Is the Range Extender Fuel-Consuming?
4 Answers
The range extender consumes approximately 2 liters of fuel per 100 kilometers. Therefore, it cannot be definitively labeled as either fuel-consuming or fuel-efficient, as fuel consumption is never a fixed value. Function of the Range Extender: It allows the vehicle to continue driving when the battery is depleted. The primary role of the range extender is not to charge the battery but to directly supply power to the electric motor. Only excess electricity that cannot be used is directed to the battery. The range extender is an additional energy storage component installed in pure electric vehicles to extend their driving range. Introduction to the Range Extender: A range extender refers to an electric vehicle component that provides additional electrical energy, thereby increasing the driving range of the vehicle. Simply put, the range extender is a combination of an engine and an electric motor. Compared to other new energy vehicles, range-extended electric vehicles have a simpler system configuration and, more importantly, offer more reliable performance and lower costs. Unlike pure electric vehicles, range-extended electric vehicles do not have to worry about driving range limitations while also reducing overall vehicle operating costs.
I've been driving a car with a range extender for two years now, and I feel that the range extender does require fuel, but it only kicks in when the battery is low and doesn't run continuously. For short trips around the city, I mostly rely on electric power, with zero fuel consumption; the range extender only intervenes during long-distance drives to recharge the battery, extending the journey by 200-300 kilometers. Its small engine is designed to be highly efficient, unlike traditional gasoline cars that frequently change speeds, so fuel consumption is actually much lower, around 6 liters per 100 kilometers. I've done the math, and overall, it saves at least 20% on fuel compared to driving a pure gasoline car, while also reducing the hassle of frequent charging. Of course, if traffic is congested, the range extender may work more frequently, using slightly more fuel, but overall, it's not wasteful and actually enhances convenience. My experience is that when choosing a vehicle, consider your daily commute—if you can use more electric power, the range extender is a helpful addition.
From a technical perspective, the range extender is an additional gasoline engine that only activates to generate electricity when the vehicle's battery is low, without directly driving the wheels. This means it does consume fuel, but only operates under specific conditions. The engine typically maintains an optimal RPM, avoiding the inefficiencies of traditional car engines during acceleration and deceleration, resulting in higher fuel utilization. In comparison, pure gasoline vehicles may consume 8-9 liters per 100 kilometers, while range-extended models can reduce this to 5-7 liters in hybrid mode. This is thanks to the smart system prioritizing electric power and only burning fuel when necessary to extend range. Although it consumes fuel during operation, it reduces overall fuel dependency, making driving more energy-efficient, especially noticeable during long-distance travel. I don't see this as wasteful but rather as a smarter way to utilize energy, which is very user-friendly for those transitioning to electric vehicles.
From an economic perspective, the range extender does consume fuel when operating, but overall it helps save more. Short-distance trips using electricity cost almost nothing, making high fuel prices less concerning; on long trips, the range extender activates with a fuel consumption of about 5-6 liters per 100 kilometers, saving over 20% compared to pure gasoline vehicles. I recommend combining charging habits, such as charging fully during off-peak electricity rates and using it primarily for daily commutes, reserving the range extender for highways or emergencies. This way, monthly fuel expenses can be halved while avoiding range anxiety. In the long run, this is more cost-effective than driving a pure gasoline vehicle.
