At the same time, a PHEV is a good stopgap if you live in a place with poor charging infrastructure. You might be able to charge enough to drive locally, but not when going some place farther afield. For example, I may be able to charge enough to drive around the neighbourhood from my socket, but literally half the city does not have any kind of EV charging capability, making a BEV unsuitable.

A PHEV would do better there, since I could switch to petrol if needed, and run in EV mode otherwise, and when charging infrastructure becomes good enough that I can live without the petrol part, then it might be worth switching to BEV.

PHEV in my opinion is a really dumb idea. It got popular, because it was an easy way for car manufacturers to continue making large SUVs and adhere to even stricter fuel efficiency restrictions, while also benefitting from generous state subsidies. Now that those subsidies are either scaled down or completely removed the PHEV sector is shrinking fast.

I'd argue that to be less of a issue with PHEV, since they weren't all that common to start with, and more of an issue with things like Mild Hybrids where the motor is just there to give the ICE a little boost, and precious little else.

With PHEV, the maintenance cost is higher than ICE, because at the end you need to service and maintain two engines.

I would be curious if they are. ECVT systems don't seem that much more complex than an equivalent automatic transmission, since the motor doubles as the starter and internal brake bands.

Maybe for the diesel-electric locomotive-type drivetrain that Opel's Ampera-E uses, since it's basically an EV with an onboard generator, but even then, maintenance costs could easily be offset by the ICE not running as often or as hard.

The catalytic converters of hybrid cars are often sought after because they are cleaner and don't see as much wear as their ICE counterparts. It would not be much of a stretch for that logic to extend to hybrid engines.