> And is there anything wrong with a small battery that's enough (or nearly enough) for the daily commute, and a gas engine to take you where you can't go? Wro

> And is there anything wrong with a small battery that's enough (or nearly enough) for the daily commute, and a gas engine to take you where you can't go? Wrong? No. But it's not the same thing as a large battery that can do both. You could drive a Tesla from the Mexican border to Disneyland and back without needing to charge. That is not bad range. The Volt could do that too, but it would spend about 80% of the trip burning gas. If you care about that, it's worse. If you don't care, then I guess you could say they're equivalent, but I don't quite understand why you're bothering with EVs in that case. Basically, I don't have anything against people driving Volts. I don't drive an EV either — I have an old Prius. I am just annoyed by the rhetorical games people are playing here to draw false equivalences that favor of their favorite car. When it supports the Volt, you'll compare cars in hyper-specific categories like "highest-capacity pure-electric mode vehicle with an on board generator." But when I suggest that there's a substantive difference between a pure electric car and a car whose rated range comes 90% from gasoline and that somebody might care about that difference, that's unreasonable because "at the end of the day, they're basically cars." Nowhere in this thread have I criticized anyone for owning a Volt. I've just said there's a difference between a car with a 16 kWh battery and a car with a 90 kWh battery, and equating them with each other makes about as much sense as equating them with a Mustang (which costs about the same and can also drive about the same distance between fill-ups).