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."

Comments

It all depends on the use case

[Knightman]

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.

Re:Title?

[ShanghaiBill]

There really is no "pretending". In many ways hybrids, and especially plug-in hybrids, are superior to all-electric.

Plug-in hybrids use no gas for normal day to day driving, yet have the range when you need it. So you get the benefits of both gas and electric.

They also cost less, which means way more people can afford them, and they stretch the world's economical accessible lithium reserves much further.

My wife has a Tesla, and most days she doesn't even use 10% of its range.

Hybrids are better, for now

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Hybrids are better, for now

[ShadowRangerRIT]

have a range of 400+ miles

Uh.....gas cars have ranges of 200-300 miles. Jacking up the requirements to make a point about EVs isn't exactly unbiased.

200-300? What kind of gas cars are you driving? I'll admit to limited experience (I'm currently in an early Leaf, and before that I drove Priuses and Geo Prisms), but every car I've ever owned could go at least 350 miles on a tank of gas, and most could make it to 400+ if you weren't spending all your time stuck in stop-and-go traffic. I assume 400-500 is what the industry as a whole is aiming for; the tank sizes seem to shrink as the mileage goes up, and vice versa, so a 45-50 MPG car like the Prius gets an 11 gallon tank, a 28-34 MPG car like the Camry gets a 14.5-16 gallon tank (smaller for higher MPG models), and a 21-22 MPG pickup like the Ford F150 gets a 23 gallon tank (standard; they have extended range versions with larger tanks). 400 mile range is not an unreasonable point of comparison; it's what almost every gas car can do.

Re:Title?

[ctilsie242]

I will go stick my neck out and agree with you on this. With a plug-in hybrid, there isn't any worry about range anxiety, and you have the benefit of an EV of not needing to refuel often. To boot, I've seen inverters added to use the hybrid as a very efficient whole-house generator in case of a power failure.

I do agree while most people can do OK with an EV, as they don't go far, day to day, it is nice to have the ability to not worry about trying to find a plug or Supercharger when going on an impromptu trip somewhere out in the country.

Legal limitations from the Rav4 EV-95 battery suit

[Locutus]

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

Re:Title?

[sphealey]

Depends on your use case. More than 80% of USians live in urban or exurban areas and their driving pattern will follow a 95/5 pattern of short commutes vs long trips. Based on that pattern a plug-in hybrid will need a service visit once ever 18 months or so, although the owner may want to take it in a little more often to have it checked for minor software updates (the manufacturers only notify the owner for major updates, so there could be minors queued up).

These doom--and-gloom scenarios are based on taking the worst characteristics of ICE engines from the 1970s and the worst characteristics of electric cars from 1910 and combining them into one great imaginary Vehicle of Horrors that doesn't actually exist. Owners of actual plug-in hybrids such as the Volt report that they work exactly as described, when used in typical metropolitan driving are a great improvement, and don't have any more maintenance problems or lemons than any other model line.