Figured this would be an interesting discussion. Assuming Toyota could have used a Li-ion pack in the J250, providing 40 mi of EV range like the RAV4 Prime, would this be preferred?
Would you prefer a PHEV? (2 Viewers)
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.
Zjohnsonua
SILVER Star
For me, unequivocally yes. At this point, I've no idea why the hybrid/EV space isn't down to only PHEVs and EVs. Mild hybrids are, comparatively, added complexity with a light boost in torque.
Fort9378
SILVER Star
A plug in model would have been nice, but a lot of people (myself included) aren't ready to jump into full plug-in EVs yet. Im happy for the hybrid to get better mileage. I'm not someone who cares about needing large displacement or the number of cylinders in modern engines. Only offering the LC250 as a plug-in would have been a deal killer for me though. I suspect many others in the off-road market as well.
- Thread starter
- #5
From an economy perspective, I like PHEVs, which are not much more complicated than HEVs. On the other hand, I do appreciate Toyota's rationale about NiMH HEVs being the more proven (therefore reliable) technology. One advantage of an HEV is that you always have full hybrid power available, unlike a PHEV where you're locked in EV mode unable to use the ICE. I agree that having choices is always best.
I think a lot of the problem with PHEVs is packaging. Look at how much space the relatively small 1.87 kwH battery is taking up in the LC250 currently. As it sits with a 48 hp electric motor it will only run continuously for a little over 3 minutes solely on electric power. 48 hp = 35.8 kw; 1.87 kwh / 35.8 kw = 0.05 hours or 3.13 minutes of run time. To fit a battery big enough to run for any length of time it would have to be substantially larger. Where would Toyota put it without interfering with passenger compartment room or adding a crazy amount of weight to the truck? In my opinion, which isn't worth much, the regular hybrid is the sweet spot until they have a BEV version. Until Toyota comes out with new battery tech that can drastically reduce the size of or increase the energy density of the batteries this combo seems to be a good bet.
No thank you.
More upfront expense, more difficult packaging, and a greater chance of a thermal runaway.
- Thread starter
- #8
I was of the impression that the superior energy density provided by Li-ion batteries would allow for this sort of spec with the same size battery. Packaging is definitely tricky with a solid axle BoF vehicle. The only other one I can think of is the Wrangler 4Xe but it only has 22 mi of EV range.
Yes. Without hesitation. PHEV would solve all of my hangups about the hybrid. It has more than enough power. Just not for long enough. A 20kwh battery would allow you to both have full EV output up the entire length of every major pass in the USA making towing capability better than the TTv6. And it would have enough battery capacity to regen all the way down saving significantly on fuel. Not to mention that something like 25-30 miles of range would cover almost every local trip I make without needing to fire up the engine significantly extending the engine lifespan. On the trails - silent crawling would be incredibly cool. And ideally full VTG capability for powering the camp stuff or your house or ??
If Toyota actually has sorted out the solid state battery problems, the packaging could be smaller and lighter than the current battery. At 300wh/kg, a 20kwh battery would weigh about 150lbs (for the cells, fully battery pack would maybe be 300lbs.)
I'd also be fine with something like a 200hp NA 4cyl that's very well balanced and a 50kwh battery pack PHEV that is more like an EV plus range extender engine. I think Ram is on the right track with its truck design. With solid state batteries we're talking about only around 400lbs for the batteries plus the packaging. I would still prefer to drive it through a single center mounted motor or two. - Whatever the case may be - I'd want the axles mechanically linked. But that would possibly be even better than a more mild PHEV.
Just some food for thought as far as HEV vs PHEV vs BEV
IMO PHEVs would be preferable in the majority of vehicles if battery production was higher. But in a battery constrained world - HEV uses the limited battery capacity most intensely so it results in the most benefit possible in terms of overall emissions reduction and fuel savings.
Just rough numbers - a hybrid Rav4 vs regular gas version saves about 125 gallons of gas per year at 15k miles per year driven. A PHEV Rav4 would save roughly 350 gallons vs a normal one (assuming about 50% electric). But the Rav4 Prime takes 10 times as much battery capacity to roughly double the fuel savings. A Tesla Model Y saves 500 gallons of fuel per year.
Per kwh of battery you get
HEV 62.5 gal/kwh/yr
PHEV 19.5 gal/kwh/yr
EV 6.1 gal/kwh/yr
The same is roughly true for overall emissions savings. It depends on your grid, but in every case HEV beats PHEV and EV on emission reduction per kwh of battery used. If every cell in ever Tesla were used to make all new cars BEVs or PHEVs, we'd save about 10 times as much gas. Something on the order of 20 billion gallons of gas in the USA annually. That's a lot of oil we can sell to other countries and/or not buy from people we generally don't align with.
If Toyota actually has sorted out the solid state battery problems, the packaging could be smaller and lighter than the current battery. At 300wh/kg, a 20kwh battery would weigh about 150lbs (for the cells, fully battery pack would maybe be 300lbs.)
I'd also be fine with something like a 200hp NA 4cyl that's very well balanced and a 50kwh battery pack PHEV that is more like an EV plus range extender engine. I think Ram is on the right track with its truck design. With solid state batteries we're talking about only around 400lbs for the batteries plus the packaging. I would still prefer to drive it through a single center mounted motor or two. - Whatever the case may be - I'd want the axles mechanically linked. But that would possibly be even better than a more mild PHEV.
Just some food for thought as far as HEV vs PHEV vs BEV
IMO PHEVs would be preferable in the majority of vehicles if battery production was higher. But in a battery constrained world - HEV uses the limited battery capacity most intensely so it results in the most benefit possible in terms of overall emissions reduction and fuel savings.
Just rough numbers - a hybrid Rav4 vs regular gas version saves about 125 gallons of gas per year at 15k miles per year driven. A PHEV Rav4 would save roughly 350 gallons vs a normal one (assuming about 50% electric). But the Rav4 Prime takes 10 times as much battery capacity to roughly double the fuel savings. A Tesla Model Y saves 500 gallons of fuel per year.
Per kwh of battery you get
HEV 62.5 gal/kwh/yr
PHEV 19.5 gal/kwh/yr
EV 6.1 gal/kwh/yr
The same is roughly true for overall emissions savings. It depends on your grid, but in every case HEV beats PHEV and EV on emission reduction per kwh of battery used. If every cell in ever Tesla were used to make all new cars BEVs or PHEVs, we'd save about 10 times as much gas. Something on the order of 20 billion gallons of gas in the USA annually. That's a lot of oil we can sell to other countries and/or not buy from people we generally don't align with.
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #11
Good point. All of this makes me think we are many years away from a PHEV/BEV proper Land Cruiser. Certainly not before TNGA-F lives out its life. Market demand will impact this as well, NGOs operating in undeveloped countries will not want a PHEV/BEV.
I don't think they have that kind of improvement in energy density compared to the current battery. Lithium batteries also have to make room for liquid cooling compared to the air cooled batteries that the tundra/LC250/Tacoma hybrids currently use.
Yes, a plug-in hybrid is awesome. We have a XC90 PHEV and it gets about 33 miles on the battery only. We get about 700+ miles from a 18.8 gallon tank. Really depends on how far out we drive. When I dive to the city, 15 miles. Battery on surface streets and ICE on highway. My game is to leave the house on full battery and arrive with zero battery. It is also nice when you want to move the car 20 feet out of the driveway. No ICE necessary. The engines should last way longer. One note, the dealer does not have a way to tell how often (miles) the engine ran between oil changes.
Seems like an hour meter should be more common than it is. Most diesel trucks have them that you can access via the ECU even though you can't see it on the dash. As long as there's a signal wire you could tap that is only on while the ICE is running it would only cost a few dollars to install an aftermarket one.
But maybe the idea is that you need to change based on time anyway and it's never expected to wear the oil out. In that case it doesn't matter how often the engine runs. I'd want to know - but I can see the logic. The minor issue my neighbor who has had a PHEV Honda Clarity (50 miles of EV range) is bad gas. They put stabilizer in it, but still make sure to run at least a full tank through every 6 months, just to make sure it gets fresh fuel. They don't usually take it on longer trips and use for commuter duty daily. I'm not sure what the oil change interval would be other than maybe once a year or once every 2 years? I might go 2 years myself in that condition.
I'm very mixed on the PHEV and HEV concepts. Both add complexity and significant weight; but with that complexity comes improved stop/go driving economy, and short duration boosted torque. PHEV's add the possibility of doing one's daily commute without burning any gas or diesel, which is very appealing.
All of that to say, I think it depends on one's use case. If you live within the all electric range of your workplace, your power grid is low emission (nuclear, hydro, etc.), and you're likely to do a decent amount of stop and go driving; PHEV's probably make a lot of sense (ie. the complexity and weight compromise is likely worth it). If you have a long commute, your power grid is coal-fired, you drive mostly highway, and you need maximum payload; PHEV's probably don't make sense.
Personally, I drive either highway or off-road with my 4x4 SUV. What I want is the small diesel Toyota refuses to give us due to other brands previous diesel screw-ups in the North American market (thanks 80's GM and 2010's VW).
All of that to say, I think it depends on one's use case. If you live within the all electric range of your workplace, your power grid is low emission (nuclear, hydro, etc.), and you're likely to do a decent amount of stop and go driving; PHEV's probably make a lot of sense (ie. the complexity and weight compromise is likely worth it). If you have a long commute, your power grid is coal-fired, you drive mostly highway, and you need maximum payload; PHEV's probably don't make sense.
Personally, I drive either highway or off-road with my 4x4 SUV. What I want is the small diesel Toyota refuses to give us due to other brands previous diesel screw-ups in the North American market (thanks 80's GM and 2010's VW).
The VW dieselgate isn’t the only reason that Toyota won’t give us small diesels. The US emissions regulations are very strict, requiring very high pressure fuel injection systems and urea injection after treatments. These systems are quite expensive and have proved to be unreliable. They also significantly reduce fuel economy.
When you add to that the fact that in much of the US diesel fuel is 30% more expensive than gasoline, and it becomes very difficult to make an economic case for small diesels.
Toyota sells diesel products in the EU which also has tight enough standards to require DEF, particulate filtration, etc.. From a technological perspective it's entirely possible. Fuel cost and foul tasting diesel history in North America are likely the larger factors preventing us from having nice things.
People hate the 1 and 2GRFEs with 270ish hp; very very few north americans are going to buy a 220hp 2.8l diesel with a >10second 0-60
Yup. Not many people want a vehicle that slow.
In addition, the diesel engine costs significantly more than a full or partial hybrid. So an extra $2-3k upfront cost, plus more expensive to maintain, more expensive fuel, and worse performance.
It should be noted that the new Land Cruiser is not going to be a hybrid in the sense of Toyota's Prius setup (hybrid synergy drive). Just like the new Tundra, it is not marketed as a hybrid. (though it is still labeled as a hybrid) It is labeled "i-Force MAX." To quote Motor Trend,
None of these systems is to be confused with Toyota's other, more car-based Hybrid Synergy Drive systems. Those assist their gas engines with two electric motors (a starter-generator and a more powerful motor) that are connected to the engine via a planetary-type continuously variable transmission. The trucks' i-Force Max systems are more like Toyota's Hybrid Max setup in the Crown, Grand Highlander, and others. These place a single large electric motor between the engine and the otherwise conventional eight-speed automatic transmission, with the motor taking the place of the torque converter.
The new Tundra, the upcoming Tacoma, and the upcoming Land Cruiser cannot be put into EV mode like a Prius, Corolla Hybrid, or Rav4/Highlander Hybrid. The setup on the drivetrain is not made to be used for electric-only propulsion. It assists in torque, and is able to capture otherwise-lost energy in regen events (downhill decel, braking, etc.). Toyota USA put out several different videos explaining it as well.
I say all this to say that in order for Toyota to ever offer a PHEV in these vehicles would require a bit more engineering (obviously they know how to do it) into a powertrain that has two motor/generators/e-CVT setup, and no conventional transmission. Pair that with the idea that you also have to have two separate axles, and a transfer case, and the proposition gets more expensive. Like I said, it is definitely doable, but it would be a whole different platform setup due to the way it is currently designed to work.
None of these systems is to be confused with Toyota's other, more car-based Hybrid Synergy Drive systems. Those assist their gas engines with two electric motors (a starter-generator and a more powerful motor) that are connected to the engine via a planetary-type continuously variable transmission. The trucks' i-Force Max systems are more like Toyota's Hybrid Max setup in the Crown, Grand Highlander, and others. These place a single large electric motor between the engine and the otherwise conventional eight-speed automatic transmission, with the motor taking the place of the torque converter.
The new Tundra, the upcoming Tacoma, and the upcoming Land Cruiser cannot be put into EV mode like a Prius, Corolla Hybrid, or Rav4/Highlander Hybrid. The setup on the drivetrain is not made to be used for electric-only propulsion. It assists in torque, and is able to capture otherwise-lost energy in regen events (downhill decel, braking, etc.). Toyota USA put out several different videos explaining it as well.
I say all this to say that in order for Toyota to ever offer a PHEV in these vehicles would require a bit more engineering (obviously they know how to do it) into a powertrain that has two motor/generators/e-CVT setup, and no conventional transmission. Pair that with the idea that you also have to have two separate axles, and a transfer case, and the proposition gets more expensive. Like I said, it is definitely doable, but it would be a whole different platform setup due to the way it is currently designed to work.
