Hyundai IONIQ Electric Becomes U.S.’ Most Fuel-Efficient Vehicle. Update: For A Few Weeks Anyway

OCT 5 2016 BY MARK KANE 78

Fuel economy comparison by EPA (BMW i3, Chevrolet Bolt EV, Chevrolet Spark EV)

Fuel economy comparison by EPA (BMW i3, Chevrolet Bolt EV, Chevrolet Spark EV)

Hyundai IONIQ Electric

Hyundai IONIQ Electric

Hyundai released some of the specifications for its upcoming IONIQ Electric, complete with EPA fuel economy ratings showing a 125 MPGe combined efficiency rating.

Previously, the Korean company estimated EPA the range at 110 miles (177 km) on a 28 kWh battery.

And while we know that MPGe isn’t exactly the most loved indicator of plug-in performance in the EV community, it is directly related to the amount of energy (including charging) needed for driving.

125 MPGe translates to some 16.8 kWh per 100 km (62 miles).

The big news for Hyundai is that the IONIQ Electric is now the most energy efficient car, as the “old” BMW i3 (24 kWh) was rated at 124 MPGe – which interestingly is actually 6 more than the new i3 all-electric (33 kWh).

Update :  After some confusion, and speaking with Toyota people, the reign of the Hyundai IONIQ Electric at the very top will only be very short-lived, as the Prius Prime (recently announced from $27,100 +DST in the US) after being rated at 124 MPGe combined on Tuesday, has now been adjusted to 133 MPGe 24 hours later.

The Bolt EV at 119 MPGe perhaps isn’t the very best, but with a 60 kWh battery on board (and more weight to deal with) is by far the best among long-range EVs, even with without using CFRP like in the i3.


ENGINEIONIQ HybridIONIQ Plug-In HybridIONIQ Electric
Engine Type1.6L GDI Atkinson Cycle
1.6L GDI Atkinson Cycle
Not Applicable
MaterialsAluminum block and headAluminum block and head
Horsepower104 hp @ 5,700 rpm104 hp @ 5,700 rpm
Torque109 lb-ft @ 4,000 rpm109 lb-ft @ 4,000 rpm
Valves per cylinder44
Motor typeInterior-Permanent Magnet Synchronous Motor
Motor Output32 kW Electric Motor45 kW Electric Motor88 kW Electric Motor
Horsepower Equivalent43 HP60 HP120 HP
Torque125 lb-ft125 lb-ft215 lb-ft
Total System Combined Horsepower
Net Horsepower139 HPTBD120 HP
TypeLithium-ion Polymer
Voltage240 V360 V360 V
Battery System Capacity1.56 kWh8.9 kWh28.0 kWh
Type6-speed EcoShift Dual Clutch Transmission6-speed EcoShift Dual Clutch TransmissionSingle-speed

Reduction Gear

FrontMacPherson strut
RearIndependent multi-linkIndependent multi-linkTorsion-beam
TypeMotor-Driven Power Steering (MDPS) column mounted, Rack-and-Pinion, Power assisted
Wheels15” Eco-spoke alloy wheel16” Eco-spoke alloy wheels16” Eco-spoke alloy wheels
17” Eco-spoke alloy wheels
TiresMichelin Energy Saver A/S 195/65R15Michelin Energy Saver A/S 205/55R16Michelin Energy Saver A/S 205/55R16
Michelin Primacy MXM4 225/45R17
Tire mending kit (in lieu of temporary spare tire)
Overall length176.0 in.
Overall width71.7 in.
Overall height57.1 in.
Coefficient of drag (Cd)0.24
Head roomFront39.1 in.
Rear37.4 in.
Leg roomFront42.2 in.
Rear35.7 in.
Shoulder roomFront56.1 in.
Rear55.0 in.
Passenger volume96.2  cu. ft.96.2  cu. ft.96.2  cu. ft.
Cargo (trunk) volume26.5 cu. ft.23.0 cu. ft.23.0 cu. ft.
Total interior volume122.7 cu. ft.119.2 cu. ft.119.2 cu. ft.
Fuel Tank (gallon)11.9 gallons11.4 gallonsNot Applicable
MPG (City/Highway/Combined)TBDTBDNot Applicable
All Electric Range (AER)Not ApplicableGreater than 25 miles110 miles
Electric mode (charge depleting)TBD125 MPGe
220/240V (Level 2)Not Applicable2 hours 30 minutes4 hours 24 minutes
DC Fast ChargingNot Available80% in 24 minutes

90% in 33 minutes


Categories: Hyundai

Tags: ,

Leave a Reply

78 Comments on "Hyundai IONIQ Electric Becomes U.S.’ Most Fuel-Efficient Vehicle. Update: For A Few Weeks Anyway"

newest oldest most voted

I still don’t get why the i3 got so much worse. It is now close to the Bolt, when it comes to city efficiency, even though it is much lighter.

The more I think of it, the more it makes me doubt those efficiency ratings.

i3 94 Ah curb weight is 2,961 lbs. Bolt 3580 lb. Bolt is also bigger inside, 95+17 vs 84+15 cu.f.
It doesn’t necessary result in 20% worse mpge by itself, as regenerative braking recovers part of the energy, and average 48 mph EPA test speed doesn’t make air drag so important.
What should be noted though, that Bolt has permanent magnet motor, while i3 uses induction motor. You may speculate that it makes significant difference together with more efficient inverter electronics to compensate weight influence.

EPA ratings typically do match what drivers get in practice, you can check what others are getting on average nowdays. There is no reason to doubt them.

Charging may be more efficient as well.

Yes, and HVAC efficiency is also part of the test.

Heck, even the difference in tires could play a role.

So many factors than just weight.

EPA figure is just one number while EV “MPGe” varies greatly over speed. I plot mi/kWh over various speed and usage. SparkEV would get 8 mi/kWh (270 MPGe) at 25 MPH with everything off to 2 mi/kWh (64 MPGe) when going 90 MPH with heater blasting and windows open. You can’t represent that well with just 3 numbers. Scroll down to “miles per kWh with extra power use” in this blog post.

My SparkEV’s combined 13K miles is bit over 5.3 mi/kWh (almost 180 MPGe). If you assume 80% efficient charging, that’s still over 140 MPGe. I can’t be so much more efficient than typical since same driving pattern on gas car resulted in bit worse than rated MPG.

You can also do the math with MPGe vs rated range using battery capacity, and they don’t match.

SparkEV got 5 mi/kWh at 62 MPH while i3 got 4.8 mi/kWh at same speed. Yet i3 has higher hwy MPGe than SparkEV? MPGe isn’t even good for comparing different vehicles.

At some point, you have to give up on these simplistic numbers from dinosaur days and come up with different metric that’s more representative of EV. I prefer polynomial coefficients.

Take 100,000 BTUs of fossil energy, make electricity, transmit it, convert it through a charger, take the battery, inverter and motor loses, you end up with around 30% efficiency.

Real life, not theoretical, coal and nat. gas plants may have efficiency in 35% ballpark.
Add 7% direct transmission line losses.
Add some 18% outlet-to-motor losses.
You get .35*.93*.82 = ~27%. Add losses maintaining, building and balancing electric grid and 30% efficiency would become a dream.

As long as you don’t figure all the energy spent, extracting, transporting, refining, distributing of one fuel and not the other, your comment, post, calculation are dead wrong.
I’m not counting spill and evaporation.
Electric production is in a class by itself in any energy report.
Putting in the transport zone for EV only is totally misleading.
If you want castigate the use of coal, I’m all in, but put the culprit where it is.
Coal exist way before EV and unfortunately persist to this day.

“don’t figure all the energy spent, extracting, transporting, refining, distributing of one fuel”

Refining and retail distribution of liquid fuel takes little energy. I will not bother to look up exact numbers, but e.g. Hyundai Sonata hybrid creates 222 g/mile tailpipe GHG and and 45 g/mile upstream GHG (production/refining/distribution) according to As for the extraction, it needs to be extracted both for electric power plant and for on car ICE.

The point isn’t to calculate efficiency up to 1% accuracy. It is to illustrate that efficiency is straw man argument, yet so beloved by Musk fanboys. Cost is what matters eventually and it better accounts for all indirect losses and expenses, including manufacturing.

Coal plants require more than 100 coal cars each day to remain in operation. I was pointing out that the electricity does not appear magically, it takes energy which needs to be accounted for.

If you are going full cycle, you would count the energy it takes to make wind turbines and solar panels. The best use for fossil fuels is creating renewable energy.

zzzzzzzzzz said:

“Real life, not theoretical, coal and nat. gas plants may have efficiency in 35% ballpark.”

And real life, not theoretical, hydroelectric power plants and nuclear power plants are 100% efficient, if the basis for comparison is how much fossil fuel they use or how much CO2 they generate in operation.

According to one source, the best real-world, long-term operating efficiency in a combined-cycle natural-gas-powered power plant is 58.7%, altho of course that is the upper limit and not the average (source below).

The efficiency of generating and distributing electricity is actually higher than government figures indicate, because they use a 33% efficiency rating for nuclear power plants, just like coal-fired plants… which are the least efficient form of electric power generation.

And of course, that’s why a Big Oil shill like you always cherry-picks figures for coal-fired power plants; because they’re the least efficient ones. And thank goodness, they’re also the ones which are most rapidly being replaced with more efficient power plants.



Obviously it is hard to explain to barely literal zealots like you what is difference between HHV and LHV and why turbine makers love to use bigger number. Whatever, I’m not going to change your zealotry.

Sure hydro is 100% efficient, except that you have no clue 100% of what? Potato chips? Do you think concrete for building it materializes from nowhere or that you can build significantly more hydro stations than you already have?
And Hydro in tropics is much worse for greenhouse gases than coal according to some sources:

That is why we need to move more quickly to renewable energy – there is no generation loss, so the overall grid efficiency jumps to ~92%.

And typical plug to wheel efficiency in EV’s is ~15%. It is possible to reduce that to as low as ~8%.

Alas, intermittent renewable energy like solar and wind is not very useful for grid that needs dispatchable generators. You have disconnect in time dimension. Musk would say that you need to invent “battery charges battery” paradigm :/ That isn’t very efficient, but anyway, what is the point calculating efficiency of wind/solar? Are we short of Sun or short of wind? Cost is what matters. If you waste more coal generated energy to manufacture PV panel than this PV panel will produce over its useful lifetime, it makes no sense whatever is end system efficiency (I’m not claiming it is the case, just an example that simplistic efficiency calculations don’t tell the whole story).

I’m talking about MPGe as defined as 33.7 kWh/mi. What you’re talking about is if all electricity is generated from fossil fuel, which isn’t the case. Especially in CA where most number of EV exist, mix is about 60% fossil fuel and decreasing. Also, fossil fuel generator efficiency is increasing (ie, combined cycle to about 60%), so how to quantify strictly in terms of fossil fuel isn’t so straight forward.

Compounding this mess is that many (most?) EV drivers charge their cars from their excess solar capacity; they’re not using any fossil fuel at all. Then the efficiency is what? 100%? Then you have to break out solar vs grid charging. In CA, it will be far better than 30%, probably close to 67%.

Counting the inefficiency of the electric production is counting your pay twice for EV and once for ICE.

Many gas power plants are not combined cycle.
60% is LHV efficiency, not real. Real HHV efficiency is 54%, and it is theoretical limit, not what is achieved in practice over long time, as power plants cycle up and down all the time. Real may be some 10% less.

There is no point to pinpoint individual states as if they would have isolated, independent and sustainable by itself grid and isolated atmosphere from the rest of the Earth. E.g. China (aka world factory) population is 1.4 bln, India another 1.4 bln, and each of these countries are powered by coal and each has 3 times people as US, and they are developing and buying cars, and all the goods that eventually are going to pollute Earth on the same rate US people do.

It’s really just best if we all simply assume that nothing zzzzzzzzzz posts is true. He does occasionally throw in a few half-truths when it suits his anti-EV, pro-Big-Oil propaganda, but the danger there is that it’s very difficult to separate the tiny bits of truth out of the vast sea of FUD and B.S., and it’s easy to confuse a half-truth with an actual truth.

For example, despite his attempt to confuse the issue here, it certainly is appropriate to consider electricity usage on a State-by-State basis, because States where electricity is “cleanest”, most notably California and Washington State, also have the highest per-capita rates of PEV (Plug-in EV) adoption.

More Pu-pu zealotry that discourages any sane persons from wanting to do anything with electric cars and zealots.

Again, that 30% or less figure assumes every EV in the world is/will be powered using least efficient fossil fuel generators forever, and that simply isn’t the case. You must isolate areas and EV users since their use case is very different. It’s like MPGe figure vs my mi/kWh polynomial plot; single number means very little.

Ultimately, price will determine how EV will be charged. I’m getting dangerously close to upper tier (only 2 tiers in San Diego), and that will cost more than 30 MPG gas car. I might be looking into Solar next year. I suspect many in India / China will find cheaper alternatives, and that’s probably non fossil fuel.

Yeah, that’s speculation, but so is assuming all EV everywhere will forever use fossil fuel to charge. Far more relevant is what today’s EV drivers are doing. Since about half of EV in US are in CA, that’s a good example, at least for worst case of only 60% fossil fuel, getting less, many on Solar already.


Yes, it is mostly correct all what your write about gradual future changes, but it disputes the often proclaimed thesis that battery car is most efficient in any case. It is efficient just because electricity either already includes losses either of burning fossil fuel now, or using the same fossil fuel burners to back up intermittent solar/wind. Electricity price reflects it as you have noticed. Net metering incentive is taken for granted in the US, but as far as I heard, it isn’t available elsewhere. India doesn’t even have reliable grid. Even California has plans to move to new netmetering rules that will make it less attractive. Once you realize need to invest into long term energy storage and costs to balance grid, this outlet-to-wheels efficiency does’t look very important as it is just small part of the story.

According to BMW documentation, the i3’s electric motor is a permanent magnet, not induction motor.

It’s not surprising that advances in efficiency would have occurred during the 3 years since the i3 was introduced. Apparently, BMW hasn’t updated the motor, electronics, etc., in the 2017 model whereas new models like the Bolt and IONIQ likely have more efficient motors, electronics, etc.

Apparently, the 2019 i3 introduced in 2018 will have significant updates, so maybe it will leap-frog its newer competitors in efficiency.

Also don’t forget, EPA estimates are done by the manufacturer, not the EPA.

Based on real world tests of the 2017 i3 REx, it’s pretty evident BMW seriously low-balled their numbers.

Let’s also not forget Hyundai/KIA recently got fined for lying about their vehicles’ efficiency ratings across the board. So it wouldn’t surprise me if they’re being optimistic with their EV EPA ratings.

Sorry I got confused by that lists i3 motor as “induction”. Checking it further, it looks i3 uses some hybrid synchronous motor that has both permanent magnet and electromagnetic winding. It is supposed to be up to 95% efficient, but it is top efficiency only, it may be lower at lower load.

I’m sure it makes sense to some engineering Nerds somewhere but all the data has collectively retired itself into the “circular file”. (Waste basket) I could spend ten minutes plugging the data into the formulas and trying to picture how it all plays together in my mind, or, I could look for the Range rating, (or battery size) and know, what I wanted to know. Range ratings are missing from most advertising, you have to hunt and may not find it. What does that tell us? The Auto dealers still haven’t clued in, or the Auto manufacturers don’t want us to see the ‘Hard’ numbers? Why is all advertising based on deception?

Certainly a vivid highway cruzer. Assuming the ioniq is compensating through best in class aero efficiency.

Word on the street is the Prius Prime combined is rated at 133.

Toyota’s press release for the 2017 Prius Prime and its Product Information spec sheet does indeed state that the EPA Estimated Fuel Economy 133 MPGe in EV Mode.

Just a word on this: This issue has come up because Toyota has conflicting press releases now from one day to the next. I’ve attached both below for reference, but you can see all the main text has remained the same…but MPGe has moved from 124 to 133, and with the wording changed from “class leading manufacturer’s projected EPA-estimated rating” to “industry leading EPA-estimated…” Another issue being the use of the word “city” at the end of the sentence, and change from “manufacturer projected” to “EPA-estimated” (which as we know are the same, both Toyota generated numbers). On the other side of the coin, Toyota’s website has been updated, and as of this moment reads “124 MPGe” (also pic attached below of that). We have reached out to Toyota to clarify, we are still going with the original number until Toyota says otherwise because that is what they have told everyone directly, and that is the number on every report on the car (everywhere) up until a few hours ago…and also the public number on Toyota’s website Just as an aside: this is the sort of “pain in the butt” type of thing that happens all the time…which takes up… Read more »

I read it as 133 mpge city, 124 mpge combined.
It approximately matches difference in regular Prius between 54 mpg city and 50 mpg highway.

The Prius Prime is rated at 55 city, 53 highway, and 54 combined in hybrid mode. If If the MPGe figure was mistakenly the city figure when it was supposed to be the combined figure, then that’s too big of a spread to accounts for only a 1 mpg difference between city vs. combined mpg figure in hybid mode.

It’s 133 combined. Toyota paged is updated. Highest mpge of any vehicle. Press release went out yesterday.

Yep. The Toyota website has been updated to now show 133 MPGe for the Prius Prime.!/vision

Toyota is also not being honest on their EV only mode power numbers. Alex On Autos and TestDrivenTV both got to test the Prius Prime and got 15 seconds 0-60 in EV only mode.

Yet Toyota keeps advertising 10-11 seconds. In my eyes, if a PHEV can’t retain it’s numbers in EV mode then it’s a failure.

So far as I know, the Volt is the only PHEV that is capable of accelerating just as fast in EV-only mode as in gas engine assisted mode.

The Volt’s larger battery pack not only gives it a longer range, it also makes more power available to the electric motors.

Even the Karma Revero, which has a range rating similar to the Volt, kicks in the gas engine for heavy acceleration. But then, it’s a larger and heavier car.

Perhaps this is an example of Toyota’s kaizen in action. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Well, sir, it may be the low point of the job, but we your readers appreciate your fact-finding greatly.

Thank you so much for being on top of things and digging for the truth.

+1 Exactly what I was thinking


Thanks for the detailed explanation. It’s illuminating to get an occasional glimpse on what things look like from the editor’s chair, and what you folks need to spend some of your time on…

That is a Whole lot of FUGLY for only $27,100

Is it, now?

Sometimes it’s good to cross reference your sources.

Put a 120 hp motor like the Ioniq has into the i3 and then see what its MPGe numbers are.

Or put a drivetrain into the i3 that is limited to 91 hp like the Prime has in EV mode and see what the MPGe numbers are.

Hint, they will go up.

I understand the concept of efficiency but I think that in the EV world, total range would be the most important feature. I would take 238 EPA miles from the Bolt to the 81 of the i3 every time and every day regardless of efficiency.
You may not travel that far often but you also don’t have to plug that often either.

Yes, this. These efficiency numbers might be great for early adopters, but I would imagine the mass market just wants to know “how far will it go.”

BMW may also have ReX that allows to refuel anywhere as much as you want, even if it is somewhat crippled for i3 MSRP.

My heavy Model S is EPA 178wh/km and I can get that easily in warmer weather if I half try. 168 for this much lighter vehicle doesn’t seem that great to me, only 6% better. Plus my S60 can go 0 to 60 in under 5.5 secs.

I’m not sure about the EPA wh/km, but if you look at miles/kwh, the Ioniq is 20% better, and if you look at MPGe the Ioniq is 20% better.

What’s with the IONIQ Electric’s crude torsion-beam rear suspension compared with the more sophisticated independent multi-link rear suspension of the other IONIQ models? Is the IONIQ Electric trying to copy the Bolt’s torsion-beam rear suspension instead of the i3’s independent multi-link rear suspension? Probably not.

Maybe the battery pack occupies the space needed by the independent multi-link rear suspension, or maybe Hyundai is trying to reduce the cost of the IONIC Electric by installing a cheaper rear suspension.

0-60 in 10 seconds. Yawn…

Better than the new Prius Prime. New Prime confirmed takes 15 seconds to do 0-60 in EV mode only.

Now that is a snoozefest

Why does Bolt show “variable gear ratios” while others show A1? Does Bolt have multiple gear ratios unlike other EV with just one ratio?

I suspect that is just a mistake.

A1 (automatic) is a mistake too . . . those are not automatics, there is no transmission at all. Just fixed gear box.

Nice to see someone put some effort into aerodynamics besides Tesla! Cool.

Can’t wait to try out the Hyundai Ioniq Electric only it releases here in Florida. Been keeping my eye on it for awhile, might lease it if I like what I see until I can buy a Model 3 without too much waiting.

When you design an EV with smaller battery, lower power motor and low acceleration (gearing), it is easier to game the system to have slightly higher efficiency.

This is why P series of Model S has lower efficiency than the slower base models.

Performance cost efficiency. It is just less so in EVs but it still does.

If GM detunes Bolt and Spark EV to LEAF Level and BMW detunes the i3 to Prius level, they would easily boost their respective efficiency by at least 10% through gearing alone.

Yes. Performance does tend to reduce both energy efficiency and cost efficiency. But it must be pointed out that the differences for EVs are not merely smaller, but dramatically so, than for ICE. This is true of energy efficiency, and even more so cost, especially from typical European power levels of ICE vehicles (small, relatively efficient ICE engines with around 65 kW is the most common).

GM demonstrates that an EV with 150 kW can still be quite efficient. And that is despite a high drag coefficient. Clearly the Bolt platform in a more aerodynamic body would not be far behind the IONIQ, but offer twice the performance. The marginal cost of adding performance rises steeply as one approaches the normal operational limits of the battery cells, but GM likely has plenty of headroom there.

I don’t think it’s appropriate to say the Bolt has a “high drag coefficient”. It probably isn’t as “slippery” as the upcoming Tesla Model ≡, but one only needs to look at the lines of the body to see that it’s a lot more aerodynamic than the average gasmobile. In fact, the shape of the car greatly resembles the Prius.

Based on specs alone, the IONIQ PHEV will give Prius Prime a run for its money…

I hope so. Hyundai is irritating, but Toyota is an enemy of the people!

Well, if the Ionic EV is truly meant a s a compliance car(not sold in non-compliance states from what I hear)then Prius is safe regardless of specs).

“Most efficient” seems but a detail, especially when comparing Prime, Ioniq and i3. So what if i3 squeezes more out of a kwh than the others when it costs so much more?

Efficient per dollar should come into play here. BMW packs in a small battery pack which saves them money, not the consumer. The lightweight nature of the vehicle added to those insanely skinny tires allows it to roll easier.

BMW will get some sales from geeks with deep pockets who enjoy bragging rights to “most efficient”, but it seems ludicrous to push that detail when you dish out $43-53,000 for that statistic, with a total range that is less than class-leading.

Toyota is really pushing the issue of a long-ranger vs. a city/suburb commuter. I like watching the Volt vs. Prime battle, especially based upon how we use our cars. Bragging rights like a 640 mile total range are impressive – but how often would I use that? – And Volt can seat 4 1/2, with that half seat for my family – getting more usage than Prime’s 640 mile range.

All-in, I like that we are all getting more to think about…More choices is always good for all.

I get less than 15kWh per 100km average energy usage in daily driving (combined highway and city traffic) in my i3, and I don’t drive like a snail, but rather spirited. So my opinion about this topic is that the official numbers for efficiency are not very accurate in respect to real life usage.

It’s not they’re not accurate, it’s they reflect a test under spefific circumstances which may be different from your daily mileage.
It’s more accurate to say that one shouldn’t attempt to capture energy usage with a single number at all.

It would make more sense to publish a graph like SparkEV did above:

Look at the Cargo Space and Total Volume ft3. Almost no loss in space from hybrid to EV as battery size goes to very large. If true that’s oodles more space than competitors, I am thinking.

Good for them! Glad to see the competition.

The more the merrier – but sadly it really is not competitive at all.

Excellent specs. So Ioniq Electric is
Space efficient
Energy efficient
and one last thing pending is it should be affordable.

Otherwise customers may pay a few more grand to get the Bolt with 238 mile range even though its bit smaller.

Affordable? Lol. Hyundai clearly wants to develop the tech and be ready if EVs become important to their bottom line, but not actually sell many cars. Their pricing reflects it – in Europe there’s a €10k premium for the BEV over the hybrid, a difference impossible to defend based on production cost.

Their choice of a 28 kWh battery also speaks volumes about whether Hyundai actually wants to sell BEVs in 2017. They could have opted for 40-50 kWh and been in the top tier. But they elected to offer a car that is nowhere near competitive.

Hopefully Hyundai will have a different outlook for BEVs in 2018, and offer said battery capacity. Then, even in 2018, they may be able to compete if the price doesn’t increase. That’s how far off they are now – the exact same thing with 70% more capacity and range at the same price would be merely competitive, not the obvious Best Buy. Right now, they are in the “not worth considering” category, along with VWs and BMWs slightly better offerings for 2017.

The Prius Prime being rated the most efficient car regardless of drive train demonstrates how unhinged MPGe is. There is simply no way in which combining a 25% efficient ICE with a 95% efficient electric motor can be more efficient than the electric propulsion alone. Even if the hybrid only ever runs in an underpowered and short-range electric mode, carrying around the extra driveline would still reduce its efficiency (compared to a hypothetical and similarly underpowered, short-range BEV version of the same car).

I’d like to know more about how the MPGe calculation is performed for hybrids. It is obvious that it’s baloney, and I suspect the fossil-fuel consumption is grossly underestimated, which of course would skew the result dramatically.

Perhaps InsideEVs should break new ground by doing an in-depth feature taking a critical look at MPGe? I believe the numbers for BEVs are comparable. The numbers for ICE are possibly comparable. But hybrids are suspect, and cross-category comparisons yield a completely wrong impression of the actual energy consumption – as the Prius Prime result proves.

I’ve always disliked Toyota and the soulless people who buy them. The Prius in particular is an evil genius type product from the car company that does most of all to retard progress and prevent a sustainable future. How they have achieved an image as green in the US is frankly a minor mystery. They are not seen that way in the rest of the world – in Norway people associate it primarily with cheap and high quality products (reliability being pretty much the only attribute Norwegians include in their assessment of quality). My only stab at explaining this discrepancy is that the Prius was the first car to catch on in the US that was in the same efficiency ballpark as the perfectly ordinary European best-sellers. Americans thus came to see it as “extremely efficient”, and coupled with the distinctive looks this created a superficial “see how green I am” fashion phenomenon first in CA and later much of the US. But in Europe it was just another small car with marginally better efficiency than average and, at least in the first iterations, not quite as efficient as VWs BlueMotion non-hybrid diesels. And before some knee-jerk reacting reader relies… Read more »

Prius advantage over VW TDI isn’t marginal. I don’t remember all historical cases, but at least now Prius leaves VW in dust. And no diesel stink or extra vibrations. Maybe it looks different on NEDC testing cycle, but this testing is yet another joke like EUROx emission testing. It just fails to reflect real world city driving. What is the point of good free highway economy with manual gearbox if most of you traffic is start-stop commuting where automatic hybrids shine? Then you have diesel repair costs, if something goes wrong with with engine or fuel injection system out of warranty, you get the major prize of diesel owner – repair bill, and it kills all the fuel savings.

Small car diesels got popular in Europe due to various government incentives that shifted the costs. Big cities in Europe suffer now as result.

“…we know that MPGe isn’t exactly the most loved indicator of plug-in performance in the EV community…”

I demand equality for horse riders. I mean, if we’re going to invent an awkward new metric as a crutch to help those who are only familiar with a mode of transportation which will soon become obsolete, why don’t we also measure gasoline usage in gasmobiles in BHHe… Bales of Hay per Hour equivalent… rather than MPG? 😉

The proper metric by which to measure electrical energy usage in a PEV (Plug-in EV) is miles/kWh or kwh/mile. Not only is the invented metric “MPGe” inappropriate, it’s also misleading. Gasmobiles have better energy efficiency (MPG) in the city than on the highway. With most PEVs, it’s the opposite.

You got that back a$$wards.

What is the ioniq highway, city mpg respectively? What’s interesting is the highway mpg

Whats interesting is range in miles and miles per kWh.

How many miles does the prius prime go in pure electric mode, and whats the miles per kWh yield on that.

Our VW eGolf gets between 3 and 4 miles per kWh, with a 24 kWh battery we get between 66 and 88 miles of range, me closer to 66 and my wife closer to 88, EPA is 85 miles of range.

The Hyndai Ioniq electric has a 28 kWh battery and appears to be getting more like 5 miles per kWh, EPA is 124 miles.

Prius Prime has only 25 miles of range with its 8.8kW battery, so thats probably a lot closer to 3 miles per kWh and that puts it at the bottom of efficiency.

Update: Who cares, Prius Prime is a plugin hybrid. Ioniq is fully electric. If you only look at electric miles Prime has nothing to offer compared to the Ioniq.

While I applaud replacing old prius with at least a plugin hybrid, the Hyundai Ioniq is the most energy efficient emission free vehicle.