Are you saying that the non-Hybrid Highlander should get better highway mileage than the hybrid version since it is not being encumbered by the inefficiency of the hybrid electronics, electric motors, and battery?

You are not considering the advantage of the hybrid's continuously variable transmission that keeps the engine at it's most efficient operating speed during constant highway driving. With the hybrid transmission, the engine speed is changing all the time at constant highway speeds to optimize efficiency as the engine load changes due to slight grade changes, wind conditions, etc..

With the conventional Highlander, the transmission locks into OD and engine RPM is constant at a constant highway speed. Only if the load becomes too great does the transmission jump out of lock. When it does, there is no guarantee that the engine is at an optimal RPM and now the torque converter is merrily churning oil around, heating up and wasting energy.

 

My point was/is that when the ICE must be used to recharge the hybrid battery there is a NET loss that could be avoided if the hybrid battery didn't get discharged (so readily) in the first place. Even in our Prius I believe I could live with the resulting slow rate of acceleration, or regaining of the "target" speed, in return for the improved FE.

 

The major benefit of more ev power is NOT acceleration, but the ability to stay in ev on slight rises and to BE in ev above 40 miles per hour.

You're confusion POWER, as in HP/torque, with DURATION, sustainability of EV mode. Are at best "mixing" the two, muddling the issue.

Willard:
Here's the difference in the Escape and the Highlander:
Because the FEH's traction motors (and traction motor management, likely) produce less torque, on regular city streets with a slight rise in them the vehicle is much more sensitive to jumping out of EV and lighting up the ICE than the Highlander.

Consequently, one can tend to run on ev in the highlander for longer runs, not becuase it has more battery, but because it will steadfastly STAY in EV.

On a smooth flat road, my sense is that each vehicle will get to an soc that causes ICE start at about the same distance.

Said another way: I have one slight grade that I pass over on a very regular basis.

In the Escape, if I am in EV at say 38 mph, I have to have a super light touch on the accelerator and allow the vehicle to lose about 8 mph to get over the rise and stay in EV all the way to the coast for the next stop sign.

In the Highlander at 38, I just drive over the rise, down the other side and then coast to the stop sign. No drama, no babying the throttle. Stays in EV all the way.

Also, 38 to nearly 40 is the upper EV limit for the Escape.
The highlander will easily attain and hold on to 44 or 45 in the same situation.

The point being that more available ev torque is convenient and makes the driving experince less frustrating.


I shut the valve to the heater core every summer for the '66 Galaxie. Funny, in that car, if you had air, it had a cable operated valve that did that. If you didn't get air, the heater core was "live" year round. Mine's a convertable, so no factory air.

As for tiny, blown engines, I'm still a little leary. Little engines that make big torque don't seem to last as long as bigger engines that aren't stressed quite as much. For now, I'll pay the fuel premium for the longevity factor.

 

Little engines, big torque....

one word.

diesel.

 

The LPT (low pressure turbo) engines used by several European manufacturers have proven longevity. The NEW rage is TSI (turbo AND supercharger ), like VWs 1.4TSI, available across most of VW's model range in Europe. It can be tuned for 122 to 170 HP and use 28 (Tiguan) to 37 (Polo) combined MPG.

 

But maybe that's the point - the advantage you are describing isn't the hybrid it's the CVT. Nothing stopping them from running a CVT with a lower output ICE other than the fact that North American market is biased against it. Hybrid owners are less rigid than the average buyer on such things. New release says they will be putting out an I4 ICE next year. That is actually a better choice for my needs, given our driving situation is practically a worst case scenario for a hybrid. CVT would be great in that setting. Hope they don't kill the AWD in the process.
On another subject, I don't need my family vehicle to be fast, and would rather see it slower and more efficient. People seem to have forgotten how fast vehicles were just 10-15 years ago. Our 92 Pathfinder had 150hp. It wasn't fast, but I never complained about its lack of acceleration driving around town and its performance was the same as comparable vehicles. We replaced it with a 99 Sienna which produced 190hp and still felt quick. That vehicle now puts out 268hp. Why?? Marketing was entirely about HP and acceleration and most of the buyers got sucked in. Family vehicles don't need to be that fast.