This is EREV (Extended-Range Electric Vehicle) where the fossil fuel engine is used solely to charge the battery, as opposed to a PHEV (Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicle) where it can also drive the wheels.

Either way, the cost is that the vehicle has the complexity of both systems. The benefit is variable, YMMV (Your milage may vary). There must be cases where it's a good idea. Especially at present, while the energy supply systems are in transition.

3rd sentence: It is a fully electric car with the security blanket of a gas-powered generator to charge the battery. So not your average hybrid whos gas-powered motor directly drives the wheels.

It's new in that it's not really a hybrid. It isn't meant to take over when you run out of battery. It's meant as an emergency recharge for the battery to get you to the next charging station.

Hybrids can just run on gas and not have to worry about the distance to the next charging station.

Could be an obvious mistake in the title to drive engagement, or as someone said in the comments of the article:

> WSJ catering to the anti EV crowd to get them to say "Har har look at those silly EVs, needs a gas engine now."

from the article: "Most plug-in hybrids on the road today are essentially gasoline vehicles with a battery shoehorned in to provide a small amount of all-electric range. EREVs [Extended Ranged Electric Vehicles] flip the concept. They are designed first as electric vehicles, and the engine solely acts as a generator for the battery, with no mechanical connection to the wheels."

I drove an i3 rex, first generation. The gas motorcycle engine loved breaking down, due to disuse. Such an unreliable offence of crap. According to the dealership mechanic, the engine was packaged in a way that made the fluids collect in places they shouldn't.