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."
Beau is a millenial wankstain.
Plug-in hybrids use no gas for normal day to day driving
Not really. The gas engine, more complex transmission, gas tank and so on mean you lose a ton of battery space. So in a car that could support a 200mi range battery pack, you get a 30mi range battery pack. Which means unless your commuting is particularly short, you're going to regularly use some gas.
Source: I own a Volt.
The average person is not interested in the hassle of keeping an EV charged
It's really not any hassle. You plug it in when you get home. Ta-da! You will now be keeping your car charged.
(And if you can't reliably park somewhere with a charger, then don't get one. But chargers will get much more common as EVs take off, just like gas stations did when cars took off)
People talking about battery cars keep using the gasoline paradigm where you go somewhere to "refuel". You don't do that with a battery car. Which means you're trading the hassle of an extra trip/stop and pumping your gas for the hassle of pushing in a plug.
This is the exact reason I own a plug in hybrid versus and electric vehicle. I am a single guy, so I have 1 car. If I want to take a road trip somewhere, I would be screwed with an electric vehicle. Sure it would be possible, but it would be a nightmare trying to find someplace to charge in the midwest where I live. Sure, down the line when electric vehicles are more common this won't be an issue, but charges are still uncommon here. So I went with the plug in hybrid and have only filled the tank 3 times in 16 months, with 2 of those coming after road trip that used 75% of a tank of gas.
"Information wants to be expensive" - Stewart Brand, the same guy who said "Information wants to be free"
How much maintenance is needed the way the parent poster is using his IC engine at 3 tanks of gas over 16 months?
With good oil, best antifreeze, it should be an oil change a year, coolant flush every 7 years, air filter perhaps once a decade and most of those other things in your list, almost never.
The ideal is your using electric for most of your driving.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
Uh.....gas cars have ranges of 200-300 miles. Jacking up the requirements to make a point about EVs isn't exactly unbiased.
Maybe in gas-guzzling USA, not in Europe. 45 liter tank is pretty standard and a consumption of 6 l /100 km is too. That makes a range of 750 km or 465 miles. My previous diesel had 45 liter and did 4.4 l/100 km making 1000 km or 630 miles possible.
Larger cars have higher consumption but also fuel tanks of 60 or 80 liter.
Most post-2010 vehicles now state to change the oil when the oil use monitor says to do so, which could be a long time for all-highway driving in moderate weather. Longer than 6 months in any case. Those of us who grew up with dinosaur-era vehicles that were lucky to make it to 3000 miles without leaking or burning 3 quarts of oil have a hard time accepting this, but modern engine designers don't think that short oil change intervals are needed.
As for the gas, the Chevy Volt at least keeps track of when you buy gasoline and if it calculates the gas is getting stale (at a minimum every 360 days) it will turn on the ICE engine and use up the tank.