QOTD: Hybrid Versus Conventional Drivetrains

by Jason R. Sakurai

Published: January 14th, 2021

qotd hybrid versus conventional drivetrains

Which drivetrain would you prefer: The hybrid two-motor setup that Toyota has paired with their 2.5-liter DOHC four-cylinder that puts out 245 horsepower or Kia’s conventional V6 that produces 294 HP?

These are the drivetrains you’ll find in the new 2021 Toyota Sienna minivan, or the upcoming 2022 Kia Carnival, which won’t be out until sometime this summer.

The Toyota has already been selected the 2021 Family Green Car of the Year for its Hybrid System II that delivers an EPA-estimated 36 combined MPGs. No idea at this time what the Carnival will achieve mileage wise, but the Carnival’s predecessor, the Sedona, gets a combined 21 MPGs, a respectable number that the new model should surpass, although by how much is anyone’s guess.

Complexity of design may be an issue if you keep one of these family wagons beyond the warranty period, which now makes it your problem if a mechanical breakdown occurs. Toyotas have achieved remarkable longevity, and their reliability and dependability are among the top reasons for their popularity. Kia has also done very well improving their durability, so this one’s sort of a wash. I’d go with the Kia simply for the number of moving parts, and their availability five, maybe ten years down the road.

If you’re someone that doesn’t keep vehicles for very long, complexity and parts availability are not your concerns, nor is the owner who will inherit one of these machines. Compare it to the simplicity of a Timex watch, versus that of the current crop of smartwatches, which will tell you everything from the number of calories you’ve burnt while working from home, to your heart rate, and the weather outside. Yes, you may need to wind the Timex each day or replace its battery every year or so. The movement within the Timex may not have been changed as long as you’ve been alive, unlike the smart watch, whose next-gen internals are already being tested, along with which new features should be added.

It’s your call, the internal combustion engine you know, or technology no one but an authorized dealer and their technicians are equipped to handle. Which would you choose?

[Images: Toyota, Kia]

#Emissions #FuelEconomy #Hybrid #Kia #Minivans #QOTDQuestionOfTheDay #Toyota #V6

Jason R. Sakurai

With a father who owned a dealership, I literally grew up in the business. After college, I worked for GM, Nissan and Mazda, writing articles for automotive enthusiast magazines as a side gig. I discovered you could make a living selling ad space at Four Wheeler magazine, before I moved on to selling TV for the National Hot Rod Association. After that, I started Roadhouse, a marketing, advertising and PR firm dedicated to the automotive, outdoor/apparel, and entertainment industries. Through the years, I continued writing, shooting, and editing. It keep things interesting.

More by Jason R. Sakurai

Comments

Join the conversation

2 of 62 comments

Scoutdude on Jan 15, 2021

How about a hat tip to Freed Mike and I for planting the seed of this discussion???? I'll expand on my point of view, since it is the qtod. It all comes down to the reasons you gave. "Complexity of design may be an issue if you keep one of these family wagons beyond the warranty period, which now makes it your problem if a mechanical breakdown occurs." The current Toyota Hybrid transmissions, like the FWD Ford Hybrid transmissions they are copied from are far and away the simplest transmission on the market. A fixed planetary gear set, a couple of spur gear reductions, two brushless motors and a pair of motor speed sensors. I don't know the exact specifics of the transmission that will be in the new Kia, but I do know it will have at least these components to fail that aren't present in the Toyota. Torque converter Torque converter clutch Torque converter clutch control solenoid Pump Pressure sensor(s) Pressure regulator(s) Shift solenoids Control harness Clutches Servos Hydraulic control circuitry "It’s your call, the internal combustion engine you know, or technology no one but an authorized dealer and their technicians are equipped to handle." Those are the things that fail in an automatic transmission and even a simple repair is far beyond the knowledge and capabilities of most people. Driving any distance with some of those failures will usually lead to complete transmission failure. Yes the Toyota requires an inverter and battery to function but those items like the transmission are covered by the Hybrid system emissions performance warranty which means 8 years and 100k or 10 years and 150k if you live in a state of full Californication. Then you have the engine and the rest of the car and Toyota's track record says out of warranty work is going be be far less likely on it than the Kia. IF I were to buy a Toyota the Hybrid or Plug In Hybrid are the only versions I'd consider since overall they are the most reliable and durable power trains in those vehicles.

Like Reply
Voco Veritas on Feb 26, 2021

As a lay mechanic, I struggle with the notion that "hybrid electric" propulsion is anything more than a sham. Everyone is blindly rushing to get on the green bandwagon, but few ever stop to consider the underlying truth about these subjects, and hybrid is one of those subjects. Consider the fact that over 65% of all electricity in the US comes from, wait for it, fossil fuels. That is even after NGO's and the feds are furiously working to force states into mandating renewable energy which Texas recently learned is anything but reliable. For example, solar only works when the sun is shining which at best is 50% of the time, then there is no way to store the little electricity it generates. Wind is even less reliable as the wind is intermittent at best, plus without government subsidies that artificially reduce the cost to somewhere near fossil fuel produced electricity, wind would not in any way be competitive economically. This approach is almost totally driven by government fanatics who demand that we accept their green agenda regardless of whether it is economically sound. ETOH, or ethanol, is another example as it costs more energy to produce one gallon of ETOH than that gallon contains, even before discounting the value due to low Btu and combustion inefficiency. So back to hybrids that mostly rely on fossil fuels to produce the electricity required to power the electric motors. It becomes even more absurd when you consider that large commercial equipment such as ships, tugs, and railroad engines use, you got it, a second engine fueled by the evil DIESEL fuel to power a generator that then produces the electricity to run the electric motor! In effect, hybrid proponents claim to be efficient is ludicrous given the fact that they have to run TWO engines, not one, both of which run on fossil fuels! So my conclusion that hybrid is a scam will at least be valid until all electricity is produced from renewables which will not happen in the forseeable future. As Texas learned, having NGO's like ERCOT and federal bureaucrats dictating how business must operate has always been and will likely continue to be worse than just inefficient, but disastrous, both economically and practically.

Like Reply

Recent Comments

Bouzouki Cadillac (aka GM!!) made so many mistakes over the past 40 years, right up to today, one could make a MBA course of it. Others have alluded to them, there is not enough room for me to recite them in a flowing, cohesive manner.Cadillac today is literally a tarted-up Chevrolet. They are nice cars, and the "aura" of the Cadillac name still works on several (mostly female) consumers who are not car enthusiasts.The CT4 and CT5 offer superlative ride and handling, and even performance--but, it is wrapped in sheet metal that (at least I think) looks awful, with (still) sub-par interiors. They are niche cars. They are the last gasp of the Alpha platform--which I have been told by people close to it, was meant to be a Pontiac "BMW 3-series". The bankruptcy killed Pontiac, but the Alpha had been mostly engineered, so it was "Cadillac-ized" with the new "edgy" CTS styling.Most Cadillacs sold are crossovers. The most profitable "Cadillac" is the Escalade (note that GM never jack up the name on THAT!).The question posed here is rather irrelevant. NO ONE has "a blank check", because GM (any company or corporation) does not have bottomless resources.Better styling, and superlative "performance" (by that, I mean being among the best in noise, harshness, handling, performance, reliablity, quality) would cost a lot of money.Post-bankruptcy GM actually tried. No one here mentioned GM's effort to do just that: the "Omega" platform, aka CT6.The (horribly misnamed) CT6 was actually a credible Mercedes/Lexus competitor. I'm sure it cost GM a fortune to develop (the platform was unique, not shared with any other car. The top-of-the-line ORIGINAL Blackwing V8 was also unique, expensive, and ultimately...very few were sold. All of this is a LOT of money).I used to know the sales numbers, and my sense was the CT6 sold about HALF the units GM projected. More importantly, it sold about half to two thirds the volume of the S-Class (which cost a lot more in 201x)Many of your fixed cost are predicated on volume. One way to improve your business case (if the right people want to get the Green Light) is to inflate your projected volumes. This lowers the unit cost for seats, mufflers, control arms, etc, and makes the vehicle more profitable--on paper.Suppliers tool up to make the number of parts the carmaker projects. However, if the volume is less than expected, the automaker has to make up the difference.So, unfortunately, not only was the CT6 an expensive car to build, but Cadillac's weak "brand equity" limited how much GM could charge (and these were still pricey cars in 2016-18, a "base" car was ).Other than the name, the "Omega" could have marked the starting point for Cadillac to once again be the standard of the world. Other than the awful name (Fleetwood, Elegante, Paramount, even ParAMOUR would be better), and offering the basest car with a FOUR cylinder turbo on the base car (incredibly moronic!), it was very good car and a CREDIBLE Mercedes S-Class/Lexus LS400 alternative. While I cannot know if the novel aluminum body was worth the cost (very expensive and complex to build), the bragging rights were legit--a LARGE car that was lighter, but had good body rigidity. No surprise, the interior was not the best, but the gap with the big boys was as close as GM has done in the luxury sphere.Mary Barra decided that profits today and tomorrow were more important than gambling on profits in 2025 and later. Having sunk a TON of money, and even done a mid-cycle enhancement, complete with the new Blackwing engine (which copied BMW with the twin turbos nestled in the "V"!), in fall 2018 GM announced it was discontinuing the car, and closing the assembly plant it was built in. (And so you know, building different platforms on the same line is very challenging and considerably less efficient in terms of capital and labor costs than the same platform, or better yet, the same model).So now, GM is anticipating that, as the car market "goes electric" (if you can call it that--more like the Federal Government and EU and even China PUSHING electric cars), they can make electric Cadillacs that are "prestige". The Cadillac Celestique is the opening salvo--$340,000. We will see how it works out.
Lynn Joiner Lynn JoinerJust put 2,000 miles on a Chevy Malibu rental from Budget, touring around AZ, UT, CO for a month. Ran fine, no problems at all, little 1.7L 4-cylinder just sipped fuel, and the trunk held our large suitcases easily. Yeah, I hated looking up at all the huge FWD trucks blowing by, but the Malibu easily kept up on the 80 mph Interstate in Utah. I expect a new one would be about a third the cost of the big guys. It won't tow your horse trailer, but it'll get you to the store. Why kill it?
Lynn Joiner Just put 2,000 miles on a Chevy Malibu rental from Budget, touring around AZ, UT, CO for a month. Ran fine, no problems at all, little 1.7L 4-cylinder just sipped fuel, and the trunk held our large suitcases easily. Yeah, I hated looking up at all the huge FWD trucks blowing by, but the Malibu easily kept up on the 80 mph Interstate in Utah. I expect a new one would be about a third the cost of the big guys. It won't tow your horse trailer, but it'll get you to the store. Why kill it?
Ollicat I am only speaking from my own perspective so no need to bash me if you disagree. I already know half or more of you will disagree with me. But I think the traditional upscale Cadillac buyer has traditionally been more conservative in their political position. My suggestion is to make Cadillac separate from GM and make them into a COMPANY, not just cars. And made the company different from all other car companies by promoting conservative causes and messaging. They need to build up a whole aura about the company and appeal to a large group of people that are really kind of sick of the left and sending their money that direction. But yes, I also agree about many of your suggestions above about the cars too. No EVs. But at this point, what has Cadillac got to lose by separating from GM completely and appealing to people with money who want to show everyone that they aren't buying the leftist Kook-Aid.
Jkross22 Cadillac's brand is damaged for the mass market. Why would someone pay top dollar for what they know is a tarted up Chevy? That's how non-car people see this.