Upcoming competition from Ram

[MCraft99]

hybrid is for insecure people -promoted by MSM.
why OP wants to post half cooked vehicle on Cybertruck forum?

Depends on how the hybrid is made. This is the first locomotive/sub version of diesel electric hybrid made. I currently use a 5500W Honda generator as backup when going offroad. SCers just aren't available everywhere in some parts of this country. Driving through yellowstone is kind of difficult, for instance. Forget about going into the national forests of Oregon/Idaho/MT. I don't want to charge at 120V campground sites and even that isn't available in the trails I usually go through.

Sponsored

 

[devdrone6]

Look, this is a Chuck Norris meme issue - once the CT drives you, other trucks no longer exist in your universe.

 

[MCraft99]

Look, this is a Chuck Norris meme issue - once the CT drives you, other trucks no longer exist in your universe.

Wait till they have wireless chargers for non cybercabs as well. Or optimus robots that will plug it in for you.

 

[YDR37]

That could be, but "closeness" doesn't count when you're talking about whether it's an EV or not. We have 4 EVs and would never do that if each one had an auxiliary gasoline engine. The distinguishing feature of an EV is it doesn't have a gas engine. Saying it's "close" doesn't cut it for me.

It will be interesting to see how industry analysts handle this issue. For example, Cox Automotive publishes a quarterly EV sales report that gets a lot of attention (including here). Will the Ram 1500 REV qualify as an “EV” for purposes of their sales report? I suspect that it might, but we won’t know for sure for a few quarters.

 

[HaulingAss]

It will be interesting to see how industry analysts handle this issue. For example, Cox Automotive publishes a quarterly EV sales report that gets a lot of attention (including here). Will the Ram 1500 REV qualify as an “EV” for purposes of their sales report? I suspect that it might, but we won’t know for sure for a few quarters.

Of course not, no matter how Stellantis tries to market it, it's obviously a plug-in hybrid.

Cox has separate data for BEVs (pure electric vehicles) and "electrified" gas hybrids. Electrified gas vehicles includes all hybrids (including PHEVs). Why is this even a question? Battery Electric Vehicles don't have V-6's and exhaust pipes.

 

[mongo]

EREV is what range at-all-cost looks like. Its going to be complex, expensive, and niche. Its a specialized truck for a thin slice of the customer base. It may not do sufficient numbers to be commercially viable but they may keep it in the line up for image purposes

Cost disadvantage: Check
Service downtime: Check

People sometimes forget that small fleet operators often need to pay one of their employees to drop off and pick up vehicles from a Service Department. The complexity of the truck with the V-6 and oil/filters will ensure it can't compete with traditional ICE trucks. Only companies thinking that a hybrid will get them environmental brownie points will buy it. A company will be best served by picking a pure ICE or pure EV truck, depending upon the application's use case.

What additional service will a Pentastar in an EREV need over a Pentstar in a straight ICE truck?

Option 1: 500 pound engerator (plus fuel) < $10k
Option 2: >800 pounds of high output lithium cells (100kWh) > $10k
Option 3: 600? Pound engine + transmission- 92kWh cells and motors, $$ savings

First 140 miles
Option 1,2: 92kWh at local rates, call it 100*$0.19 or $20 in my area, $0.14 a mile
Option 3: 21 MPG, 7 gallons, $28 at $4 a gallon, $0.20 a mile

Additional miles:
Option 1: $0.20 a mile gas or $0.14 (Level 1/2) or $0.23 electric ($0.35/kWh DC fast charging)
Option 2: $0.14 (Level 1/2) or $0.23 electric ($0.35/kWh DC fast charging)
Option 3: $0.20 a mile

 

[mongo]

LOL! Efficiency won't be in the "high 90%", we already know that. The first part of the conversion process (from gasoline to electricity) will be in the 30-35% efficiency range, at best. Then around 5-10% losses on top of that to charge the batteries. When run on gasoline exclusively it won't even be able to hit the MPG of a comparable ICE only truck. When run on electricity exclusively it can only go 145 miles using it's 91.8 kWh battery. Even if we assume it will get that 145 miles while only using 75 kWh, that's less than 2 miles per kWh. The entire REV idea is predicated on needing more range than a battery alone can provide. Otherwise, why deal with oil/filter changes and engine life expectancy?

As I read it, the question was specifically generator efficency, not fuel to motive efficency which I covered previously.
Fixed operating point ICE can be 40-50 percent efficient. Only part of the output chargers the batteries, the rest goes straight to the motors. Double conversion so low 90% efficency.
92/145=634 Wh/mile / .9 / .4 = 1.76kWh fuel = 19 MPG versus 21 for a 4x4 RAM ICE.
If we say 80 kWh usable: 22 MPG

However, the ER part is geared toward towing, where trailers add over 1kWh/mile.

 

[VAF84]

It’s a tough one. Biggest attraction to EV for me is driving experience, one pedal, frunk, tech, less moving parts to service and low energy costs to operate compared to fueling up with gas. So I’d take this over going back to ICE if I really needed the range, which sometimes I do. However I like the massive battery pack option because that’s keeping me out of looking for an EREV. Now, if the EREV hits price parity with ICE versus EV truck with max battery that’s currently costing nearly six figures then it might be a viable replacement.

Still, after watching many hours of Out of Spec, every Stallantis product seems to be a let down in integrating tech with the hardware, so I would not want to be the guinea pig for the product.

Ultimately, pricing will be a deciding factor. $70k Laramie with this setup versus having to buy max range LT EV Chevy for $92k is a strong sales pitch.

For anyone who can live comfortably with the standard 300mi range EV produced, this won’t even be a consideration.

 

[HaulingAss]

As I read it, the question was specifically generator efficency, not fuel to motive efficency which I covered previously.
Fixed operating point ICE can be 40-50 percent efficient. Only part of the output chargers the batteries, the rest goes straight to the motors. Double conversion so low 90% efficency.
92/145=634 Wh/mile / .9 / .4 = 1.76kWh fuel = 19 MPG versus 21 for a 4x4 RAM ICE.
If we say 80 kWh usable: 22 MPG

However, the ER part is geared toward towing, where trailers add over 1kWh/mile.

Even if we assume the REV MPG in gasoline mode matches an ICE truck (which I doubt), what kind of operator is going to want to take the risk of the truck being in the shop an excessive amount of time? Reliability is the number one consideration once you start including generating/charging power deliver integrations like the REV that we can naturally assume will be far from perfect, at least in the initial couple of years. Remember, the integrations will have to run on new software algorithms designed by someone. Does Stellantis have this kind of expertise in house or will they outsource it?

All this complexity comes at a cost. I just don't see it beating pure ICE in either reliability or cost. It can only have an advantage in a plug-in use case that actually needs more than 300+ miles of daily range (and even then, ever expanding and quicker charging opportunities will result in it being less desirable than a pure electric vehicle).

Even in the truck enthusiast market I think the starting and stopping of the ICE engine, and it's lack of a direct connection to the powertrain, will result in a less than ideal user experience which will likely result in low adoption. I think truck buyers probably lean towards the KISS principle and both BEVs and pure ICE vehicles beat REV in the simplicity department.

I predict it never makes a dollar of net profit for Stellantis and has a short platform life.

 

[mongo]

Even if we assume the REV MPG in gasoline mode matches an ICE truck (which I doubt), what kind of operator is going to want to take the risk of the truck being in the shop an excessive amount of time? Reliability is the number one consideration once you start including generating/charging power deliver integrations like the REV that we can naturally assume will be far from perfect, at least in the initial couple of years. Remember, the integrations will have to run on new software algorithms designed by someone. Does Stellantis have this kind of expertise in house or will they outsource it?

All this complexity comes at a cost. I just don't see it beating pure ICE in either reliability or cost. It can only have an advantage in a plug-in use case that actually needs more than 300+ miles of daily range (and even then, ever expanding and quicker charging opportunities will result in it being less desirable than a pure electric vehicle).

Even in the truck enthusiast market I think the starting and stopping of the ICE engine, and it's lack of a direct connection to the powertrain, will result in a less than ideal user experience which will likely result in low adoption. I think truck buyers probably lean towards the KISS principle and both BEVs and pure ICE vehicles beat REV in the simplicity department.

I predict it never makes a dollar of net profit for Stellantis and has a short platform life.

Totally agree poor implementation would kill interest and I'm focusing on the EREV concept versus the OEM (who may have run my code under previous management). Still, this is easier to implement than a parallel hybrid.

The non-towing aerodynamic truck with 400Wh/mile gets 300 miles of range with a 125kWh pack. But say 300 miles are needed with a truck + trailer energy load of 1.5kWh/mile (and or headwind/winter) .

300 * 1.5kWh = 450kWh needed.
Pure EV with 200kWh pack: 250kWh extra needed with two stops. 5 min + 5 min + 250/300 = one hour of charging and arriving at 0%.
Now, say it's a round trip and the destination is 50 miles past the last charger:
2 * 50 * 1.5 = 150kWh needed leaving charge stop so if pack is under 150 this trip can't be done (quickly, yes could AC charge at destination)

Cost:
EV with 200kWh pack and 5% final SOC
200*$0.20 + 260*$0.35 = $131 plus two charging stops, 60 minutes

EREV maximal fuel
8 MPG towing:
90 * $0.20 + 240/8*$4 = $137 + one fuel stop 15 minutes
10 MPG:
90 * $0.20 + 240/10*$4 = $114, no stops

Gas:
8 MPG:
300/8*4 = $150 + one fuel stop 15 minute
10 MPG towing
300/10*4 = $120 + one fuel stop 15 minute

 

[AlDente]

Wow, looks just like the concept vehicle ... /s

 

[mongo]

Wow, looks just like the concept vehicle ... /s

That's the circa 2023 pure EV concept that was canceled. The EREV version took over the name.

 

[HaulingAss]

The non-towing aerodynamic truck with 400Wh/mile gets 300 miles of range with a 125kWh pack. But say 300 miles are needed with a truck + trailer energy load of 1.5kWh/mile (and or headwind/winter) .

You lose me when you have to cite a total edge case (towing huge trailer in winter/headwind 300 miles). Light consumer pickups are not the tool of choice for towing huge trailers long distances. Sure, somebody might do this, like a retired RV'er, but it's a niche market for consumers and even more rare in the commercial world. It costs too much to pay a driver all day to do a 300-mile trip, you need a semi-truck to make moving freight this way economical enough for it to have non-edge cases.

Even if we assume this is a use case that matters for new truck sales, and use your most generous assumptions, the economics you lay out are not compelling enough to make a truck buyer say more than "harumph". And it's going to cost more to manufacture than a more simple gas truck.

I can't imagine this being a successful move for Stellantis, seems more like a move of desperation. Remember, high volume sales are required to make low margin vehicles make sense. It's almost like the people who decided to make this truck made a bunch of assumptions like that gasoline would remain cheap and DCFC would not expand their networks and charging speeds over the next 5-10 years (and that long-distance towing was not a niche market). Even with those assumptions, and assuming it's reliable, the towing economics don't compare substantially better than a more simple pure gas ICE truck.

 

[JIMMYFABULOUS]

The CT is an iconic vehicle that is amazing to drive. It is an experience.
Range and charging are just part of the amazing package.
I am down for everything Elon sells.
Ram is the past.
I like what I like.

 

[mongo]

You lose me when you have to cite a total edge case (towing huge trailer in winter/headwind 300 miles). Light consumer pickups are not the tool of choice for towing huge trailers long distances. Sure, somebody might do this, like a retired RV'er, but it's a niche market for consumers and even more rare in the commercial world. It costs too much to pay a driver all day to do a 300-mile trip, you need a semi-truck to make moving freight this way economical enough for it to have non-edge cases.

Even if we assume this is a use case that matters for new truck sales, and use your most generous assumptions, the economics you lay out are not compelling enough to make a truck buyer say more than "harumph". And it's going to cost more to manufacture than a more simple gas truck.

I can't imagine this being a successful move for Stellantis, seems more like a move of desperation. Remember, high volume sales are required to make low margin vehicles make sense. It's almost like the people who decided to make this truck made a bunch of assumptions like that gasoline would remain cheap and DCFC would not expand their networks and charging speeds over the next 5-10 years (and that long-distance towing was not a niche market). Even with those assumptions, and assuming it's reliable, the towing economics don't compare substantially better than a more simple pure gas ICE truck.

The example didn't include headwind nor winter, only towing. Even in a non towing case, doing a 400 mile round trip to the inlaws requires two charging stops and around an hour of Supercharger charging with a 300 mile range truck due to their location.

If someone wants an EV most of the time for the reasons EVs are great, and an ICE truck some of the time for the reasons ICE trucks are great, a EREV can make sense.

No matter how dense the charging network, the time to transfer the needed energy into the pack will dominate. Trading engerator pound for pound with cells (or even a weight reduction) improves functionality.

Sponsored