deadduck

Hi,

Been giving this car some thought but I have a math problem, the price of electricity.

The battery is 18KwH and gets 36 miles, so roughly 2 miles / KwH. Prices for electricity in my part of Californa, standard plan, is .31/Kwh (actually it might be slightly higher). MPG for the hybrid is 39 MPG and the lowest premium price I could find was $4.69/Gallon. Now, the math,

Hybrid:
4.69/39.= 0.1202 mile (12 cents / mile).

PHEV
.31 / 2 = 15.5 cents / mile.

In other words, without solar, or a special plan, electricity costs more than gas.

I believe you can get a lower electricity price, maybe as low as .14/KwH but you'll pay some of it back in, much, higher rates for your regular electricity use.

I was kind of excited for this vehicle but given that they'll likely be jacked up, I'm not seeing it.

Am I missing something?

RXWes

Yes

The problem is you live in California. Where Gasoline and Electricity costs are double or triple what most states pay.

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/1...326/ab8ca5/pdf

Xanadu350

But isn’t this car geared toward CA? If this math is correct why would anyone in CA but one? Weird because I was interested in the 450h+ but it’s not coming to FL.

Freds430

I was excited about buying the 450h+ but deadduck's numbers along with the price difference between the + and the hybrid makes zero sense. Their numbers although in CA where both electricity and gasoline are ridiculously priced translates to anyother state where both electric and gas prices are equally lower like mine. Even with the $7,500 tax credit there is no way I would pay $7,500 more (+$15,000- $7,500 tax credit). I would have to own the NX for 15 years to hit the breakeven point. For me having the extra horsepower again for $7,500 is meaningless. This makes me feal a lot better because I am convinved a 450h+ would be impossible to find with exactly like I want and they will not negotiate.

lesz

Buying an NX plug-in hybrid (or a RAV4 Prime) makes financial sense for people who drive primarily less than 40 mile trips between re-charge opportunities and who can buy electricity for less than about $.10 per kwh (or who have access to solar electricity production). Otherwise, the cost of operation of the plug-in hybrid will be a loser, and that doesn't even include the premium price that one will have to pay to buy the car over the price of the regular hybrid. Of course, if gas prices continue to rise (and electricity costs remain stable), that could change.

mcomer

deadduck's thoughtful analysis continues the entire discussion on hybrids & EVs
vs. fossil fuel burning cars. If you strictly limit your focus to fuel costs you usually
arrive at a marginal cost/benefit difference as we see here.

The greater picture brings out other considerations. Recall that hybrids & EV's
have fewer moving parts such as Alternators, starters, pulleys and belts to hear
and eventually replace. Brake systems are a beneficiary of regenerative braking
made possible by the electric motor/generator setup. Twice the friction pad life!


The highest level view of this involves reducing the impact of good ole' Mother Earth.
Except perhaps Coal fired power plants, nearly every form of commercial electricity
generation produces less emissions per unit that hundreds of individual cold starting
cars.

Similar math calculation have been used to question the use of Leasing cars as
apposed to buying them. To "bottom line" the numbers doesn't account for the
ease of transacting business, always having new tech (incl. hybrids!), limit concern
when having a negative CarFax entry etc.

deadduck

I mostly agree with this, but a lot of those are kind of hard numbers to come by. You see a lot of this analysis on Tesla's, "look, ma, no maintenance" but they eat through tires and have higher insurance rates, so they're better but not magically so.

But, also, as you say, there's other stuff: environment, if you have solar, your local rates (in CA Gas and electricity can suck), are you on a EV specific plan, maintenance, etc.

The problem, I think with the NX PHEV, is the low miles/KwH, which kind of surprised me. Most pure EV's will run North of 3 miles / KwH, which makes the calculation better. I think I just got hit with a flash of the obvious about it being so bad.

andye39s

The 18 kWh is the total capacity of the battery, a portion of it is reserved (as in not used, to help with battery longevity). On the RAV4 Prime, I've read that actual usable capacity is 14.5kWh, and I assume it'll be the same on the Lexus. So, if you worked it at .31 / 2.5, you're at the same $0.12 cents a mile as gas. However, if your main objective is to save on cost to refuel, yes a plug in (be it PHEV or full EV) really only makes sense if your electricity is cheap and/or have a solar system.

I'm a sucker for average. The way I like to look at it is combing the gas MPG and EV mode eMPG. Combining 39 miles from 1 gallon of gas and 36 miles from 14.5kWh of electricity, you get "75MPG", and based on your CA rates you're at $0.122 a mile. My electric rate here is $0.15 per kWh, and I have a solar system, so treating electricity as if it was free I am getting "75MPG" lol. Plus, CO2 emission is halved. My current full EV and a PHEV both come to about $0.041 a mile to drive, if I had to pay for electricity. In comparison, my RX450h (I get actual 33MPG out of it) comes out to $0.10 a mile based on $3.50 a gallon premium.

Keep in mind also that some can exceed the EPA rating on their RAV4 Prime, but of course this is literally YMMV depending on your driving style and condition, so your actual cost could be lower. If your fuel cost does only end up being the same as the hybrid, at least you'll have the quickest version of the NX

Blastphemy

While I'm very excited for the NX450h+, I am a little disappointed that 18 kWh is the best Lexus could do and that 0-60 takes 10 seconds on electric-only. Yes, 0-60 in 6 seconds in Sport Hybrid mode is good, but these are numbers the Chevrolet Volt was achieving in 2012. My 2019 PHEV Volt manages over 50 miles per charge and about 7.5 seconds 0-60 just on electricity.

Yes, the NX is heavier, but If Lexus had scaled up the battery a bit and engineered the propulsion system differently, this could have been a spectacular replacement for all other PHEVs (and possibly even all-electric CUVs). Instead, while the interior, comfort, features, size, and attention to detail are industry-leading, the PHEV system gives off a very "compliance car" vibe. A full electric NX on par with Tesla, Rivian, Lucid, or Audi would have been preferable and likely would have dominated the market.

That all having been said, the NX450h+ is very likely my next vehicle – I just have to decide between "regular" or F-Sport. I want to support Lexus' path into PHEV and all-electric, and it's very easy to do that with the 450h+. I'm just wishing it were a little more robust in the electric department and not so dependant on the gas for acceleration and range. Based on the video reviews I've been watching, the NX450h+ appears to have the best acceleration, handling, and range as compared to the "lower-end" models, so it's worth choosing it over the others just because of that. The PHEV aspect is icing on the cake.

Since our house has solar panels, the cost of electricity to charge this car is negligible for us. But since driving only in electric mode isn't ideal with the NX450h+, I'm still hoping for something better from Lexus in the near future to compete in this space.

lsft

Thanks for the information @andye39s! I was always calculating the NX450h+ charge as 18.1 kwh and not considering the longevity of the battery capacity. I do see from others that CA electricity rates are quite high and the plug-in hybrid doesn't make much sense.

I live in the greater Toronto area and our electricity rates are much lower. Where I live there is 2 options on electricity cost (Time based or Tier based).

Time Based:
$0.082 per kWh - Off-Peak
$0.113 per kWh - Mid-Peak
$0.170 per kWh - On-Peak

Tier Based:
$0.098 per kWh - Tier 1
$0.115 per kWh - Tier 2 (over 600kWh)

I made my calculations based off the 350h vs the 450h and driving back and forth between my house and work. I drive about 62.8 km back and forth which is close to a full charge on pure EV.

Based on Tier Based at 11.5 cents per kWh (highest tier) and 14.5kWh of charging, I calculate that it would cost me $609 per year if I charged everyday and $170 of premium gas at 1.709 per litre. Totaling $779 per year on the combine gas+electricity.

Driving the same mileage on an 350h at 6.0L/100km rating it will cost $2343.98 on gas per year.

You can see a significant cost difference in the 450h+ vs the 350h in total cost. When gas prices go even higher, this difference will be more greater.

However, a fully loaded NX350h cost $76,778.98 after taxes and fees, while the NX450h+ Executive cost $88,022.48 after taxes and fees. A difference of $11,243.50. Based on the gas savings, it takes about 7 years to break even after considering the gas savings. One would hope gas prices going even higher to make the break even sooner. But putting it on another side, the NX450h+ does give you the fastest NX.....

RXWes

The 450h+ will be coming to Florida. Just like the Prius Prime and RAV4 Prime is already. You just wont see a lot of them.

And its just not Florida. The majority of the Plug Ins go to Low Emissions states. So until supply meets demand. You will need to travel to another state and get one.

Blastphemy

In California, the daytime electric rates are indeed very high. But at least for LADWP, one can order a submeter specifically to use for charging electric cars M-F between 8pm and 7am (and all day on Sat-Sun) at very low "Time of Use" residential rates.

rogerh00

Well. I've been searching for months for a RAV4 prime and none are available in my part of Florida. I expect NX 450+'s to be even more scarce thanks in all to California.

RXWes

Quick search shows 8 Primes in Florida. One at the dealership right up the street. Seven SE and one XSE.

The closest Low Emission state from Florida is New Jersey. Which has 60 Primes.

lesz

The information that you find on dealer websites may or may not represent the actual inventory that dealers have right now, and, more often than not, it will not represent the actual inventories that dealers have.

As dealers throughout the country have faced serious problems with being able to get cars, what they have been doing is including on their websites cars that they have ordered but that they have not actually received. Often, cars that they show on their websites include cars that they have already sold, even if those cars have not actually arrived at the dealerships.

By showing cars that they don't actually have in their inventories, what dealers are hoping to do is get people to come to their dealerships, to make internet inquiries, and to make phone calls to the dealership. Once potential customers have made contact with the dealership, it gives the dealership the opportunity to try to sell those potential customers cars that they actually do have, both new and used, or to agree to buy cars that the dealership expects to get at some point in the future.

About a week a go, I checked the website of a local Toyota dealer. Their website showed 2 RAV4 Primes and 6 RAV4 Hybrids. When I stopped at the dealership, they actually had no RAV4s at all. They had no RAV4 Primes, no RAV4 Hybrids or even gas powered RAV4s. The cars that were on their website were all cars that they had already sold or ones that they are expecting to get at some point in the future, and most of those already had buyers lined up. The actual inventory available at the dealership included 1 Camry, 2 Corollas, 1 Venza, 1 Tundra, and 1 Tacoma. And several of those cars already had sold signs on their windshields.