The transition toward sustainable passenger mobility in emerging markets has created a sharp technological and economic divide between Strong Hybrid Electric Vehicles (SHEVs)—specifically Series-Parallel power-split architectures—and Battery Electric Vehicles (BEVs). While BEVs eliminate tailpipe emissions and offer low per-kilometer energy costs, widespread adoption remains constrained by high upfront battery capital costs, steep commercial fast-charging tariffs, secondary-market depreciation, and coal-heavy electricity grids. Conversely, SHEVs pair Atkinson-cycle internal combustion engines with self-charging electric drivetrains to achieve brake thermal efficiencies exceeding 40%and real-world fuel economies of 23" to " 28" km/l" without relying on external charging infrastructure. This study presents an integrated thermodynamic, techno-economic, and environmental comparison of SHEVs, BEVs, and baseline Internal Combustion Engine Vehicles (ICEVs) in the Indian mid-size passenger segment. Using both nominal cash-flow accounting and a discounted Net Present Value (NPV) Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) framework across an 8-year horizon alongside a Cradle-to-Grave Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), we evaluate break-even distances, fiscal taxation asymmetries, electrochemical battery degradation mechanisms, and Well-to-Wheel (WTW) greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Results indicate that under mixed charging conditions, an average user must accumulate approximately 77,000" to " 80,000" km" (nominal) or 88,000" to " 96,000" km" (discounted at 6%) for a BEV to outperform a Strong Hybrid financially, while coal-dominated grids (710〖" gCO" 〗_2 "eq/kWh" ) currently give SHEVs a marginal lifecycle carbon advantage (157.2 vs. 179.0〖" gCO" 〗_2 "eq/km" ) until renewable grid penetration expands.
The transition toward sustainable passenger mobility in emerging markets has created a sharp technological and economic divide between Strong Hybrid Electric Vehicles (SHEVs)—specifically Series-Parallel power-split architectures—and Battery Electric Vehicles (BEVs). While BEVs eliminate tailpipe emissions and offer low per-kilometer energy costs, widespread adoption remains constrained by high upfront battery capital costs, steep commercial fast-charging tariffs, secondary-market depreciation, and coal-heavy electricity grids. Conversely, SHEVs pair Atkinson-cycle internal combustion engines with self-charging electric drivetrains to achieve brake thermal efficiencies exceeding 40%and real-world fuel economies of 23" to " 28" km/l" without relying on external charging infrastructure. This study presents an integrated thermodynamic, techno-economic, and environmental comparison of SHEVs, BEVs, and baseline Internal Combustion Engine Vehicles (ICEVs) in the Indian mid-size passenger segment. Using both nominal cash-flow accounting and a discounted Net Present Value (NPV) Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) framework across an 8-year horizon alongside a Cradle-to-Grave Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), we evaluate break-even distances, fiscal taxation asymmetries, electrochemical battery degradation mechanisms, and Well-to-Wheel (WTW) greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Results indicate that under mixed charging conditions, an average user must accumulate approximately 77,000" to " 80,000" km" (nominal) or 88,000" to " 96,000" km" (discounted at 6%) for a BEV to outperform a Strong Hybrid financially, while coal-dominated grids (710〖" gCO" 〗_2 "eq/kWh" ) currently give SHEVs a marginal lifecycle carbon advantage (157.2 vs. 179.0〖" gCO" 〗_2 "eq/km" ) until renewable grid penetration expands.