[WagonFan]

Originally Posted by nZtiZia

I don’t recommend letting this happen. power is severely limited on an empty fuel tank even with a full charge. I tested this on my 45e, and was a bit scary. Luckily, I was only driving through suburban neighborhoods

I absolutely can confirm with the 50e. Only did it once and the warnings and dashboard kept increasingly flashing and reducing functions and power. It was scary enough, especially for my wife, so that I will not dare doing it again.

For the OP and others:
The reason I use navigating the whole route is to keep battery for the return leg.
For e.g. precondition the vehicle. If I did route once it will continue where I left off. Even if I a stop at a rest area.
With battery hold I have to remember pressing the button every time I start the vehicle.

[nZtiZia]

despite being such a sophisticatingly complex vehicle, neither the 45e or 50e can do without some battery management input from the operator, though the amount of involvement varies

the extent of my management revolves around the ability to precondition at will. if my route’s miles traveled will exceed my electric range, then I’ll incorporate the “address as a stop” method and/or Battery Control (30-60% depending on situation)

[tooloud10]

While I understand the urge to go on a trip and have the EV battery utilized neatly over the course of the entire drive, has anyone ever seen any math that suggests that this is a more efficient way to use the car than to just leave the house on EV power and just drive until the battery is depleted and the ICE turns on?

[eelnoraa]

Originally Posted by tooloud10

While I understand the urge to go on a trip and have the EV battery utilized neatly over the course of the entire drive, has anyone ever seen any math that suggests that this is a more efficient way to use the car than to just leave the house on EV power and just drive until the battery is depleted and the ICE turns on?

My typical plan is simple - local in EV model, highway in sport. I recently tried 45e adaptive and found algorithm is rather primitives' and can be quite off. Here is the trip details

Start of the trip:
NAV destination set to home
Distance from home: 35 miles
Gas tank: 19%
HVB: 82%

End of trip at home
Gas tank: 18%
HVB: 18%

The car uses 0.4 gallon of gas and 10kWh electricity total, but arrived home with 18% left in HVB, which is 6 miles range on dash.

If I have to make a conclusion of the behavior, the car basically tries to match HVB range with distance to destination. If HVB range is longer, it will use electric. Vice versa, uses ICE. On this routine, I needed to climb a shallow but long hill on I-680, and descanted down to Fremont area. Then flat terrain to home. My feeling is on the shallow uphill, the HVB range was dropping fast and below distance to destination. So ICE was used to balance it out. On the descent section, HVB was being regen. The regen was more than the need to get home. So the car definitely wasn't really taking the terrain into calculation much, or didn't account for it correctly. If it did, more HVB will be used on uphill even range could become well below distance to destination. Then on the downhill section regen could recapture enough to cover the rest of the distance. Didn't do this.

We always hear people say the car will take into this and that and give your the best power source. Nothing speak louder than reality, even just sanity check like this

[nZtiZia]

Originally Posted by tooloud10

While I understand the urge to go on a trip and have the EV battery utilized neatly over the course of the entire drive, has anyone ever seen any math that suggests that this is a more efficient way to use the car than to just leave the house on EV power and just drive until the battery is depleted and the ICE turns on?

I don’t think that’s necessary. assuming a fully charged battery, the same drive mode and trip, efficiency is likely the same because total miles minus electric miles equals ICE miles. it doesn’t matter whether the battery’s usable capacity is utilized early, late or even spread throughout the trip.

if we add individual driving preferences into the mix such as wanting to precondition at will using Battery Control/Battery Hold, then obviously efficiency will decrease

[Aussiejem]

So to all 50e owners, is the Hybrid mode better on long freeway trips or simply ICE with battery hold until destination (especially in city zones)? Curios to know as the Hybrid with NAV 'should' be the most effective way....

[tooloud10]

Originally Posted by nZtiZia

I don’t think that’s necessary. assuming a fully charged battery, the same drive mode and trip, efficiency is likely the same because total miles minus electric miles equals ICE miles. it doesn’t matter whether the battery’s usable capacity is utilized early, late or even spread throughout the trip.

Thanks, that's pretty much my thought as well.

if we add individual driving preferences into the mix such as wanting to precondition at will using Battery Control/Battery Hold, then obviously efficiency will decrease

Agreed, I'm just trying to snap myself out of constantly changing driving modes to accommodate the battery. If everything else is about the same I'd rather just let the car figure things out.

[nZtiZia]

Originally Posted by tooloud10

…
Agreed, I'm just trying to snap myself out of constantly changing driving modes to accommodate the battery. If everything else is about the same I'd rather just let the car figure things out.

yeah, just a joy to just cruise!

[Francolargo]

Originally Posted by nZtiZia

efficiency [all-electric vs. ICE] is likely the same because total miles minus electric miles equals ICE miles. it doesn’t matter whether the battery’s usable capacity is utilized early, late or even spread throughout the trip.

Exec. summary: I just use 'hybrid' on road trips and leave it at that.

Rationale Re: the quote:
In theory I believe it does matter how you use the battery unless both motors are employed under conditions where their efficiency is equal. Obviously, electric motors are most efficient in the slow range, while ICE is more efficient at higher speed and this is why mild hybrids are designed as they are. So on the highway, hybrid should be a better choice than just using up the HV battery @ 75mph and then switching to sport mode. Do I have data to back that up? Nope! The display of 'available electric miles' is always just a forward-looking guesstimate based on the way you have driven recently. So it's not an accurate predictor of electric range under different conditions - like transitioning to highway driving at the top speeds of the electric system or even the effect of changes in the outside temperatures that affect HV battery range. So without taking the car to a dyno and running my own tests - yeah, ridiculous! - I'm just trusting the B-mer programming.

[TurtleBoy]

Originally Posted by Francolargo

Exec. summary: I just use 'hybrid' on road trips and leave it at that.

I would think the caveat to that is that you don't expect to use preconditioning during your trip. If a person does need to use it and charging is not practical then battery hold would need to be employed.

[eelnoraa]

Originally Posted by Francolargo

Exec. summary: I just use 'hybrid' on road trips and leave it at that.

Rationale Re: the quote:
In theory I believe it does matter how you use the battery unless both motors are employed under conditions where their efficiency is equal. Obviously, electric motors are most efficient in the slow range, while ICE is more efficient at higher speed and this is why mild hybrids are designed as they are. So on the highway, hybrid should be a better choice than just using up the HV battery @ 75mph and then switching to sport mode. Do I have data to back that up? Nope! The display of 'available electric miles' is always just a forward-looking guesstimate based on the way you have driven recently. So it's not an accurate predictor of electric range under different conditions - like transitioning to highway driving at the top speeds of the electric system or even the effect of changes in the outside temperatures that affect HV battery range. So without taking the car to a dyno and running my own tests - yeah, ridiculous! - I'm just trusting the B-mer programming.

So what is efficiency? how do you compare MPG vs mi/kWh of totally different unit for consumption. Is 25MPG better or worse than 2Mile/kWh? there is really no point discussion "efficiency" in this sense, right?

When you don't use NAV, the car simply prioritize eDrive over ICE. It isn't thinking about efficiency. If you use NAV, then it will try to preserved HVB, so when you get to destination, HVB will be close to zero usable. But as I showed, it is very premitive, and can be off. In both cases, if you need precondition at destination, it may not be avaiable.

[nZtiZia]

Originally Posted by Francolargo

In theory I believe it does matter how you use the battery unless both motors are employed under conditions where their efficiency is equal. Obviously, electric motors are most efficient in the slow range, while ICE is more efficient at higher speed and this is why mild hybrids are designed as they are. So on the highway, hybrid should be a better choice than just using up the HV battery @ 75mph and then switching to sport mode. Do I have data to back that up? Nope! The display of 'available electric miles' is always just a forward-looking guesstimate based on the way you have driven recently. So it's not an accurate predictor of electric range under different conditions - like transitioning to highway driving at the top speeds of the electric system or even the effect of changes in the outside temperatures that affect HV battery range. So without taking the car to a dyno and running my own tests - yeah, ridiculous! - I'm just trusting the B-mer programming.

not “in theory” at all, mate! it does matter when and how the battery is utilized, but for simplicity purposes and generalization that all factors are equal other than drive train, I didn’t want to get into all that, but now that you went there…

one example: terrain will have an effect on efficiency depending on what drive train is utilized at any given moment for any given topographical feature. let’s say on one trip you drove up a mountainside under electric power but on another trip you drove up it under ICE power. was it more efficient under electric or ICE power? the final Trip Data will likely show a difference and will likely not be significant, so like you, I would also just put it in Hybrid mode and let the vehicle figure things out. some may actually tinker with drive modes, though

another example: you want to be able to precondition, so having some battery capacity available to do so will require some intervention on your part, i.e. Battery Control/Battery Hold or Sport drive mode. leaving it on Hybrid mode will only keep 3-6% minimum charge good for maybe one preconditioning cycle?

[jad03060]

When using a trip in the built-in NAV, the computer will try to save some battery for the low-speed or ICE restricted locations. At this time, the USA does not have any ICE restricted zones that are more common in Europe. Other than that, in hybrid mode, the computer will always try to utilize the most efficient motor.

[nZtiZia]

Originally Posted by jad03060

When using a trip in the built-in NAV, the computer will try to save some battery for the low-speed or ICE restricted locations. At this time, the USA does not have any ICE restricted zones that are more common in Europe. Other than that, in hybrid mode, the computer will always try to utilize the most efficient motor.

there are three eDrive zones in the U.S. (Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Jose) though they’re not mandatory like those in the EU. these zones were designed to increase electric driving, thus reducing emissions and fuel costs

[jad03060]

The zones in the US are 'optional', while using an ICE in many of those in Europe will either cost you extra, if it's allowed at all, or prohibit you from entering. My guess is that the logic applies to those in the US, though. I'm a long way away, so haven't experienced them.

For example, the zone in London costs 12.50 pounds/day unless you have a qualifying vehicle. That's something to pay attention to your battery charge state!

[eelnoraa]

Originally Posted by nZtiZia

there are three eDrive zones in the U.S. (Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Jose) though they’re not mandatory like those in the EU. these zones were designed to increase electric driving, thus reducing emissions and fuel costs

SF ezone will put 45e into electric mode when existing highway. You can then free to overwrite it if you want to. On highway within SF, sport mode can remain.

Reduce emission maybe, not reducing "fuel cost" if we consider electricity as alternative fuel. $/mile now is about 50% higher with eDrive.

[nZtiZia]

Originally Posted by eelnoraa

SF ezone will put 45e into electric mode when existing highway. You can then free to overwrite it if you want to. On highway within SF, sport mode can remain.

Reduce emission maybe, not reducing "fuel cost" if we consider electricity as alternative fuel. $/mile now is about 50% higher with eDrive.

that is so backwards, sadly!

[TurtleBoy]

Originally Posted by eelnoraa

Reduce emission maybe, not reducing "fuel cost" if we consider electricity as alternative fuel. $/mile now is about 50% higher with eDrive.

That is for the 45e/PHEV though right? For EV's the cost per mile should be less than a comparable (however that is defined) ICE vehicle shouldn't it?

[eelnoraa]

Originally Posted by TurtleBoy

That is for the 45e/PHEV though right? For EV's the cost per mile should be less than a comparable (however that is defined) ICE vehicle shouldn't it?

It still aren't compatible. One of the most efficient EV currently is something like Nissan Leaf (4mi/kWh). And we need to compare this to cars like Toyota Prius (57MPG)

Gas this week is $3.78 for 87, making $/mile $0.06/mile for Prius
kWh ToU-C off peak Tier2: $0.49 + generation ~= $0.56, making $0.14 for Nissan Leaf.

If we compare Model 3 to Camry Hybrid, or Model Y to Rav4 hybrid result will be similar too.

[TurtleBoy]

Originally Posted by eelnoraa

It still aren't compatible. One of the most efficient EV currently is something like Nissan Leaf (4mi/kWh). And we need to compare this to cars like Toyota Prius (57MPG)

Gas this week is $3.78 for 87, making $/mile $0.06/mile for Prius
kWh ToU-C off peak Tier2: $0.49 + generation ~= $0.56, making $0.14 for Nissan Leaf.

If we compare Model 3 to Camry Hybrid, or Model Y to Rav4 hybrid result will be similar too.

Those are hybrids though, I was referring to ICE vehicles. In other words something like the iX versus the X5. Or the I5 versus the 540i series. It really all if going to depend on the cost of electricity and gas. Being on the iX forum some folks in the SF area are paying a lot less than .56/kWh. I guess my point was that each situation needs to be looked at in order to determine what would be the most cost efficient.

For your situation running an iX would be a lot more expensive than a 40i. In my situation it would be the exact opposite.

This is a decent site for comparison however to be more accurate I just use it to get some data and then do the calculations as I don't believe it takes into account charging losses.

https://chooseev.com/savings-calculator/

[eelnoraa]

Originally Posted by TurtleBoy

Those are hybrids though, I was referring to ICE vehicles. In other words something like the iX versus the X5. Or the I5 versus the 540i series. It really all if going to depend on the cost of electricity and gas. Being on the iX forum some folks in the SF area are paying a lot less than .56/kWh. I guess my point was that each situation needs to be looked at in order to determine what would be the most cost efficient.

For your situation running an iX would be a lot more expensive than a 40i. In my situation it would be the exact opposite.

This is a decent site for comparison however to be more accurate I just use it to get some data and then do the calculations as I don't believe it takes into account charging losses.

https://chooseev.com/savings-calculator/

I was referring to SF because i was referring to SF ezone operation. I know people live in SF city, they are 100% on PGE. I lived there before. I would actually want to know those who are paying substantial less per kWh, sos they even look at their bill correctly. Many will look at generation cost and think that was it, and it is $0.13 or so. I wonder did they look at delivery cost, which is more of $0.4x. Total is sum of the two.

There are small spots in the bay where people pay substantial less because their electricity is provided by city, such as Santa Clara, San Carlos, …. But coverage is very small.

[TurtleBoy]

Originally Posted by eelnoraa

I was referring to SF because i was referring to SF ezone operation. I know people live in SF city, they are 100% on PGE. I lived there before. I would actually want to know those who are paying substantial less per kWh, sos they even look at their bill correctly. Many will look at generation cost and think that was it, and it is $0.13 or so. I wonder did they look at delivery cost, which is more of $0.4x. Total is sum of the two.

There are small spots in the bay where people pay substantial less because their electricity is provided by city, such as Santa Clara, San Carlos, …. But coverage is very small.

I did mention generation and delivery and they said they were considering both. If I have time I will see if I can find that data. If I remember correctly they were about .40 all in. I think they had different rates for charging as well as different by season (summer/winter).

Edit: I did find one but he is from San Mateo County so not SF proper.

"Looking at my PG&E bill today, I see 40 cents per kWh off-peak rate in San Mateo county in winter and 45 cents in summer. My average kWh also costs the same, so in reality with everything included the off-peak cost is a little less. This is a winter rate, and this is also not an EV-friendly rate as I haven't switched yet. The EV rate should be even cheaper for off-peak.

UPD E-ELEC plan charges 42 cents off peak in summer and 37 cents in winter, and EV plan charges 34 cents during both season, but increases the price substantially during peak times, which is not ideal for folks who have electric heating like myself."