[ProfessorLayton]

>Sure you can make it a full hybrid but then you’re like 80% of the way there to a battery vehicle anyway.

This sounds like a good thing? Currently the most expensive component of electric vehicles are their batteries, so hybrids seem optimal. Hybrids excel at the exact use cases mail trucks have, so it seems a bit baffling they didn't go with that form of electrification.

Toyota has proven maintenance and reliability aren't an issue with hybrid tech.

[MBCook]

Full hybrid has the downsides of electric (electric stuff to be serviced and weight/costs associated) and the downsides of gas (emissions, complexity of maintenance + engine, weight/cost of engine).

These are government fleet vehicles being used for lots of miles every day. They're going to use these for 20+ years. If the up front cost is a little higher but it has a big payoff, it's totally worth it.

The calculus is different from an individual's car. I still don't think it's worth it there now that electric has gotten so much cheaper, but that's a personal decision.

> Hybrids excel at the exact use cases mail trucks have

Compared to gas, yes. But the thing is electric cards excel even more.

> Toyota has proven maintenance and reliability aren't an issue with hybrid tech.

They proved it works reliably. But it's still far more complicated than an EV drivetrain with WAY WAY more high tolerance parts that wear. It's never going to be cheaper in maintenance.

[ProfessorLayton]

1: The cost of the gas engine is offset by the reduction in cost and weight of a smaller hybrid battery.

2: Hybrid buses are already a thing, and they're subject to even more usage and wear, and work very reliably.

3: Cheaper maintenance as an absolute number isn't the goal, but a reduction in total cost of ownership. Remember there's a bunch of gas that's not being used or paid for. The lower the starting MPG, the higher the benefits electrification brings.