> If the engine is able to always operate at peak efficiency, there is little reason to bother with batteries beyond a bit for handling transient peaks. My thi

> If the engine is able to always operate at peak efficiency, there is little reason to bother with batteries beyond a bit for handling transient peaks. My thinking here is that most of these theoretical cars would spend a good part of their life only operating on battery power - basically, all of the home-to-work-to-supermarket-to-home trips would be pure electric in my mind. So much so that I've wondered if the ECU would need to occasionally run the ICE for a bit just to make sure it doesn't ever spend so much time without being turned on that entirely different problems arise. > it's sorta the worst of both worlds I get this. This idea is very much the best of both worlds/worst of both worlds depending on your point of view. > more expensive (since two drivetrains, essentially) I'm not sure about this. I think the right comparison here is to imagine a battery that has (say) 25% of the range of a Model 3 battery, but is (say) 30 or 35% of the cost. Based on EV battery replacement cost, could you buy a cheap 3-cyl ICE engine and generator for that? Intuitively this feels possible, though I'll admit I don't have access to the data to be able to say, for sure how these costs would compare at scale. > A constant RPM motor for an extended period isn't a super enjoyable sound, either. The sound should be similar to the sound a pure ICE car makes on the freeway when on cruse at a constant speed and not changing gear. Yeah, you'd need to tune the exhaust to make sure the sound is pleasing, but this feels like a solvable problem also. (As an aside, sorry if it feels like I'm hassling you. I'm honestly not, this is just an idea that has lived in the back of my brain for a bit and I'm enjoying the discussion.)