Slashdot Mirror
Toyota Is Losing the Electric Car Race, So It Pretends Hybrids Are Better
Ben Jervey from DeSmogBlog writes about how Toyota is "using questionable logic" to claim hybrid vehicles are superior than electric vehicles, when in reality it's only saying that because it decided years ago to invest in gasoline-electric hybrids and fuel cells in the long term instead of battery production. This decision is now coming back to haunt them. From the report: There are at least 12 car companies currently selling an all-electric vehicle in the United States, and Toyota isn't one of them. Despite admitting recently that the Tesla Model 3 alone is responsible for half of Toyota's customer defections in North America -- as Prius drivers transition to all-electric -- the company has been an outspoken laggard in the race to electrification. Now, the company is using questionable logic to attempt to justify its inaction on electrification, claiming that its limited battery capacity better serves the planet by producing gasoline-electric hybrids. For years, Toyota leadership has shunned investment in all-electric cars, laying out a more conservative strategy to "electrify" its fleet -- essentially doubling down on hybrids and plug-in hybrids -- as a bridge to a future generation of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. As Tesla, Nissan, and GM have led the technological shift to fully battery electric vehicles, Toyota has publicly bashed the prospects of all-electric fleets. (See, for instance, the swipe the company took at plug-in vehicles in this recent Toyota Corolla Hybrid commercial.)
Last week, at the Geneva Auto Show, a Toyota executive provided a curious explanation for the company's refusal to launch a single battery electric vehicle. As Car and Driver reported, Toyota claims that it is limited by battery production capacity and that "Toyota is able to produce enough batteries for 28,000 electric vehicles each year -- or for 1.5 million hybrid cars." In other words, because Toyota has neglected to invest in battery production, it can only produce enough batteries for a trivial number of all-electric vehicles. Due to this self-inflicted capacity shortage, the company is forced to choose between manufacturing 1.5 million hybrids or 28,000 electric cars. Using what Car and Driver called "fuzzy math," the company tried to justify the strategy to forgo electric vehicles (EVs) on environmental grounds. As Toyota explained it, "selling 1.5 million hybrid cars reduces carbon emissions by a third more than selling 28,000 EVs." As for the "fuzzy math," Toyota's calculation "seems to assume that for every hybrid sold, a fully gasoline-powered car would be taken off the road," writes Jervey. "In reality, many Toyota hybrid buyers are replacing a Toyota hybrid. And, based on Toyota's own revelation that they are losing Prius drivers to Tesla, it stands to reason that many Toyota hybrid drivers would jump at the opportunity to transition to an all-electric Toyota."
Last week, at the Geneva Auto Show, a Toyota executive provided a curious explanation for the company's refusal to launch a single battery electric vehicle. As Car and Driver reported, Toyota claims that it is limited by battery production capacity and that "Toyota is able to produce enough batteries for 28,000 electric vehicles each year -- or for 1.5 million hybrid cars." In other words, because Toyota has neglected to invest in battery production, it can only produce enough batteries for a trivial number of all-electric vehicles. Due to this self-inflicted capacity shortage, the company is forced to choose between manufacturing 1.5 million hybrids or 28,000 electric cars. Using what Car and Driver called "fuzzy math," the company tried to justify the strategy to forgo electric vehicles (EVs) on environmental grounds. As Toyota explained it, "selling 1.5 million hybrid cars reduces carbon emissions by a third more than selling 28,000 EVs." As for the "fuzzy math," Toyota's calculation "seems to assume that for every hybrid sold, a fully gasoline-powered car would be taken off the road," writes Jervey. "In reality, many Toyota hybrid buyers are replacing a Toyota hybrid. And, based on Toyota's own revelation that they are losing Prius drivers to Tesla, it stands to reason that many Toyota hybrid drivers would jump at the opportunity to transition to an all-electric Toyota."
Nice libelous allegation there, BeauHD. Keep telling us what to believe.
Making the batteries are expensive and dirty.
Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
Depending on what are the trade parameters.
I do not get fuel cells. Energy comparisons fail when compression is included. Transportation is difficult, and station-local production by electrolysis is inefficient, and as long as you have electricity at the station, just put it in a battery. (Blah blah charging times -- they are only going to get better.) Why would Toyota bet on it?
Gasoline engine cars are not going anywhere. People who commute long distances and drive long distance for vacation etc.. still will need gasoline powered cars for the foreseeable future. Even with charging stations it takes quite a bit of time to charge and it equals lost road time. Hybrids will be where its at for that segment and Toyota has some of the best hybrid tech.
Yes, electric vehicles appear to be the future, but hybrids do have distinct market advantages today: range, refueling infrastructure, and refuel time.
If Toyota's competitors are zigging toward all-electric, it makes competitive sense for Toyota to zag toward an energy-efficient technology that fits better into the state of the current fueling infrastructure. In fact, doing so, Toyota can manufacture more hybrid cars and scale their battery production up when the electric infrastructure, battery storage, and refueling time issues are resolved.
This seems like a smart business strategy to me.
"I only want to do X, therefore X is the best option imaginable!"
Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
I would say Toyota is right about some things but it's not what the market wants out of new vehicles today so they have to spin it anyway they can to keep up.
Where I live hybrids are better since the distances involved getting to a major city involves some pretty advanced travel planning if you are driving an EV which means the distance can increase with up to 50% to accommodate charging stations. Plus, it gets really cold during the winter which reduces any EV to a frozen lump that can travel at best 60% of their stated range which complicates things further.
Which also explains why everyone I know who bought an EV also has a gas guzzler or a hybrid as a second car.
--- Reality doesn't care about your opinions, it happens anyway and if you are in the way you'll get squished.
Let me count the number of all-electric cars that cost less than $30,000.00 USD new, have a range of 400+ miles, and a refuel/recharge time of 3 minutes. 0.
When hybrids are cheap, efficient enough (40+ mpg), and for all intensive purposes (just kidding, don't freak) instantaneously refuelable, they're better than those with an lesser range, higher cost, and marginally better fuel efficiency. Not only that, there's 50 years of manufacturing knowledge behind toyota's ICE. I would trust toyota's naturally aspirated camry to run 400k miles, because it has a proven track record. Will your tesla 3 make it to 400k? Maybe, maybe not. Will it cost $15k to refresh it? Maybe, maybe not.
I *WANT* all electrics to be the norm. I want them for their MPGe, and lack of any transmission. However, it's just too early to claim that toyota is losing because they're not going balls deep into EV's. They're probably rolling every car they have off the lot as-is.
Hybrids are the superior technology, then they are the style of hybrid that a diesel-electric locomotive is - all traction is electrical, electricity is provided either by batteries or by a generator ran by a gas turbine. You can recharge the batteries fully from the power grid or from the running engine and the car is operational without range anxiety or extended downtime.
A Chevy bolt is much closer to this ideal.
But Toyota's aren't that. Toyotas can't go over 25mph with the electric motors, can't accelerate fast enough to speeds under 25mph on electric motors only, and their "recovery" systems make no sense in most places, and let's not get started on all the steering, braking and handling issues they have.
Toyota's approach could work if they would make a compelling plug-in hybrid. An electric vehicle isn't an upgrade over a plug-in hybrid unless its price is substantially lower (or maybe maintenance is much less.) I have been driving a Prius Plug-in since 2012 and it is a great car, but its all electric range of 12 miles is far below what is necessary to be an attractive option in 2019. The 'upgraded' Prius Prime from Toyota has 25 miles all electric range, but now the Volt has 53 miles range. If I had 60 miles electric range, I would be driving electric for about 90 percent of my driving. With no electric range anxiety because with a full tank it goes 450 miles, and with the Prius' reliability, that plug-in hybrid could be a real winner. It looks like Toyota is going to lose badly over the next decade unless they make a big change to prioritize electric range.
Which is better, a hybrid or a fully electric car depends on how a person uses a car. If your vehicle usage can accommodate he limitations of current electric vehicles, thats cool. If not, a hybrid might be a better fit. Hydrogen fuel cells are a dead end. Hydrogen fueling stations are too complicated and dangerous. And as to the arguments that electric vehicles are not as green as people think because they are being charged by electricity produced by cola powered generating plants, coal is largely being phase out now. Many coal fired plants are being converted to cleaner burning natural gas. And as more wind, solar and hydro plants are brought online, that will be even better.
And if the oil and auto industries could be stopped from suppressing technology that they see as threatening their profits, that could make the transition to zero emissions vehicles faster, easier, and much less expensive!
It's not that Toyota is "losing the electric car race". It's that they are betting on hydrogen but it takes more time to get right.
Personally I still think a long term bet on hydrogen as the ultimate electric car tech makes way more sense, in terms of being able to refill a car quickly, and even home power units based on hydrogen...
Until then they get by with hybrids, but it's not because they are losing - it's because they are Japanese and really thinking way longer term than any American company (except Musk of course).
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Electric SUCKS. Limited mileage compared to a combustible engine and a hybrid. For someone who lives in a concrete cage like New York City or LA LA land and you only drive to your local brothel,sure you can live with an electric go-kart. But for people who travel the entire U.S.A you can't drive eight hours non-stop. A Hybrid IS WAY BETTER. Only a millennial who was told by someone that it isn't would believe that. But then again, the stupidity of this generation is amazing and probably the stupidest generation in the history of the world. Well, perhaps doing the Spanish Inquisition you can find competition.
All the "delays" and "missteps" by Tesla are basically waiting for battery price to fall enough to make its promises deliverable. Every announcement of Tesla is met with, "it is impossible". Then as years go by and when people are all berating Tesla for not keeping the promise, the battery price falls enough and suddenly its product is viable and has a positive gross margin!
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
Umm.. what are the Mirai and Rav4 EVs then? Sure, the Mirai uses Hydrogen, but it is driven by electric motors and incorporates a battery to go with its fuel cell.
Toyota sells over 10 million vehicles per year and over 1 million of those have hybrid powertrains. It's proven that its hybrid system works and is rolling it out to more models in its lineup.
Most vehicles are driven in city traffic, where engines idle a lot. Idling is terribly inefficient, possibly more than accelerating and braking, which also happens in city traffic an awful lot.
Also worth noting is that Toyota hasn't been sitting still on its hybrid technology - it has changed the engines to be even more efficient (replaced mechanically-driven accessories with electric versions, switched to Atkinson cycle) and the batteries have been getting bigger as that tech improves and becomes cheaper.
I'd rather than a million $20,000 hybrid cars on city streets than 100,000 $45,000 battery-electric Tesla's. Toyota has never been a technology leader, but it has always been an affordable, mass-market manufacturer with an attitude of continuous improvement.
Why does Slashdot now have a cabal of anonymous dildos who follow around just about every regular commenter and talk shit about them, whether it's relevant to the topic or not?
I think the reason why Prius owners are defecting to the Model 3 has nothing to do with EV vs. hybrid, but rather the status associated with the Model 3. The original Prius was a plain boxy car, but the sales really took off when they decided to make it completely odd looking (ugly). When this happened, hybrid owners could drive around displaying how "earth friendly" they are, and everyone would notice them.
Nowadays every other Prius is a taxi/Uber/Lyft, and they're fairly common. Why would someone want to drive around making everyone think you're an Uber driver? The Model 3 got so much press due its delays, and now there's a sort of mystique surrounding it. People will pay attention to you again, and you can claim that you bought the car because you want to save the environment, but in reality, you care about the status symbol more than anything else.
You sound jealous
The ability to drive anywhere in the USA in range of a road and gas.
Why be limited to the set range of all-electric?
Enjoy more of the USA using energy offered on more roads.
Why wait years and decades for all-electric support along roads to catch up?
Enjoy all of the USA today. Winning with energy that is ready and usable.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Slashdot's owners are scam lords. Read the reviews below.
https://www.glassdoor.com/Reviews/Employee-Review-BizX-RVW20868609.htm
Some internet guy thinks something. Slashdot posts like an idiot child.
Just bought a new Toyota. Gas engine, no hybrid, no batteries. Fuck you.
Just so we're clear, you're logic there is completely broken.
I for one love to go on road trip vacations, and the time spent behind the wheel is more like 14-16 hours, if want to get to where I'm going reasonably quickly.
I'm sorry, but there is no EV on the market at the moment that's going to last 14 hours. Or even 12 hours, or even 3. Not at highway speeds.
So you're going to be stopping a LOT to recharge. This why I'm still staying away from EVs. They don't make sense if you like to road trip vacation, or do any road trip, or any prolonged driving (EV's are worthless for taxi's for example. And police cars, and buses, tractor-trailers, etcetc.)
There is a very limited use-case for EVs: Commute to/from work, run errands around town. That's it folks. If that's all you need from your car, get an EV. If you wanna drive half a day to get to a national park, forget EVs.
Disclosure: I own a Prius.
You people do realize that Toyota had a 100% electric Rav4 in the early 2000s don't you? They partnered with Panasonic and made a kick ass NiMH battery they called the Prismatic EV-95 battery and it powered the Rav4 EV. But GM had sold the majority patent rights for NiMH to the oil industry and Toyota ended up in court and not only did they have to stop selling the Rav4 EV and the EV-95 batteries, they almost lost the right to sell their hybrids because they used NiMH too. That's right, the oil company wanted to shut down their use of NiMH in vehicles. FYI, the GM EV1 got 125 miles on a charge with the NiMH batteries they used. That was before GM collected them all and destroyed them once Bush/Cheney feed the industry $$$ to smoke hydrogen.
So I have to wonder, why is Toyota so adverse to EVs when they were once industry leaders? Does it have to do with some legal declaration they made long ago in order to be "allowed" to continue to make and sell hybrids? It's almost insane how they are staying away from EVs.
LoB
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
Iridium cost initial investors dearly. Restructured for pennies on the dollar, getting by. Tesla might need a rescuer like Nissan needed Renault. Toyota also spreading bets on self driving ventures. They may win they may lose. Having cash in a liquidity crunch offers opportunities and like wise leveraging with liquidity rigidity increases vulnerability. The fuel cells gambit though another story.
Weak ass trolls who have a poorly developed sense of humor. The same people who still think fart jokes are funny after 6th grade and well into adulthood. I used to work with one of them. He was quite proud of his grits and other stupid nonsense. He also quite literally was the stereotypical Cheetos stained unwashed obese developer so it makes sense.
I think that Toyota hasn't been able to innovate effectively for the past few years. They've been so accustomed to making bland vanilla family sedans and light pickups for so long, that they've lost the DNA they used to have for making cars that are exciting. This is why they've had to resort to using components from their competitors/partners lately....The Scion FRS/Toyota G86/Subaru BRZ uses an engine developed by Subaru....the upcoming Supra uses an engine from BMW, and the outgoing Lexus LFA used an engine that was mostly developed by Yamaha. Sure this type of cooperation isn't unique to Toyota, but it's usually done by other car companies to simplify cost and production, not necessarily because of the lack of technical know-how (which I think can be evidenced by the Supra's high starting price of $50k USD compared to the competition in the same model segment).
If you post as Anonymous Coward, don't expect a reply.
Yes, even Teslas, are for faggots.
But on the upside, there's plenty of time to let your "wife" peg you in the gas station restroom while you wait hours for your dumb little piece of shit to recharge. So have fun, queers.
they almost lost the right to sell their hybrids because they used NiMH too.
So how is it they managed to make the Prius? The Prius used NiMH, and the first model came online in 2003, the year the electric RAV4 was discontinued. If it was for some "legal declaration", seems like they would have continued making the electric RAV4 instead of switching to a new platform.
If you post as Anonymous Coward, don't expect a reply.
The times that a hybrid is really way better is when a natural disaster hits or when a blackout hits. Northeast blackout of 2003 anyone? Some places where without electricity for two days where other more unlucky ones did not have electricity for up to 2 weeks. Cellphone towers depleted their backup generator fuel; people could not charge their phones; internet went down; cable tv died... POTS and Amateur Radio became the norm to rely messages. If that would happen in these times and a Tesla owner gets stuck in New York, he might not have enough range to go to a place without electricity. Whereas pumping gas might be easier to do without electricity (a generator is more efficiently run to pump gas vs charge a car, hand pump, etc) besides it is way easier to store 200 miles worth of travel in gasoline than in electricity (Model 3 battery capacity is 75kWh for 300miles vs 10 gallons of gas for about 500 miles. Storing electricity in a power wall: 13.3kWh and cannot travel with the power wall; two 5 gallon cans allow to travel far more)...
I mean, motor + controller + battery = electric vehicle. Plus Tesla patents are free to use. A company of Toyota's size should easily be able to jump right in.
I'm sorry for you.
Toyota was allowed to keep producing the Prius in the terms of the settlement.
I mean, firstly the entire premise of the OP is wrong, but the OP is most certainly bias by being frustrated at the pathetic range of the leaf - which is a wast of money.
Just saying.
You sound jealous
You're damn right I am. She spent $80k on a high performance car, and she won't let me drive it.
Ahh, another thread where electrical and computer engineers demonstrate that they have never taken serious thermodynamics and fail to understand the second law. Allow me to TLDR all your questions:
1. Yes, it is a thing
2. https://www.tutorialspoint.com...
3. No, you failed to factor in taxes to your cost.
4. Yes, if we discover fusion power, but only then.
Your welcome.
"Liberalism is a very noble idea, currently controlled by some very bad people. Be sure you do not get the two confused.
Call someone.
when you: (a) pretend that Supercharging doesn't exist, (b) pretend that if EVs don't work for EVERYBODY then they can't work for ANYBODY.
You know, when you're at the grocery store gas station and it's taking "forever" to fill the tank.
What hybrid and gas vehicles need is... very very slow pumping gas stations. I mean, what if it took you an hour to fill up. Suddenly, electric charging makes a lot of sense.
So.. slow down the pumps. Create huge gas lines.
I remember how such things changed cars forever back in the early to mid-70s.
I think there is more logic here than the original post claims. One worry years back about hybrid cars is that you're simply shifting the environmental damage to the car creation stage instead of, or in addition to, during the vehicle's operation. I haven't looked deeply at numbers lately as I haven't planned to buy one, but I can only imagine all electric would magnify that effect. Lithium ion batteries have a set life span, that is honestly extended greatly through wonderful charge management in Prius vehicles. Last I heard it was about 1000 charges and 3-5 years was the expected lifespan of consumer li-ion batteries. I think Prius recommend battery replacements after 8-10 years.
Hybrid anything is attempting to get the benefit of both with fewer of the limitations of either. Hybrids can use electrical systems to regain braking energy, and to start immediately even when stopping a gas engine at a stop light (delays to start might make the car feel less responsive if used on a gas only car). And it can use the superior energy holding capacity of gasoline still. We've yet to get anything like gas level energy density in reusable electric batteries.
Compare Toyota cost in Costa Rica to Hyunday
Here, the Prius have been always a luxury car and continues being so. It is supposed during 2019 first semester, the LEAF will arrive as a commercial option.
Then, not always the Hybrid it is a financially better option, in particular when thinking about city usage vehicles in a country that have no local fuel production but 100% coverage by electricity from renewable sources.
Also, the Hybrid have two different types of engines, making the overall car much more complex than the simple electric one. The Hybrid has all the same problems a standard fuel vehicle has, together with all the electric "extra" parts and the interconnection elements. The electric lacks of fuel and heat control system (oil + water), and electric engines usually last more than fuel ones, making the electric maintenance costs lower.
Maybe for a Taxi usage the Hybrid could be a better option, but for the general population that use the car to go office, carry children to school or purchase groceries, the Full Electric vehicle has the lead.
Japan has a weird fascination with hydrogen fuel cells. I think it has something to do with their government wanting a patent "moat" for their industry and making a bad bet. Of course the hydrogen fuel cell spin is mostly coming from the (oil and) gas sneaky bastards who want to inefficiently transform their dirty "natural" (methane) gas into magically clean hydrogen at the point of consumption. They have spent a lot of money feeding bullshit stories about the clean "hydrogen" economy to the news. And note that in the past several years Toyota has been closing their HQ in Torrance and moving it to Texas. Do the math. A birdie years ago within Toyota told me that they planned to sit out the electric car phase and try to corner the market on semi trucks which they assumed they could rule with their hydrogen fetish. Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be working out too well. I could tell more stories more specific to things I know about Toyota from working with them but that would violate NDA.
There isn't anywhere nearly enough battery producing capasity to turn all currently manufactured vehicles into electric cars. Do you now fucking comprehend that?
There's already shortage of batteries and the materials are also needed elsewhere, like steel etc. production.
Nobody gives a fuck. Everyone on this site talks shit anyway.
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
If moving full EV is too much for them to consider, they should at least adopt PHEV as the default. A PHEV may have a typical range of 30 miles on battery alone which for many drivers that would cover their entire day and for others would still substantially reduce their fuel consumption.
Tesla doesn't report numbers but there is an estimate of 250,000 vehicles sold in 2018
https://cleantechnica.com/2018...
Toyota sold 245,000 in just the first two months
https://global.toyota/en/compa...
I think they are doing OK
So I have to wonder, why is Toyota so adverse to EVs when they were once industry leaders? Does it have to do with some legal declaration they made long ago in order to be "allowed" to continue to make and sell hybrids? It's almost insane how they are staying away from EVs.
It's probably due to the fact that in general (there are certainly exceptions though) Japanese companies tend to be somewhat risk averse. That's one of the reason for some of the incredible diversification you'll see where a company might do something like run a chain of ramen restaurants, make motorcycle helmets and make parachutes. I am not at all an expert on Toyota cars having never owned one and barely having driven them as rentals, but it's not hard for me to speculate that maybe they saw that all the previous attempts to do fully electric cars failed for whatever reasons and they decided that it was something unlikely to ever be successful so they would stay out. A lot of the incentives for consumers to buy electric vehicles in the USA have either disappeared or will disappear soon and Toyota's management may be scared that just as they ramp up production to make all electric vehicles that the market is going to turn against the vehicles. There are a lot of really crazy vehicle purchases in the USA right now, for those who don't know. Trucks are very popular, which just amazes me given the incredibly high prices for what I think are the most popular models. SUVs are also selling by the boatload as consumers forget that fuel prices could possibly go up again. There has been a big push by Ford to get out of the business of making traditional cars because too many consumers only want trucks and SUVs. So I could see that Toyota's management might have some fear that just as soon as they get big time into making pure electric vehicles that nobody wants to buy them. I'm not saying that I agree with that, but I can understand how they might conclude that. I get that America isn't Toyota's only market, but it's maybe their biggest one and a lot of the purchasing decisions don't make a lot of sense right now. People who can't really afford to spend $40,000 and up on a new vehicle are doing so and they are just adding more years to the loan. I think I read recently that 6 and a half year car loans are very common in the USA now. Toyota does make trucks and SUVs so they are already available to those who only want to buy those types of vehicles and I can understand reluctance to fully commit to electric vehicles. Maybe if there is a huge demand in Japan and other countries for them they will change their mind.
What do EV owners do if their house power is out? We lost power for three days last year because of a wind storm and I did a lot of driving around at that time. Mostly going back and forth for gas for my generator.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
If there is already a built in infrastructure to distribute gasoline. Which there is.
The Toyota hybrid design is too complicated and not flexible enough. They have a transmission powered by either electric motor or engine, and an engine that functions to either drive the transmission or charge the batteries. Yeah, maybe that design got them to market faster because it was easier to add an electric motor and battery to an already well-engineered drive train, but it was short-sighted thinking. They should have redesigned their hybrids with a simplified transmission, driven by an electric motor, powered by a battery, charged by a gasoline generator. The transmission can be simplified because electric motors don't have the narrow RPM power band that engines suffer from and can apply torque even at 0 RPMs, which engines can not. It would also have given them flexibility to change out the power plant from gasoline generator to anything else (fuel cell, diesel, propane, ethanol, bigger batteries, etc.) that can provide electricity.
Why is it insane? The ICE is practical. It is cheap. It lasts a long time. It can haul. It works in the cold.
When someone makes a profitable electric car without subsidies, then others will follow suit.
I suspect this is related to when ChevronTexaco sued Toyota for making EV batteries with larger capacity than they had licensed the patent for. The last Toyota Rav4EV used Tesla batteries.
I think maybe there is something in that settlement detering them from making ev batteries.
Too bad whatever the reason, owners of the 90s and more recent Rav4EVs seem to really like them.
You can charge an electric car to a 300 mile range in the time it takes to pump gas, the infrastructure to pull up to the charger without a crazy wait exists and the range doesn't substantially drop when it gets cold out
Toyota only made the RAV4 EV to comply with California law.
Prius battery packs are tiny and under the radar of the original patents. Heck, the first Honda Insight more or less used flashlight battery cells to build their battery pack.
What's wrong with a car that can do both electric/gasoline, and how is it not better than electric only?
It's not like Toyota lost R&D race, they're still experimenting and testing electric motors. Only thing they lack is battery production capacity. They can't be the only car company that is, that stuff is demand right now.
Also, is electric really the future? Aren't you guys overestimating the progress of switching a bit here? In my circle of people I know pretty much everyone has a car, only a few hybrids, only 2 people with pure electric (Tesla hipsters...), rest are gasoline (few diesels). I could easily be wrong, but I do not see this trend changing drastically for at least a few decades. By far not everyone has a garage, by far not everyone even has their own drive way. A lot of people are happy to find a parking spot at all for the night, any spot. Good luck with putting charging stations at all of these spots. Solve parking problem first (again... best of luck to you), then I'd be more optimistic about electric cars.
Japan has a weird fascination with hydrogen fuel cells.
Japan has an unfortunate position of not being permitted to own their own armed forces, at least not worth mentioning. They are therefore dependent on the USA for military might. The USA is going to FCVs for warfare, which is why GM is building fuel cells in a partnership with Honda, and why they have done several FCV prototypes. GM is waiting for the next generation of fuel cells to make fuel cell automobiles, because the goal of the partnership is to make them much more cost-effective in the next generation, but Honda decided to get out in front of things and get some expertise with actually building, selling, and servicing FCVs, which is why they built the Clarity... much like how they wanted the same experience with hybrids, which is why they built the Insight.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
The point at which full EVs will be better is when they're all owned by fleets, which probably won't happen until AVs proliferate. Then people will just get vehicles from pools, ideally take them to connect with public transport, and then get more vehicles from pools. But even if there's no public transport (read: rail) then they'll still be able to just transfer to a vehicle from another pool.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
For as interesting electric vehicles are and how useful they can be for certain use cases, hybrids still make a ton of sense.
Where I take my vehicle, there often is NO infrastructure nor would I want power lines criss-crossing the landscape to put charging stations there nor the large footprint required to handle charging a significant number of vehicles at the same time.
Liquid hydrocarbons are still vastly superior to any current battery technology in terms of energy density, speed of refueling and general flexibility.
If I need more range, I can toss a Jerry can in the back of my Subaru. I can fill the tank in 5 minutes and be on my way. If a new filling station is needed, minimal infrastructure is required to support it - gasoline and diesel can be hauled in; electricity cannot.
The main problem with historical internal combustion engines is their inefficiency. Hybrid technology goes a long way towards improving the system's efficiency. Until battery technology *vastly improves*, the ICE still has clear advantages in quite a few use cases.
~Any apparent grammatical or typographic errors are caused by defects in your display device.
That's one of the reason for some of the incredible diversification you'll see where a company might do something like run a chain of ramen restaurants, make motorcycle helmets and make parachutes.
And produce anime featuring characters eating ramen out of motorcycle helmets while parachuting and doing battle with their evil corporate overlords.
On May 20, 2010, Tesla Inc. and Toyota announced a partnership to work on electric vehicle development and collaborate on the "development of electric vehicles, parts, and production system and engineering support".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_Factory
Toyota had an advantage with its previous Telsa partnership but blew it away.
It's unbelievable how many of you keep missing the mark.
I own a Subaru Forester. I value it for the reasonable cargo capacity and AWD system. The ICE engine gives me the range I need. Perhaps individual uses requiring the range or AWD are only 1-2% of the time, but cumulatively they add up.
I go places where forest service roads are common and infrastructure is non-existent.
Sometimes I strap big items like canoes to the top. This would destroy the range of an EV.
Sometimes I take multi-state trips and build the route according to scenery - this is neigh impossible with current EV charging infrastructure.
Sometimes it snows around here and the AWD gets me to work when other's can't make it.
Sometimes I carry loads of firewood in the back with the seats down.
I'd love an EV for the daily commute to work, but would leave me with no reasonable way to deal with the "fringe" needs w/o a huge amount of hassle. I can't rent a car for the days when the snow is 8" deep. I don't know when the good weather is until within a few days. I can't get extra range out of an EV like I can the ICE car with a cheap Jerry can.
I simply don't want two cars, it makes no sense for a single person.
From what I can tell, EVs make plenty of sense for people who live in a horrible rut where they don't go anywhere but work or their local mall every day.
~Any apparent grammatical or typographic errors are caused by defects in your display device.
But Toyota is right. Fuel cells will be the best long term option.
EVs have ranges of 200-300 miles. Just like gas cars.
LIES!
My gas-powered car gets 600+ miles on a tank. My worst gas-powered truck (14 MPG) gets 450 miles per tank.
I remember when Toyota was pretty much the king of the foreign sports car scene. I mean, sure, you always had the Italian exotics that were priced double what a large home cost, and the crowd who liked German engineering. But Toyota pretty much mastered the art of the Japanese sports car, and the sporty-looking "little brother" models, while keeping all of the reliability the brand was known for. People absolutely loved their Celicas and Celica GT's, and then there were the Supras. But you also had cars like the little MR2 in the mix.
All of a sudden though, around 1998, Toyota did this complete shift to "Green, eco-conscious" car building. They dropped all the sports cars and banked it all on cars like the Prius, plus the stable of boring "generi-cars" like the Camry and Avalon (a stretched Camry, essentially). I think they lost a LOT of brand loyalty after that, and people who only cared about reliable, long-lasting vehicles started moving over to Honda.
The Prius obviously did well for Toyota and appeals to a certain kind of buyer. But to this day, I feel like the company gave up a lot to chase "Green" and wound up perfecting a compromise in the Prius line. I mean, a hybrid vehicle has twice the complexity .... All the parts that are involved when you have a gasoline powered engine of some sort in there, plus pretty much all the stuff you need for any kind of electric car. And yet, they made all of that stuff work remarkably reliably, so owners don't feel the pain of the doubled complexity under the hood. I'm still not sure anyone paying full, new prices for a Prius ever saves enough money in gas with it to justify its cost? I mean, at least not vs. some of the downsides of selecting a car that size and so forth. It probably winds up a better economic value for the used buyer.
Now, they're way behind on doing anything with a pure EV. (They dabbled with an EV RAV 4 at one time, but that borrowed Tesla's battery and technology -- and never really sold more than a relative few units as another "compliance vehicle".)
To rephrase Toyota's claim "selling 1.5 million hybrid cars reduces carbon emissions by a third more than selling 28,000 EVs":
We would have to replace 1,000,000 ICE cars with hybrids for the same emissions reduction as replacing just 28,000 with BEVs.
Hybrids are better?
Better *than*. Superior *to*.
Is it really that hard?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."