6 ms·

Both can do 1k km on 75l, so apart from the Volvo‘s smaller battery, where‘s the difference for the end user? I think it’s a waste of materials to build such ca

by manmal 3y ago

Both can do 1k km on 75l, so apart from the Volvo‘s smaller battery, where‘s the difference for the end user? I think it’s a waste of materials to build such cars, but given the weight the consumption seems impressive.

gambiting 3y ago
Both cars are plug in hybrids - you need to charge them externally to get the most out of them. BYD needs literally 5x the electricity of the Volvo(50kWh Vs 10kWh) for the same range, so the owner is definitely going to notice it on their energy bill.
- buran77 3y ago
  > BYD needs literally 5x the electricity of the Volvo(50kWh Vs 10kWh) for the same range Which "same range"? Did you just calculate electric efficiency using the total range including gasoline? In that case your PHEV needs an infinite times the electricity of a car driving on gasoline alone. If anything on paper the U8 is 10% more efficient (Volvo says 50km from the 15kWh battery, not 10kWh). With gasoline factored in you have two vehicles with equal 1000km range despite the U8 being significantly heavier. You can argue that the CLTC isn't nearly as accurate as the WLTP and you'd be right but you still need to check your math and/or logic above.
  - gambiting 3y ago
    >>Which "same range"? Volvo can do 1000km using 75 litres of petrol + 10kWh of electricity(and it is 10kWh in my model, 15kWh is a newer one). BYD can do 1000km using 75 litres of petrol + 50kWh of electricity. The math on this is very simple, no?
    - abenga 3y ago
      Sounds like they have the same range. Different power efficiency, for sure, but they do have the same range fully fueled and charged.
      - gambiting 3y ago
        .....which is exactly what I said. I complained about BYD's efficiency not range.
    - oefrha 3y ago
      Using current U.S. numbers [1][2]: average electricity price is $0.162/kWh, might be cheaper off peak or with solar roof; average gas price is $3.083/gal ($0.815/L) for regular, and $3.885/gal ($1.026/L) for premium which is recommended for your Volvo. So, with regular gas: 75L + 50kWh: 75 * 0.815 + 50 * 0.162 = 69.225 75L + 10kWh: 75 * 0.815 + 10 * 0.162 = 63.525 A difference of 10.3%. With premium gas: 75L + 50kWh: 75 * 1.026 + 50 * 0.162 = 85.050 75L + 10kWh: 75 * 1.026 + 10 * 0.162 = 78.570 A difference of 8.2%. You failed to mention it's the gas part that's frigging expensive. [1] https://www.energybot.com/electricity-rates/ https://www.energybot.com/electricity-rates/ [2] https://gasprices.aaa.com/ https://gasprices.aaa.com/
      - gambiting 3y ago
        I'm not in the US. In Europe my Volvo doesn't require premium 98 octane , regular 95 is fine. I appreciate the calculation but I don't know why you're trying so hard to escape the fact that the BYD needs 40kWh more(!!!!!) to travel the same distance(combined with 75 litres of petrol) - it's not hard to see that(as I said 70 comments ago) the BYD is a heavier and less efficient car. There isn't much to argue with here(or at least I wouldn't think so?).
        oefrha 3y ago
        Pretty sure your comment trying to paint or at least hint at the BYD being 5x inefficient is the strange one, when it's actually ~1.1x. Which would be really low down on the list of things to consider when purchasing a $150k SUV. If I were in the market for one, I would go for the option that gives me 180km electric range rather than a puny 50km so that all the day to day short range driving is comfortably covered, even if it's only 90% efficient. In addition, if we compare only the first 180km, your Volvo (using regular gas) comes out at 75 * 0.815 / (1000 - 50) * (180 - 50) + 10 * 0.162 = 9.98 which is actually more expensive. Edit: All the precise calculations are in fact quite pointless. > so the owner is definitely going to notice it on their energy bill. Highly doubt owners of $150k SUVs are sensitive to ~$600 more over 100k kilometers.
        buran77 3y ago
        Your logic is still... lacking. I don't say it lightly but it might be the worst case of obtuseness I've seen in many years of HN. You mix and match units when calculating a ratio of efficiency and it gets you meaningless conclusions. By your "logic" a Tesla M3, a leader in electric efficiency, is the worst of the bunch. It needs ~100kWh of electricity to drive the same 1000km distance. And ICE cars can do that trip with 0 electricity, many even with less fuel so they must be the best? It makes no sense other than for you to feel good about your car. But your car needs 10-11kWh to drive ideally a pathetic 30km (!) and 75l of fuel for the other 970km. Other ICE cars, or non-PHEV XC60 (the diesel) need no electricity and 50-60l of fuel for the same distance. And they're much cheaper to buy. So why did you pay anywhere between 15k-45k EUR more to have a "compliance car" hybrid that doesn't even float (/s) when this means you're just getting "less efficient"? Unless you bought the bragging rights, and now you're here to defend them. The goal of any electrified car is to drive as much as possible on electric power alone without the need to run the engine. Not only because ideally some owners can make their own electricity but also for comfort and emissions.
- manmal 3y ago
  The old XC60 can do 50km on 9.1kWh of battery - that’s 18kWh per 100km - IMO that’s super optimistic for an SUV of that size (and assumes no heating, AC, lights etc), but let’s assume it holds. The BYD can do 180km on a 50kWh battery, that’s 28kWh per 100km. How did you arrive at 5x worse? It’s not even 2x worse. And again, I don’t buy the 50km claim from Volvo, outside of perfect conditions (eg daytime in May, no rain, no AC, low air resistance).
  - gambiting 3y ago
    I have done 52km in the past before the ICE kicked in(in perfect conditons, but yes). >>How did you arrive at 5x worse You have two cars, they both are fully charged and fueled up. They both drive 1000km and then stop. They both burnt 75 litres of petrol, but one used 10kWh of electricity, the other used 50kWh of electricity. How much more electricity has the second car used Vs the first one?
    - manmal 3y ago
      Well you‘re making the error of assuming that charging the PHEV before a trip is required. Also, the fact that the BYD is 5x more electricity costs is almost irrelevant for a 1k km trip, because there‘s just an $8 difference for the whole trip, assuming $0.2 per kWh. On shorter trips, the BYD will come out on top because it can go on battery for way longer, which is (even at 27kWh/100km) cheaper than the Volvo on gasoline/Diesel. The charging functionality is just a bonus for hybrids (I doubt many people drive a big part of their mileage electric by plugging in). Primarily, the battery serves to conserve energy while decelerating. The BYD obviously also uses the battery as a buffer for its range extender, but the Volvo doesn’t do that.
      - gambiting 3y ago
        >>Well you‘re making the error of assuming that charging the PHEV before a trip is required No, I'm literally going off what the manufacturer said - 1000km range when the battery charge and fuel tank are combined. That's it. People keep making comparisons for shorter trips, for driving with an empty battery, for driving on battery range only etc etc etc - all of it misses the point I'm making. >>I doubt many people drive a big part of their mileage electric by plugging in). If they don't, then why buy a PHEV at all? If you have a PHEV and never plug it in, then your efficiency will be worse than that of a simple MHEV or even a straight up ICE-only car.

by manmal 3y ago

gambiting 3y ago

Both cars are plug in hybrids - you need to charge them externally to get the most out of them. BYD needs literally 5x the electricity of the Volvo(50kWh Vs 10kWh) for the same range, so the owner is definitely going to notice it on their energy bill.

buran77 3y ago
> BYD needs literally 5x the electricity of the Volvo(50kWh Vs 10kWh) for the same range Which "same range"? Did you just calculate electric efficiency using the total range including gasoline? In that case your PHEV needs an infinite times the electricity of a car driving on gasoline alone. If anything on paper the U8 is 10% more efficient (Volvo says 50km from the 15kWh battery, not 10kWh). With gasoline factored in you have two vehicles with equal 1000km range despite the U8 being significantly heavier. You can argue that the CLTC isn't nearly as accurate as the WLTP and you'd be right but you still need to check your math and/or logic above.
- gambiting 3y ago
  >>Which "same range"? Volvo can do 1000km using 75 litres of petrol + 10kWh of electricity(and it is 10kWh in my model, 15kWh is a newer one). BYD can do 1000km using 75 litres of petrol + 50kWh of electricity. The math on this is very simple, no?
  - abenga 3y ago
    Sounds like they have the same range. Different power efficiency, for sure, but they do have the same range fully fueled and charged.
    - gambiting 3y ago
      .....which is exactly what I said. I complained about BYD's efficiency not range.
  - oefrha 3y ago
    Using current U.S. numbers [1][2]: average electricity price is $0.162/kWh, might be cheaper off peak or with solar roof; average gas price is $3.083/gal ($0.815/L) for regular, and $3.885/gal ($1.026/L) for premium which is recommended for your Volvo. So, with regular gas: 75L + 50kWh: 75 * 0.815 + 50 * 0.162 = 69.225 75L + 10kWh: 75 * 0.815 + 10 * 0.162 = 63.525 A difference of 10.3%. With premium gas: 75L + 50kWh: 75 * 1.026 + 50 * 0.162 = 85.050 75L + 10kWh: 75 * 1.026 + 10 * 0.162 = 78.570 A difference of 8.2%. You failed to mention it's the gas part that's frigging expensive. [1] https://www.energybot.com/electricity-rates/ https://www.energybot.com/electricity-rates/ [2] https://gasprices.aaa.com/ https://gasprices.aaa.com/
    - gambiting 3y ago
      I'm not in the US. In Europe my Volvo doesn't require premium 98 octane , regular 95 is fine. I appreciate the calculation but I don't know why you're trying so hard to escape the fact that the BYD needs 40kWh more(!!!!!) to travel the same distance(combined with 75 litres of petrol) - it's not hard to see that(as I said 70 comments ago) the BYD is a heavier and less efficient car. There isn't much to argue with here(or at least I wouldn't think so?).
      - oefrha 3y ago
        Pretty sure your comment trying to paint or at least hint at the BYD being 5x inefficient is the strange one, when it's actually ~1.1x. Which would be really low down on the list of things to consider when purchasing a $150k SUV. If I were in the market for one, I would go for the option that gives me 180km electric range rather than a puny 50km so that all the day to day short range driving is comfortably covered, even if it's only 90% efficient. In addition, if we compare only the first 180km, your Volvo (using regular gas) comes out at 75 * 0.815 / (1000 - 50) * (180 - 50) + 10 * 0.162 = 9.98 which is actually more expensive. Edit: All the precise calculations are in fact quite pointless. > so the owner is definitely going to notice it on their energy bill. Highly doubt owners of $150k SUVs are sensitive to ~$600 more over 100k kilometers.
      - buran77 3y ago
        Your logic is still... lacking. I don't say it lightly but it might be the worst case of obtuseness I've seen in many years of HN. You mix and match units when calculating a ratio of efficiency and it gets you meaningless conclusions. By your "logic" a Tesla M3, a leader in electric efficiency, is the worst of the bunch. It needs ~100kWh of electricity to drive the same 1000km distance. And ICE cars can do that trip with 0 electricity, many even with less fuel so they must be the best? It makes no sense other than for you to feel good about your car. But your car needs 10-11kWh to drive ideally a pathetic 30km (!) and 75l of fuel for the other 970km. Other ICE cars, or non-PHEV XC60 (the diesel) need no electricity and 50-60l of fuel for the same distance. And they're much cheaper to buy. So why did you pay anywhere between 15k-45k EUR more to have a "compliance car" hybrid that doesn't even float (/s) when this means you're just getting "less efficient"? Unless you bought the bragging rights, and now you're here to defend them. The goal of any electrified car is to drive as much as possible on electric power alone without the need to run the engine. Not only because ideally some owners can make their own electricity but also for comfort and emissions.
manmal 3y ago
The old XC60 can do 50km on 9.1kWh of battery - that’s 18kWh per 100km - IMO that’s super optimistic for an SUV of that size (and assumes no heating, AC, lights etc), but let’s assume it holds. The BYD can do 180km on a 50kWh battery, that’s 28kWh per 100km. How did you arrive at 5x worse? It’s not even 2x worse. And again, I don’t buy the 50km claim from Volvo, outside of perfect conditions (eg daytime in May, no rain, no AC, low air resistance).
- gambiting 3y ago
  I have done 52km in the past before the ICE kicked in(in perfect conditons, but yes). >>How did you arrive at 5x worse You have two cars, they both are fully charged and fueled up. They both drive 1000km and then stop. They both burnt 75 litres of petrol, but one used 10kWh of electricity, the other used 50kWh of electricity. How much more electricity has the second car used Vs the first one?
  - manmal 3y ago
    Well you‘re making the error of assuming that charging the PHEV before a trip is required. Also, the fact that the BYD is 5x more electricity costs is almost irrelevant for a 1k km trip, because there‘s just an $8 difference for the whole trip, assuming $0.2 per kWh. On shorter trips, the BYD will come out on top because it can go on battery for way longer, which is (even at 27kWh/100km) cheaper than the Volvo on gasoline/Diesel. The charging functionality is just a bonus for hybrids (I doubt many people drive a big part of their mileage electric by plugging in). Primarily, the battery serves to conserve energy while decelerating. The BYD obviously also uses the battery as a buffer for its range extender, but the Volvo doesn’t do that.
    - gambiting 3y ago
      >>Well you‘re making the error of assuming that charging the PHEV before a trip is required No, I'm literally going off what the manufacturer said - 1000km range when the battery charge and fuel tank are combined. That's it. People keep making comparisons for shorter trips, for driving with an empty battery, for driving on battery range only etc etc etc - all of it misses the point I'm making. >>I doubt many people drive a big part of their mileage electric by plugging in). If they don't, then why buy a PHEV at all? If you have a PHEV and never plug it in, then your efficiency will be worse than that of a simple MHEV or even a straight up ICE-only car.