4 ms·

We own a 2018 Chrysler Pacifica Hybrid (PHEV) Cost after 7500 tax credit was comparable (slightly higher) than gas only variants with dealer discounts. Winter

We own a 2018 Chrysler Pacifica Hybrid (PHEV) Cost after 7500 tax credit was comparable (slightly higher) than gas only variants with dealer discounts. Winter mpg(e) was fairly unimpressive, about 24mpg(e) combined. Chrysler programmed (?) the car to run heavy on the gas engine when temperatures drop. There are no settings or overrides like the Volt (my only other PHEV experience) As it is warming up mpge is climbing up to 34mpge, however we havent owned it for a summer or long enough during the warm season to comment on long term warm mileage. Overall we are satisified. Our utility rates are about 11 cents per kWh. We came from an Odyssey that could barely manage 19mpg around town, so 34+ all the while utilizing cheaper electric rates as fuel makes me happy. We don't drive much highway other than roadtrips. The one we have taken resulted in about 27mpg, which was slightly better than our Odyssey could do, but nothing earth shattering. Driving in pure electric is interesting and even though the electric motor alone produces nowhere near the horsepower as the V6 it still performs well. I almost feel sorry for the automakers though in making PHEV vehicles. They are complicated and I assume yield alot of complicated questions at the dealer level. If Tesla made a van, I would have strongly considered it, however the model X didn't meet our needs.

r00fus 9y ago
Was considering a Pacifica - does it not do pure-EV mode?
- astraelraen 9y ago
  It does pure-EV. Advertised range in pure-EV is about 30-36 miles. We have only owned it since October 2017. The actual range we get in pure-EV has been about 20ish give or take a few miles either direction. My comment related to the gas engine is under cold temperatures. Chrysler doesn't let you control any aspect of how the gas engine turns on or is utilized. From what I understand most the PHEV give you the ability to somewhat override the car. Ie set a preference for the gas engine to come on or tell the car that you want "max EV range." The Pacifica does what it wants to do in terms of gas/electric hand-off. It seems to be heavily temperature dependent. I'm sure Chrysler programmed it to use gas when its cold as its more efficient to warm up/heat the cabin when cold using the gas engine. I would say based upon one winter's experience. Anything much under 35/40F will result in significant usage of the gas engine no matter the electric charge. When it was in the mid-20s here (not uncommon) my wife could drop the kids off at school and make her round trip commute (11 miles) and it would use the gas engine significantly during that trip to warm up the van. That being said, we just did errands over the weekend and it used 100% EV until the battery was depleted - the temperature was 50+ outside the entire time.
semi-extrinsic 9y ago
> If Tesla made a van, I would have strongly considered it I'm certain the reason they don't is that it would either have a sub-100 mile range (like the actually existing Nissan NV200e electric van), or it would have a 10 000 lbs curb weight and cost well north of $200k. I mean, at highway speeds air resistance is what you're spending your gas/electricity on fighting against. For a Model S, measured drag coefficient and projected frontal area imply that to maintain 70 mph for one hour you're spending 10 kWh. For a Ford Transit van, the drag coefficient doubles and the projected area increases by a whopping 5x, so you're looking at 100 kWh spent to maintain 70 mph for one hour. This implies an electric full-size van with the range of a Model S would require at least 600 kWh of battery capacity installed, giving a battery weight alone of 7500 lbs (3500 kg)!!!
- ccamrobertson 9y ago
  I think the answer is simpler than that; minivans aren't sexy. Tesla is focused on gobbling up potential BMW and Audi buyers who have the budget for a fully loaded X5 or Q7 and aren't willing to give up the sex appeal (at least until kids 2-3 come along). A Ford Transit van is a pretty big leap for someone who wants a vehicle to cart around kids, pets and their associated gear. The 2017 Chrysler Pacifica offers a drag coefficient of 0.30 vs. 0.24 for the Model X. Given Tesla's aggressive reduction in drag and frontal area on the Model X (with respect to other SUVs) I expect they could get away with a much more modest bump in battery capacity if minivans became the next hot ticket.
  - semi-extrinsic 9y ago
    You're right that minivans aren't sexy. And that the Model X has significantly better aerodynamics than a X5 or a Q7. But it doesn't match the carrying capacity of either. I mean, with a Q7 you can carry your three kids with just two seat rows, so you can still fit two strollers and enough luggage for a three week holiday in the trunk. With a Model X, not so much. And thanks to the fancy doors, forget about compensating with a roofbox. It's more comparable to a BMW X4 or a Mercedes GLC Coupe. And even then, the Model X is almost 90 inches wide, same as a H1 Hummer, as opposed to 77 inches for the "bigger" Q7.

r00fus 9y ago

Was considering a Pacifica - does it not do pure-EV mode?

astraelraen 9y ago
It does pure-EV. Advertised range in pure-EV is about 30-36 miles. We have only owned it since October 2017. The actual range we get in pure-EV has been about 20ish give or take a few miles either direction. My comment related to the gas engine is under cold temperatures. Chrysler doesn't let you control any aspect of how the gas engine turns on or is utilized. From what I understand most the PHEV give you the ability to somewhat override the car. Ie set a preference for the gas engine to come on or tell the car that you want "max EV range." The Pacifica does what it wants to do in terms of gas/electric hand-off. It seems to be heavily temperature dependent. I'm sure Chrysler programmed it to use gas when its cold as its more efficient to warm up/heat the cabin when cold using the gas engine. I would say based upon one winter's experience. Anything much under 35/40F will result in significant usage of the gas engine no matter the electric charge. When it was in the mid-20s here (not uncommon) my wife could drop the kids off at school and make her round trip commute (11 miles) and it would use the gas engine significantly during that trip to warm up the van. That being said, we just did errands over the weekend and it used 100% EV until the battery was depleted - the temperature was 50+ outside the entire time.

semi-extrinsic 9y ago

> If Tesla made a van, I would have strongly considered it I'm certain the reason they don't is that it would either have a sub-100 mile range (like the actually existing Nissan NV200e electric van), or it would have a 10 000 lbs curb weight and cost well north of $200k. I mean, at highway speeds air resistance is what you're spending your gas/electricity on fighting against. For a Model S, measured drag coefficient and projected frontal area imply that to maintain 70 mph for one hour you're spending 10 kWh. For a Ford Transit van, the drag coefficient doubles and the projected area increases by a whopping 5x, so you're looking at 100 kWh spent to maintain 70 mph for one hour. This implies an electric full-size van with the range of a Model S would require at least 600 kWh of battery capacity installed, giving a battery weight alone of 7500 lbs (3500 kg)!!!

ccamrobertson 9y ago
I think the answer is simpler than that; minivans aren't sexy. Tesla is focused on gobbling up potential BMW and Audi buyers who have the budget for a fully loaded X5 or Q7 and aren't willing to give up the sex appeal (at least until kids 2-3 come along). A Ford Transit van is a pretty big leap for someone who wants a vehicle to cart around kids, pets and their associated gear. The 2017 Chrysler Pacifica offers a drag coefficient of 0.30 vs. 0.24 for the Model X. Given Tesla's aggressive reduction in drag and frontal area on the Model X (with respect to other SUVs) I expect they could get away with a much more modest bump in battery capacity if minivans became the next hot ticket.
- semi-extrinsic 9y ago
  You're right that minivans aren't sexy. And that the Model X has significantly better aerodynamics than a X5 or a Q7. But it doesn't match the carrying capacity of either. I mean, with a Q7 you can carry your three kids with just two seat rows, so you can still fit two strollers and enough luggage for a three week holiday in the trunk. With a Model X, not so much. And thanks to the fancy doors, forget about compensating with a roofbox. It's more comparable to a BMW X4 or a Mercedes GLC Coupe. And even then, the Model X is almost 90 inches wide, same as a H1 Hummer, as opposed to 77 inches for the "bigger" Q7.