Not even close
In theory I agree wholeheartedly, but that setup only works because the i3 is so light. That car has SO MUCH clever engineering to make it light enough for a 2-stroke motor to feed the battery, and even then it gets itself into trouble by running out of buffer when the car is dealing with a perfect storm of sustained incline + cold weather + highway speed. Imagine stuffing 33" tires underneath it. the whole model sort of blows up. You'd need a bigger motor, which means more weight, which means less range, which means now we're right back to the PHEV model.
The Wrangler would absolutely be at a disadvantage like you've pointed out, with the reduced aerodynamics, larger tires, metal frame, etc. The engineers need to earn their money somehow, they better figure it out. At least nobody expects 35 to 40 mpg for a Wrangler, so they could afford to lose a lot of efficiency with the inevitable losses.
On this plus side, the rig probably won't have an ESS system for those who hate ESS.
short answer is we don’t know. My guess is the break even point is 80,000 miles or more. But we need to see more numbers to confirm.In one of the original videos linked to this thread, the commentator compared the Pacifica PHEV, which is fully loaded with creature comforts he claimed, to a fully loaded ICE Pacifica and claimed about a $6K purchase price difference.
From a purely mathematical exercise, in ideal conditions where you have excess home produced solar power over that you take from the utility in a "net metering state" (your utility bill is $0) I STILL wonder how many (electric) miles you'd have to drive with a PHEV Wrangler JL to reach a break even $ point over the up front purchase price difference to a comparably feature rich purely ICE Wrangler JL. And that's not even counting repairs to these rigs.
The irony to this is to get the most electric miles you have to do lots of small trip driving across lots of trips, each between power charges.
Sure--there's the greenness of it, and such calculations will vary with the cost of gasoline/diesel, but even in this rarest of situations where you are already produce your own excess power beyond that needed, it may still take a while to justify the cost difference on dollars alone.
..and that's before a lift kit or towing stuff, which are apt to drain the batteries in even less miles than the stock rig.
I'm not against manufacturers being forced to adopt entry level electric solutions, but it strikes me as maybe a hard case to make to the consumer in $ outlay alone.
If people know better I'd love to be told otherwise, as if my assumptions are wrong, the environment wins more.
The value proposition gets better with more EV miles but we have to start somewhere. In my case, I live in an urban tower that has free EV charging for the residents. Most of my weekday driving is around the city, where 30-40 miles of EV range is plenty and every one of those miles is pure gravy. The JK gets 12mpg in city driving. That's about $100/mo saved just around town (assuming I would have purchased a similarly spec'd gas JL). I'm assuming the PHEV will be price equivalent to a similarly spec'd gas drivetrain after fed and state incentives.In one of the original videos linked to this thread, the commentator compared the Pacifica PHEV, which is fully loaded with creature comforts he claimed, to a fully loaded ICE Pacifica and claimed about a $6K purchase price difference.
From a purely mathematical exercise, in ideal conditions where you have excess home produced solar power over that you take from the utility in a "net metering state" (your utility bill is $0) I STILL wonder how many (electric) miles you'd have to drive with a PHEV Wrangler JL to reach a break even $ point over the up front purchase price difference to a comparably feature rich purely ICE Wrangler JL. And that's not even counting repairs to these rigs.
The irony to this is to get the most electric miles you have to do lots of small trip driving across lots of trips, each between power charges.
Sure--there's the greenness of it, and such calculations will vary with the cost of gasoline/diesel, but even in this rarest of situations where you are already produce your own excess power beyond that needed, it may still take a while to justify the cost difference on dollars alone.
..and that's before a lift kit or towing stuff, which are apt to drain the batteries in even less miles than the stock rig.
I'm not against manufacturers being forced to adopt entry level electric solutions, but it strikes me as maybe a hard case to make to the consumer in $ outlay alone.
If people know better I'd love to be told otherwise, as if my assumptions are wrong, the environment wins more.
The woods I drive in have a lot of shade.
I arrive at a camp (implying remote) site with a cot, bag and torch. Lights are the stars; climate is the air; accessories are top shelf spirits; to consume a full charge of peace and quiet.
May your charging remain free, and at least equally as important as more people adopt electric vehicles: accessible.
Only the biggest Tesla fan boys will pretend that EVs are currently viable for folks who deal with extremely cold weather for more than a month a year.
Some people don't have room for 2 or more cars and when you only have 1 car, an EV is a huge pain in the ass if you want to road trip, have a long commute, or just drive a lot - and of course cold weather will dramatically increase those issues. Why? Charging stations are few and far between while gas stations are on damn near every corner.
