> seems like a 75mile battery + gas is both more practical and requires less infra

I think it's hard to economically hit that and give a car that folks are OK driving within limitations.

Mazda tried to do a range extender setup on the MX-30, however it didn't sell that well and my understanding is the range extender wasn't good for hills or highway cases.

Non Range Extender setups, actually typically work better if you're stuck in gas mode than a range extender, mostly because you can use the mechanical energy from the ICE more directly than the losses of something feeding energy directly into the drivetrain. However, once you hit that point anything after 2 or 3 KWh of battery is just dead weight on the car. I'm guessing that's why even the Prius prime is only around 40 miles of range.

Of course, the elephant in the room is the US addiction to huge vehicles (which need even bigger batteries...)

Edit:

Seeing the edit of what I'm replying to, I'll add that yes PHEVs are probably a 'better' option than BEVs for many people, but the cost of a PHEV can be as much or more than a BEV. Look at a Chevrolet Equinox EV vs a Rav4 Prime. The Rav4 Prime is 10K more expensive. Happy to consider a different comparison here but overall nobody has figured out how to make a PHEV that is cheaper than a similar EV.

let's look at a car that's available as all options: the kia Niro - and let's look at the 2022 since I found the info easily:

$28,790: MSRP of the 2022 Niro L HEV (hybrid)

$34,390: MSRP of the 2022 Niro EX PHEV (plug-in hybrid with an electric range of 51 kms.

$46,790: starting price of the 2022 Niro EX EV (all battery electric vehicle with a range of 386 kms)

it's just simple math. if you take a 400 mile road trip 4 times a year, and your electricity is totally free for the sake of example, gas is 5 bucks a gallon, how long does it take for the EV to pay itself off, assuming the regular commute is 40km daily otherwise? answer is almost 15 years. doesn't make any sense.

It's called precautionary consumption.

We tend to act with a scarcity and "what if" mindset.

It doesn't matter if you never drive 400 miles, or rarely, you're spending money, significant one in case of a car, thus range becomes an issue.

Is there really anyone who never drives 400 miles during the lifespan of a car purchase? Certainly I can’t believe it’s a majority of people.

I've known a few. But they are certainly not the majority.

I've known far more people who have to do a 400-600 mile drive at least once a month.

I don't think I have driven my car 400 miles in a single leg.

400 miles is the range where I

1. Seriously consider flying

2. Plan it in such a way that I can have lunch as a long break between driving sessions.

3. Rent a car and carpool with other people if it's a road-trip type thing.

It just so happens that my friends are either all within 150 miles of me, or so far away that driving isn't a real option.

I also don’t understand 700+ HP motors and <3 sec 0-60mph times. Who needs that?

This is very true. I would give up acceleration for higher range. I think high acceleration is only needed to about 35 miles an hour.

AFAIK the range benefits you'd get from a smaller electrical motor are minimal, and in the cost of a vehicle the bigger motor doesn't add a huge cost.

Also, a bigger motor can be more reliable, if you're not running it at full bore you've probably got better heat dissipation so it will last longer.

The other issue is people's addiction for large vehicles; bigger vehicle means bigger battery means more weight means more power needed to move everything. As an example a Blazer EV weighs 25-35% more than the ICE version. Take that with the comments about reliability, it counter-intuitively makes a lot of sense that the Blazer EV has a 500hp motor vs the 200-300HP in the ICE.

As far as 'acceleration' itself, Acceleration tends to be more of a factor of torque curve. Electric motors tend to give lots of torque very quick... I accidentally chirp the tires on my Ford Maverick in a year more times than I was ever able to do even trying in my WRX. [0]

[0] - Sure, the WRX is all wheel drive but it's also a good 450 pounds lighter than the Mav.

The BMW i3 was the fastest BMW from 0-35 for a while and I don't recall ever chirping the tires. This model was rear wheel drive...

Probably a few factors...

The i3 is rear wheel drive but it's also rear wheel motor. Bigger skateboard battery means lower center of gravity. But perhaps the biggest factor is RWD the drive wheels don't have to steer (I'd say at least 2/3 of my 'chirps' were starting a turn). I'd be willing to wager the BMW has a better TCS software too.

Also I don't run stock tires on my Maverick, I run DriveGuard Plus[1] which are probably less grippy than the standard tires.

[1] - FWIW The WRX has 'OG' DriveGuard tires, The Plus supposedly are a -little- more grippy... Only lost 1 or 2 MPG on the Maverick changing to them from stock.

The i3 has ridiculously narrow tires. I still memory burn my first experience of BMW TCS from the mid- eighties. My friends Dad got a BMW M5. That car made seemed to just seemed to accelerate.

That is also my understanding. I believe the faster one can charge the battery the faster the battery can run the motor.

Place right turn signal on. People to the right of you make a hole. You move over. You decide to stay there until traffic is empty to pass again without impeding others. You never leave your zen.

From the GP's description, "passing a long line of cars", unless that vehicle is flashing emergency lights you certainly don't need to move over to accommodate an aggressive driver to your rear (and doing so might force you to slow down to a halt). This situation is common when there's a backed-up highway exit for example.

But I don't think a powerful engine is needed in that scenario either. The only case where it's really needed is accelerating up a steep hill.

Depends on where you’re driving. On the Autobahn, or even in some US states, impeding a vehicle in the passing lane is a violation even if you’re going at or over the speed limit.

I'm skeptical. If you are moving at the same speed as (or slower than) traffic in the right lane, or if the right lane is clear, then sure, no doubt. Drive on the right, pass on the left. But in this scenario you are currently passing on the left. The traffic on the right may even be gridlocked. In which states must you clear the lane even when you yourself are presently passing on the left of slower traffic in the right lane?

> People to the right of you make a hole.

Sometimes, but not so common not in my experience.

Assuming 70MPH is already 5 miles over the limit in this case and the vehicle behind you is not an emergency responder...

All you're doing is letting a dickhead bully win and letting bad people get away with bad behavior.

I never run out of top-end acceleration even when the speed limit is 75. I find the 0-35 is the sweet spot for pulling out if the curve drops after that I don't really notice it. A few months back I rented an ICE car and I had to change my driving style. I would step on the gas and mostly got noise back.

It depends a lot on the ICE and setup.

If I'm in my WRX and I do need to go above 75 quickly, I can drop into 4th and get to 80 more quickly. But I've got a stick so I can do that. If I'm in something with a slushbox, I have to wait for the thing to decide that downshifting is needed before it will pick up. I'll admit the Toyota Hybrids hit a good 'in-between' for these (probably closer to an EV than either a Manual or a slushbox.) I'll get a bit of instant acceleration but anything after a half second to second is a bit slower.

I have the range extender option which is one-cylinder scooter motor(.733 CI) with a 2 gallon tank. If I need to travel over 70 on the REX I will lose out on HVAC.

Man, I will certainly change the bully's lifelong behavior by making him ride 12" off my rear bumper for 5 miles while incurring no personal danger when teaching him the error of his ways.

If he's riding your rear bumper for 5 miles in the left lane, you might have been in the left lane too long vs using it for passing.

If he's riding your rear bumper for 5 miles after the fact, well obviously he wasn't in that much of a rush to begin with.

There is some market for a 2nd vehicle in a family which has more limitations. But the biggest market is for a do-everything vehicle. The question isn't what is the mean or median commute, its what is the 99.9th percentile journey. Sure it can get you to work and back, but can it get you to grandmother's house for Thanksgiving dinner?

I think targetting the 99.9th percentile trip is maybe even a bit low. A commuting American has at least two car trips per typical day, probably more like 5. So 1 trip in a thousand means something that comes up more than annually.

my comment is saying that you would have both gas and electric capabilities, so yes.

people want to use the same car for road trips or just the ability to run a bunch of errands in one day without worrying about range.

There is also the occasional whoops something has come up and I don't have the range I need.

Hurricane evacuation routes come to mind.

I can travel most of the time on a single charge. My overall range is just below 300 miles in ideal conditions to 180 miles in worst case scenario. In the USA I would like to be able to have that range between 500 miles and 300 miles. If the charge time is 5 minutes I would change my opinion on what is needed for range.