Toyota Going 100% Hybrid By 2020

autofan1 writes "Toyota's vice president in charge of powertrain development, Masatami Takimoto, has said cost cutting on the electric motor, battery and inverter were all showing positive results in reducing the costs of hybrid technology and that by the time Toyota's sales goal of one million hybrids annually is reached, it 'expect margins to be equal to gasoline cars.' Takimoto also made the bold claim that by 2020, hybrids will be the standard drivetrain and account for '100 percent' of Toyota's cars as they would be no more expensive to produce than a conventional vehicle."

Comments

All Cars or Trucks Too?

[WrongSizeGlass]

Takimoto also made the bold claim that by 2020, hybrids will be the standard drivetrain and account for '100 percent' of Toyota's cars as they would be no more expensive to produce than a conventional vehicle. 100% is a lofty goal. Is that just cars or does it include trucks & SUV's too?

Re:All Cars or Trucks Too?

[Charcharodon]

Actually an electric drive train on trucks and SUV's would be more desireable than your typical transmission that we've had for the last 40-50 years. Electric motors make the most torque at zero RPMs for much better load/towing. There is also once they make the switch to independently powered wheels (an electric motor built into the wheel) you could have much more interesting steering suspension options since there would be no drive shafts getting in the way.

As far as they've said they mean all their vehicles will have hybrid drivetrains. The only sad thing is going to be our grandkids asking us what it means to drive "stick".

Re:All Cars or Trucks Too?

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem with in wheel motors is that they have a really high un-sprung weight. This means that on bumps, the momentum that the wheel/motor has will be hard to stop with a shock absorber and thus the tire will lift off the ground resulting in poor cornering / braking and a rough and noisy ride. Having an individual motor for each wheel mounted to the car's frame that has a small axle to the wheel is required for decent performance.

in hub motors are bad, unless they are really light, like around 4-8kg.

Re:All Cars or Trucks Too?

[packeteer]

A bicycle works pretty good for me for commuting. I know that it wont work for everyone but I think most people could do it. It is good for you to get exercise, it is good for the environment not to use a car. Your metabolism shoots up all day when you exercise in the morning, you have more energy all day. Also our road capacity is being overwhelmed, many more bikes can fit on roads than cars.

Also I know someone wants to reply and say that bikes are slow but its just not true. I go much faster than cars on the freeway during rush hour.

Also bikes are cheaper to buy and maintain, by a LOT.

Re:All Cars or Trucks Too?

[zippthorne]

Yeah I did the bicycle thing for a bit. It worked really well when the one-way commute was only three and a half miles. I'm not sure I'm patient enough to do much further than twice that though.

I think the main barrier to bicycling though is that it's not considered at all when building roads, so you end up with roads with no shoulder, and maybe a sidewalk. Neither option is really safe for a daily commute. (although the second is safe for the cyclist...) There really needs to be a grade-separated bicycle lane, at least for main roads. I think more people would bike if they weren't putting their lives in their hands every time they did.

Re:All Cars or Trucks Too?

[tbo]

Also our road capacity is being overwhelmed, many more bikes can fit on roads than cars.

I am a big bike fan and don't own a car, so please don't take this the wrong way, but what you're saying is potentially somewhat misleading (unintentionally, I know). Yes, more bikes can fit on the road than cars, but the capacity of most bikes is 1, versus 5 for most cars. Bikes also have a much lower top speed, so the potential "flux" of bicyclists is lower than that for driver/passengers for the same density of "seats".

Consider a freeway flowing smoothly with moderately heavy traffic. The amount of road space occupied by one car (including the gap behind it) could comfortably hold maybe 12 bikes. If a typical cyclist averages 20 mph, versus 60 mph for cars on this idealized freeway, and each car contains 4 people, then the flux (number passing a given point per unit time) of cyclists is the same as that of car commuters.

I have of course made all sorts of assumptions in favor of the cars here--most commuters don't carpool, freeways often get congested and slow, and there are a lot of places where freeways aren't available. Obviously cycling beats the current reality of single-occupant vehicles stuck in traffic. My point is just that a well-designed carpool/vanpool system can actually be competitive with cycling in terms of road efficiency.

Re:All Cars or Trucks Too?

[AaronW]

I was talking with a friend of mine who works at Tesla motors and he said the same thing. A motor in each wheel adds too much mass there and makes the suspension far more difficult to deal with, plus having to properly split the power between different wheels. Basically it's simpler and cheaper to just use a centralized motor like a conventional car, which also gives better performance. Generally for performance you want to lower the mass as much as possible in the wheels since this reduces the angular momentum in the wheels and makes it much more responsive to bumps and other imperfections in the road surface.

I could see adding a smaller motor for the front and a larger motor in the rear, since the best acceleration comes from the rear, but front or all wheel drive is advantageous in some circumstances (i.e. driving in snow) and could provide even better regenerative braking support. (I.e. the front motor could be optimized as an alternator/generator while the rear one is optimized to provide power to the wheels).

Sure, a motor in each wheel would allow for some really creative designs, but it's not very practical due to the added weight, suspension, cost and complexity involved.

Also, in general, a single larger motor will be more efficient than two or four smaller motors, and is easier to add support for liquid cooling, power, etc. Having exposed high voltage wires to each wheel would be a reliability problem as well as a safety problem as well. Many hybrid motors run at well over 400 volts with multi-phase power and a lot of amps. Having this confined within the chassis means shorter wires, so less losses, less EMF, and better safety.

Re:All Cars or Trucks Too?

[Daniel Dvorkin]

Parent post is not flamebait; it is an accurate description of the road behavior of many, many bicyclists. I don't know how many times I've passed a bicyclist on the street, carefully taking all the precautions I would take when passing any slow-moving vehicle (slowing down, moving as far as possible to the left, only settling back into my lane when I'm sure I've passed completely, etc.) and then stopped at a red light a block or two down ... only to have the bicyclist come zooming past me, right through the red light, and have to repeat the whole process a little way past the light. And this can go on for light after light, seriously slowing down traffic and greatly increasing the chances of an accident somewhere along the line. Mention this to most bicyclists, though, and get ready for an earful of self-righteous rage.

That's a scary thought

[jfengel]

Somehow, I'd hoped that 13 years from now we'd be all electric, or otherwise not tied permanently to OPEC's apron strings. Hybrids are a nice improvement, but they're not exactly flying cars or solar power.

I suppose in Car Industry terms, 13 years isn't all that far off. I suspect that a car model is perhaps 5 to 7 years in the making, or longer for a really radical redesign.

But to think that I'll be turning 50 and cars will still be burning plain old gasoline, with only a moderate improvement in performance over right now... that makes me depressed.

Re:That's a scary thought

[ASBands]

You are absolutely correct: this graph shows the average miles per gallon of all vehicles in the United States. It is extremely telling that the graph is practically level since the mid 80s. To think that we haven't gained any more knowledge of engines is ridiculous - we should be improving fuel-efficiency standards, but we're not.

To address the GP, I recall reading somewhere that if the average vehicle got 28 miles per gallon (the actual number is between 25 and 30), we would not have to import a drop of oil from OPEC. Even if hybrids get only 50 mpg, the demand for fuel would decrease substantially. Furthermore, the technology that goes into hybrid vehicles could easily improve (it's a relatively new technology).

Re:What the Japanese don't understand

[Anonymous Coward]

"What the Japanese don't understand" is a hilarios way to start any sentence about automobiles. There are things that Japan has been getting right for over 20 years that GM still hasn't learned.

Re:Batteries

[esampson]

From Toyota's own website (http://www.toyota.com/about/environment/technolog y/2004/hybrid.html)

Is there a recycling plan in place for nickel-metal hydride batteries?

Toyota has a comprehensive battery recycling program in place and has been recycling nickel-metal hydride batteries since the RAV4 Electric Vehicle was introduced in 1998. Every part of the battery, from the precious metals to the plastic, plates, steel case and the wiring, is recycled. To ensure that batteries come back to Toyota, each battery has a phone number on it to call for recycling information and dealers are paid a $200 "bounty" for each battery.

So I suppose that yes, they will have a battery recycling program in place since it is doubtful they would discontinue their current one.

GM Pledges to have a hybrid vehicle by 2020!

[RingDev]

GM today announced plans to begin planning the development of a new hybrid platform. A GM executive was quoted saying "Toyota has really got a jump on this whole 'hybrid' thing, but we're on it!" The new platform, due out in 13 years is expected to compete against the current Prius. Only time will tell if this risky endeavor will be a wise one.

-Rick

Hybrids can be better at highway speeds too

[dfoulger]

Your assumption that hybrids are "dead weight" at highway speeds is wrong. I get my best hybrid mileage on the highway (often at or over 70 MPG). It doesn't have to be that way. A hybrid designed for torque rather than economy might now do any better than a standard engine at highway speeds, but a hybrid designed for economy rather than torque (like my Honda Insight) does.

0% Zero Emissions

[Doc Ruby]

So Toyota will sell no all-electric or other "zero emissions" cars in 2020? No H2 or fuelcell vehicles? Hybrids are better than simple internal combustion engines, but not good enough. Has Toyota and the car industry just figured out that they can avoid the really big change away from gasoline just by getting us all to go "ooh, hybrids - that's good"?

Re:What a dreadful idea

[Control Group]

The real win of hybrids isn't the drivetrain, it's rengenerative braking. Storing kinetic energy rather than dissipating it as heat is an obvious efficiency win, since you're presumably going to stop moving at some point.

Really, the other efficiencies of hybrids are side effects of regenerative braking - once you've got an infrastructure in the car to store kinetic energy and subsequently deliver it to the wheels, you might as well use that infrastructure to improve the running efficiency as much as possible.

Now, it's possible that for current hybrids, the overhead incurred by including that infrastructure outweighs the gains of regenerative braking for some driving profiles, but there's no reason to think that will always be the case, since that's an engineering problem, not a physics one.

Other things equal, vehicles with regenerative braking will always be more fuel-efficient than vehicles without. The challenge is to make other things equal.

Re:Hmm...

[esampson]

From Toyota's own site (http://www.toyota.com/about/environment/technolog y/2004/hybrid.html)

How long does the Prius battery last and what is the replacement cost?

The Prius battery (and the battery-power management system) has been designed to maximize battery life. In part this is done by keeping the battery at an optimum charge level - never fully draining it and never fully recharging it. As a result, the Prius battery leads a pretty easy life. We have lab data showing the equivalent of 180,000 miles with no deterioration and expect it to last the life of the vehicle. We also expect battery technology to continue to improve: the second-generation model battery is 15% smaller, 25% lighter, and has 35% more specific power than the first. This is true of price as well. Between the 2003 and 2004 models, service battery costs came down 36% and we expect them to continue to drop so that by the time replacements may be needed it won't be a much of an issue. Since the car went on sale in 2000, Toyota has not replaced a single battery for wear and tear.

So it isn't as though you will be replacing the battery every few years. 7 years without a single replacement makes me suspect that if you bought a new Prius now the battery would last on average at least 10 to 15 years (since the batteries being installed now are even better than those installed 7 years ago).

Also because of Toyota's battery recycling program paying $200 per battery (though I expect that would drop as the cost of the batteries get lower) you won't, or at least shouldn't, have any form of disposal charge.

prepare for renewed onslaught of hydrogen power

[Locutus]

marketing pieces. I think it was a GM executive who released a public statement that hybrids were bad because it distracted attention from the real future, hydrogen fuelcell vehicles. Oh, and he chose to release this the same week that Toyota invited the press to see the Prius built on the same productionline as 4 other cars. Not being custom built in some special production facility.

Go Toyota, show em how its done. Can you believe that the US had actually started working on hybrid vehicle in 1993? Yup, but good ole George Dubya Bush terminated government backing/involvement once he/Dick created the hydrogen program?

LoB

Re:I'm sorry but

[ect5150]

Maybe because batteries can be recycled? http://www.batteryrecycling.com/

Re:Hmm...

[sunspot42]

Your Civic is a LOT safer than the Prius

Source, please. According to Consumer Reports, in US Government testing the Prius did better in all regards than most cars in its class, with excellent driver side impact performance. In no way, shape or form is the Civic a "lot" safer than a Prius.

has significantly more performance

Source, please. The Civic automatic sedan does 0-30 in 3.6 seconds and 0-60 in 10.1 seconds. It does 45-65mph in 6.0 seconds. The Prius does 0-30 in 3.7 seconds, and 0-60 in 10.5. The Prius goes 45-65 in 6.4 seconds. Virtually identical performance, and the Prius is a larger car with more interior volume and a much quieter ride than the Civic.

and your Civic isn't a bomb on wheels waiting to go off should the battery compartment be intruded upon by another vehicle

Source, please. I haven't seen any reports regarding a Prius going up in smoke. Frankly, I'd be a lot more worried about the gas tank in either car than the batteries. Gasoline vapors are far more likely to explode than any battery.

In related news...

[vought]

GM, Chrysler and Ford announce that they'll transition to "thinking about possibly getting some of those battery-rechargey cars" into production by 2015.

Re:Hmm...

[MojoRilla]

Well, if you had actually read yesterday's article, you would have seen that the mileage estimate on your regular civic has also dropped. The Prius combined estimate dropped 16%, while the non hybrid Civic dropped 12%. Even after the milage drop, the Prius still gets 58% better combined fuel economy than your Civic (46 mpg vs. 29 mpg combined).

Of course, these are just estimates, and your mileage may vary.

Re:Conservation alternative

[lgw]

If you think carbon release is important, coal is by far the place to focus your concern. America generates more CO2 from burning coal to produce electrical power than all the CO2 generated from all transportation combined. A lot of change could be made in 12 years (without asking anyone to lower their standard of living) by simply replacing coal-burning power plants.

Nuclear power may have it's risks, but those risks are well studied, and even if every single American nuclear power plant had a Three mile Island style meltdown all in the same year, the collective environmental impact would still be less than normal coal usage. (And of course modern nuclear power plant designs make that kind of meltdown physically impossible.)