronically locked into the drivetrain. While a 4x4 has normally a centre locking diff which mechanically locks the front and rear axle to the drivetrain.

And we already have a different, totally contradictory definition to the one I replied to... Basically, the one place you both agree is that you're using "AWD" to mean "not really proper", while 4x4 is used to mean "rufty-tufty", right?

So what about viscous couplings? Are they more or less "proper" if they're in a military truck used off-road or a Lamborghini supercar? What about in a farmer's Disco2 towing a fully-loaded hay trailer across a field? Or, indeed, in a RAV4...? Or how about in that stalwart of Italian mountain farmers, the Panda 4x4?