[Phlyer]

It depends on what your criteria for 'works great' is.

Of course. It would appear your criteria is: If you put unlimited money into a hybrid, can you get it to perform better than a car that costs 1/10 as much? I expect you could.

But if you let me have an unlimited budget, could I produce something that I called a hybrid that outperformed even the vehicles you mentioned? I expect I could. For example, if I put a brake/generator on an F-16 to recharge the existing battery after taxi I could call it a hybrid (even though recharging the battery is a negligible drain on the generator once the main engine is running) and I'd have performance that Porsche could only dream about.

But with equal constraints in every way *except* that one is a hybrid (a meaningful hybrid, where the battery/motors contribute significantly to the overall performance/range, etc. of the vehicle) and one is not, then the non-hybrid will be less expensive to own and to operate unless your driving is almost exclusively slow-speed, low-acceleration, start-and stop where the energy wasted idling in traffic is greater than the energy lost accelerating the heavier hybrid vehicle.

[diogenes ghost]

Ummmm, no.

My criteria is 'does a hybrid hypercar outperform a normal one?'

And the answer is unquestionably yes.

You see, I dearly love vehicles that burn copious amounts of carbon based fuels but if adding an electric to the mix allows me to wax the other guy, then sign me up.

The 918 and P1 are rather pricy, granted, but cheaper and quicker than the Veyron, which is petrol only.