Breezy
Member
Everybody stop now! I'd hoped that it was done. I know "BMW started it!" but please. We've all had our say, we're all right and everybody is wrong. Let's just delete today's posts and lock the thread.
Agreed.:wink:
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Pure BEV Dogma
- Thread starter bonnie
- Start date
Agreed.:wink:
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
Or those of us who wish to continue the discussion can, and those who don't can unsubscribe and never click on the thread. If you can resist.... :wink:
jkliu47
Member
Does this mean if a Tesla tows a portable generator that is plugged in - it would be a plug-in series hybrid???? :crying::scared:
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
I'd call that an EV towing a genset trailer. The rental of such might even be a viable business. But it doesn't change the basic nature of the car, any more than towing a boat makes a truck an amphibious vehicle. Terminology has to do with the basic design and construction of a vehicle.
Terminology: 2016 Chevy Volt "EREV"
(note to mods: The existing Volt thread is long and has multiple sub-topics running through it. As my subject here is regarding the upcoming 2016 Volt and some differences, I created this seperate thread)
There had been some vigorous debate about GM's decision to market the Volt using the term "EREV" rather than the traditional "Plug-in Hybrid" nomenclature that groups like the SAE classify it as.
I'm in the "It's a hybrid" camp. The argument for the specific "EREV" moniker often includes the point that the gas engine is mechanically engaged in to the drivetrain rarely under specific circumstances.
It appears the 2016 model changes that so a notable degree:
Note what Volt Chief Engineer Andrew Farrah says regarding the new design in Car & Driver:
Green Car Reports also analyzed the Volt and drew the following conclusion:
So, what's the consensus here? Is the "EREV" moniker finally dead?
(note to mods: The existing Volt thread is long and has multiple sub-topics running through it. As my subject here is regarding the upcoming 2016 Volt and some differences, I created this seperate thread)
There had been some vigorous debate about GM's decision to market the Volt using the term "EREV" rather than the traditional "Plug-in Hybrid" nomenclature that groups like the SAE classify it as.
I'm in the "It's a hybrid" camp. The argument for the specific "EREV" moniker often includes the point that the gas engine is mechanically engaged in to the drivetrain rarely under specific circumstances.
It appears the 2016 model changes that so a notable degree:
Note what Volt Chief Engineer Andrew Farrah says regarding the new design in Car & Driver:
Andrew Farrah said:
Green Car Reports also analyzed the Volt and drew the following conclusion:
Green Car Reports said:
So, what's the consensus here? Is the "EREV" moniker finally dead?
Last edited by a moderator:
Chevy won't kill the moniker. But, perhaps, we should adopt it as a sub-type of plug-in hybrid. I just never have, and never will, accept it as a completely separate class from hybrids.
I hope they won't run scared of the H word this time, but I don't think they'll kill EREV. There's still value to them in differentiating between full-EV and limited-EV PHEVs.
It's actually become more EREV:
- A rumored ERDTT override: so it can finally be driven fully electric at what us northern-USA dwellers consider normal winter temperatures.
- range up from 38 to 50 miles: higher percentage of trips fully electric
- better low-end performance, as expected from an electric
Thanks to the transmission changes, GM will be able to release the new Malibu HEV and CT6 Hybrid.
Skotty
2014 S P85 | 2023 F-150L
I can see it both ways. It is a plug-in hybrid. But there is also still a big difference between most other plug-in hybrids and the Volt. So I understand wanting to give it it's own classification. Most other PHEV's on the market are electric assist for gas, whereas the Volt is gas assist for electric. The i3 with range extender falls into the latter camp as well. It might seem a bit strange to call the i3 with range extender a plug-in hybrid, when without that option it's an EV.
Sigh. This again? That GreenCarReports article was terrible in content but great for inspiring page hits. If you are here reading this thread then you might as well read through the 200+ comments on that article.
The bottom line, as I've explained at this site before, is that GM created or at least popularized the term Extended Range Electric Vehicle (EREV) and promoted its definition in an SAE technical paper written in the same year that the Volt concept was revealed and the Volt was approved for production engineering in 2007. GM's definition of EREV has nothing whatsoever to do with how the range extender is or is not mechanically geared to the wheels. GM's definition is all about the conditions under which an EREV stays in EV mode. GM's definition says absolutely nothing about how the car operates after the range extender starts up.
According to GM's definition, an EREV starts off in EV mode on a recharged battery and stays in EV mode while usable charge remains regardless of torque demand or vehicle speed. It also requires the vehicle to be freeway capable as defined by a California Air Resources Board document that categorized different plugin vehicle types (in other words, it can't be a Neighborhood Electric Vehicle or a golf cart).
That's it. There are no other EREV requirements. So, for example, the Chevy Volt, Cadillac ELR, and the BMW i3 clearly fit the EREV criteria. A Ford CMAX or Fusion Energi would fit the criteria if placed persistently in their EVNow mode. The new Cadillac CT6 plugin hybrid would not be an EREV because it blends in the gas engine under high torque demand in order to deliver 250 kW of power while using a 2nd generation Volt battery capable of only about 120 kW.
Finally, the characterization that the original Volt uses a mechanical path from the engine to the wheels "rarely under specific circumstances" is misleading. The original Volt uses series mode under 35-40 mph and during high torque demand. Otherwise, at speeds above 40 mph, it is far more likely to be in its power-split mode with a mechanical path when the gas engine is running than in its series mode. According to the GM SAE paper that discusses the original Volt transmission, the Volt is in power-split mode about 3.6 times as often as it is in series mode during the US06 EPA highway test cycle.
Thankfully, at least this aspect of the misinformation about the Volt is going away since the next generation Volt no longer has any "pure" series mode -- it's range extender always has a mechanical path to the wheels whenever it is running. Yet it's an EREV.
I co-authored the first (and still the only) detailed explanation of the 2nd generation Volt transmission two months ago. This same transmission with minor modifications is also used in the 2016 Malibu hybrid to get 47 mpg with a 1.8L engine. The article also gives a brief overview and illustration of the original Volt transmission. You can find the article here:
Gen 2 Volt Transmission Operating Modes Explained
Last edited:
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
I'm actually okay with them using the EREV term as long as they are clear it's a marketing term and they stop calling the Volt an "electric car" (which muddies the waters and leads to confusion). EREV is a valid subcategory of PHEV (although the definition was made up by GM and largely marketing driven).
Technically that's correct though. The i3 REx, if you take out the plug, you can drive it on gasoline like any hybrid (although BMW made the performance pretty limited in that mode for CARB reasons). It's a series hybrid, but still a hybrid.
I'd rather the discussion go in Pure BEV Dogma, so be warned if this discussion spirals out of control that's where it will all go.
rolosrevenge
Dr. EVS
Are we really talking about this again? Time for me to make a pilgrimage to the holy city of EV Semantics and tell you what our prophet has said on the matter. All who disagree are heretics and infidels... I hope you all got the sarcasm
Drucifer
Active Member
Chevy has really painted themselves in a corner. The problem is that there are "EV based hybrids" and "ICE based hybrids"
EV based hybrids (all plug-in) include the Chevy Volt / Cadillac ELR, the BMW i3 and the Fisker Karma
ICE based plug-in hybrids include Ford Fusion Energi, Ford CMAX, Honda Accord, Prius PIP and some others / more to come.
ICE based non-plug hybrids are Prius, some Camry, Insight and others.
If the naming convention was set up this way, it would be much easier for the consumer to understand what is going on with these vehicles. For instance, a Volt or i3 will run normally at highway speeds with no gas.
IMHO, the naming confusion mess should all be blamed on Toyota for using the name "hybrid" on the original Prius, which was a purely gasoline powered vehicle with a battery+electric motor based fuel-saving add-on. That technology does not deserve the name hybrid, it should have been reserved for powertrains such as the Volt's that are capable to propel the car by either of the 2 power sources (or a combination).
However, considering that the damage has already been done and there is no way to take back and erase from public perception what a hybrid now means, I think it is fair for GM to want to differentiate the Volt from those "hybrids". Adding the plug-in capability with very small batteries to some hybrids makes the whole situation even worse, creating some PHEVs that sounds almost the same as a Volt, but in practice offer far less usable electric driving.
However, considering that the damage has already been done and there is no way to take back and erase from public perception what a hybrid now means, I think it is fair for GM to want to differentiate the Volt from those "hybrids". Adding the plug-in capability with very small batteries to some hybrids makes the whole situation even worse, creating some PHEVs that sounds almost the same as a Volt, but in practice offer far less usable electric driving.
Breezy
Member
What Jeff N said.
I'll add that GM is still using the term EREV, including in recent GM papers from the SAE World Congress. Thus from an engineering point of view, it's still in use.
However, GM is using the term "hybrid" in some of their promotional material. They are also highlighting the fact that owners can expect to go so many miles between (gasoline) fill ups. No conspiracy, no attempt to hide the fact that the Volt has a gasoline engine.
I'll add that GM is still using the term EREV, including in recent GM papers from the SAE World Congress. Thus from an engineering point of view, it's still in use.
However, GM is using the term "hybrid" in some of their promotional material. They are also highlighting the fact that owners can expect to go so many miles between (gasoline) fill ups. No conspiracy, no attempt to hide the fact that the Volt has a gasoline engine.
Last edited:
No, really it wouldn't. The name doesn't tell you about any limitations of EV mode.
GM will keep EREV, but I think they'll be happy to use hybrid as well, now that it won't be a "bad hybrid".
Terminology: 2016 Chevy Volt "EREV"
The definition would mean 50 miles in electric only mode (gas engine doesn't or rarely turns on but it has enough battery power to travel 50 miles). It's impossible to get into the finer details in one small name so it works just as well as anything. Since GM is now even calling it a PHEV if they wanted to indicate the EV range a number after that is easy for people to understand.
The definition would mean 50 miles in electric only mode (gas engine doesn't or rarely turns on but it has enough battery power to travel 50 miles). It's impossible to get into the finer details in one small name so it works just as well as anything. Since GM is now even calling it a PHEV if they wanted to indicate the EV range a number after that is easy for people to understand.
I think GM came up with extended range EV as a marketing term for the Volt, not a technical term. Remember they're the company that tried to trademark the term "range anxiety". GM wants the car to have the halo of an EV but also emphasize it has a longer range than what people associate with EVs (or did before Tesla).
Similar threads
