[moffkalast]

EVs are indubitably miles ahead in terms of being simple to maintain mechanically since it's a sealed fixed gear system (the software is another matter, but let's disregard that for now), but I don't believe those numbers for the PHEV for a second.

You're maintaining both an EV and an ICE at the same time in one car with both needing to interface with each other in complex ways. There's bound to be in the range of 4x as much that can go wrong compared to just one or the other. You'll have the mechanical issues of the ICE coupled with the software problems of an EV.

It's an absolutely stupid idea to even consider doing these sort of overcomplicated hybrids, but unfortunately it's also the only way to get around the abysmal battery capacity we currently have.

[gambiting]

>> but I don't believe those numbers for the PHEV for a second.

Having driven a PHEV for over 2 years now, I can easily believe them - the main ICE runs so rarely, it's practically brand new. I cover like 90% of my journeys in EV mode alone. I've just done my second service and the brake pads are like 5% worn - after 20kk miles, in a 2.2 tonne SUV. All because of regenerative breaking - it's absolutely remarkable. So yes, I imagine repairs of this car will be cheaper long term, not more expensive - the ICE drive train is going to have fewer problem if you just don't use it half as much.

[Dylan16807]

> You're maintaining both an EV and an ICE at the same time in one car with both needing to interface with each other in complex ways.

The interface does not need to be complex. Hooking them directly together is simple enough. Some designs replace parts of the gearbox with the motors, making the combination simpler than the sum of its parts. And if you have a fully electric drivetrain then you can vastly simplify the ICE.

(Also I don't know how you could possibly reach 4x even if it was as complex as you're saying!)