A "two-motor hybrid system" ??? Isn't having two motors a requirement of any hybrid system?

Ah yes, you've given me an Insight. ;)

@Engineer-Poet: "licensed by Ford" iirc

Does anyone know a link to a site that describes the new Honda Accord hybrid system (with 2 e-motors) in more detail?
(Reportedly they use the same architecture for the new PHEV and HEV Accord models).

At several places it's said to be some sort of e-CVT, a clutch is mentioned too, but no details.
Unless somebody disassembles one. Who'll be the first? Perhaps ORNL lab.

The statement above:
"The two-motor hybrid system, which is paired with a 6-speed automatic transmission, ..." is almost certainly wrong, or all other sources are wrong.

Thanks usbseawolf.

Basically it's a series hybrid with the ability to connect ICE output directly to the driven wheels, but with fixed gear ratio.
Should be very efficient on flat roads. Once in direct engine drive, for acceleration, it can also use e-motor, and probably the generator.
Not good for long (slow) mountain climbing, as then it'll work as series hybrid, only the e-motor would be providing power to wheels. That's the likely reason for the use of powerful (and expensive) e-motor (124 kW).

@DavidJ,

Agree, but not completely.
This system can work as parallel hybrid only at higher vehicle speeds. Not good for mountains, but for most of the US it's acceptable.

"BEV or PHEV needs a strong motor(s)...".
BEV do need strong motors. PHEVs are quite OK if, in battery mode, they can only provide speeds up to 100 (or 120) kph, especially if battery is relatively small (Accord has one of the smallest batteries of all PHEVs)
If in BEV mode it could use both motor and generator to drive wheels, it would be a big plus, but it's not the case here, not easy to implement.

I believe that HEV and PHEV should not share the same engine and drive train. The PHEV should have 1/2 the engine of the HEV version, having 2 cylinders instead of 4 cylinders. This will allow savings in cost, weight, and internal space. The shorter engine in the front will yield room for another battery pack, in order increase trunk space in the rear.

Additionally, in the PHEV version, both the generator and the motor can be downsized. The reason for this is that with a smaller engine, there is no need for a large generator. Then, one may ask, why also down size the motor? Answer: the motor can be downsized if in the electric-only mode, the generator can also provide power. In order to do that, another clutch is needed between the engine and the generator. Thus, the engine is declutched, and the generator now can contribute power to the drive train. Thus, instead of having a 124 kW motor, and then another 100kW generator in the HEV vehicle, the PHEV version will only need a 60 kW generator/motor and a 84 kW motor. The advantages of engine and motor/generator downsizing are obviously weight, cost, and space saving in order to make up for the larger battery of the PHEV.

Thus, a dedicated PHEV design from a clean-sheet approach needs not cost more, nor weight more, nor having less trunk space than a HEV, yet will offer higher saving in fuel cost and more energy independence. This will open for much higher penetration of PHEV than is the case right now.

@E-P,
Good Point. This is like the chicken or the egg dilemma. With lower-cost PHEV and better marketing, higher volume will ensue. However, without the investments required to lower the costs and enhancing the desirability of PHEV's and for better marketing, the volume will remain low and the cost will remain high.

The real issue behind this is that OEM's have little incentive to push for PHEV. The immediate profit margin is not necessarily higher than for conventional cars, yet, due to the greatly enhanced reliability of PHEV's and hence reduced service business later on, dealers may object to selling too many PHEV's, while being content with just a low-volume PHEV sales as green washing. The Chevy Volt is a case in point, that offers too large a battery pack that results in too high a cost and reduced passengger capacity, in order to guarantee minuscule sales. Saving on oil consumption is the last of GM's objectives. It will take much higher oil prices before the consumers will demand higher volume of PHEV's and the OEM's will have to comply.

However, it remains encouraging to see more and more OEM's offering PHEV's, albeit for purposes other than aiming at high-volume production.

@HarveyD,
Until battery can attain energy density comparable to liquid hydrocarbon, and battery will never be able to, a PHEV will remain a better option. I prefer as small a battery pack as possible in order to maximize internal space, reduce cost, and reduce weight.

As battery will get more energy density, and power density, the pack can get smaller, and PHEV will be more competitive with conventional ICEV, and that will be very good. However, a PHEV will always be more versatile and practical than a BEV. Imagine in a prolonged power outage situation, which vehicle will be usable and which will not? A PHEV will run just fine in a prolonged power outage, for example, after a major disaster, while a BEV will be stranded. In a prolonged camping trip, a PHEV with additional fuel supply can provide extensive electricity supply for lighting, music, and other usages, while a BEV won't do that.