Toyota testing semiconductor technology - SiC

Some pics.



From previous announcements regarding this trial run on public road. Below are the comparison of the IGBT (old) and SiC (new).

 

Undeniably it is a big difference in volume and better yet, in weight savings between both technologies.

 

I'm guessing that this was one reason Toyota delayed the Gen 4. They probably want to do some more field tests on it to ensure that it'll be up to par when they put it in.

I think I read somewhere this was originally supposed to be put into the Gen 5 prius, but maybe they felt it was researched enough to put into Gen 4 instead. We all know they need every little improvement they can shoehorn into it by this point if they want the Gen 4 to do well against increasing competition.

 

If testing for this tech is going on from Feb 2015 to Feb 2016 then it will not be in the Gen 4 Prius. Gen 4 Prius is set to be on sale in December 2015 even with the delay so testing will not be finished in time. This tech might make it into the Gen 4 Plugin version, or possibly the next C or V. Redesigns of those models are far enough away for the tech to be integrated after testing. That is also assuming the tech actually passes Toyota's insane quality measures. Remember how long it took for Lithium Ion batteries to get approval to be put into the Prius despite all the obvious advantages and other manufacturers already doing so? Gen 4 marks the first time Li Ion is in the standard non-plugin Prius. We might be waiting for the Gen 5 Prius to see any of this in action in a purchasable car.

4th-gen Toyota Prius production delayed by 6 months

From article:

"One big upgrade won't be coming to the new generation immediately, though. Toyota product planning boss Satoshi Ogiso tells Automotive News Europe that the automaker's new silicon carbide semiconductors, which will reportedly increase fuel economy by 10 percent on their own, won't make it to the Prius until at least 2020."


Edit: Added link and quote from link.

 

If it is ready for the next c and v, how difficult would it be to put in the mid-cycle refresh of the genIV?

Of course, it is Toyota, and their base Corolla still has a 4 speed automatic.

 

I was referring to the USA market. That's where I live and where I purchase my vehicles. Should have specified.

Probably the same difficulty as putting in Li Ion batteries into the mid cycle refresh of the Gen 3. New hardware inside the car requires changes to the frame, mounting bracket location changes, Safety reinforcements because of spatial changes, etc., not easy to do. Requires re-tooling at suppliers and the assembly lines. Becomes a cost vs reward thing at that point, most cost mitigation goes into the initial engineering of the car, and the tooling to make the car, then what is learned is used to improve the build in the next redesign. This being a significant space savings may actually be a safety issue if retro fitted into a compartment that is intended for a larger item creating gaps in the internal structures that aren't supposed to be there.

 

Hopefully it makes it into Gen4.

The one they are road testing is for Camry hybrid with higher power requirement.

 

Toyota said this tech won't make the gen IV release.

I don't know why they would not simply be able to upgrade say the 2018 model or which ever it is ready with plug compatible parts. Tesla does this with electronics. Toyota changed the head unit during gen III, I doubt this is any harder. Still Toyota is very conservative, they may take many more years of testing before putting this in a hybrid.

 

So for a plug-in; less charging losses, decreased charging time and increased recharging(Regen) energy.

 

Perhaps, but that doesn't seem to be an issue in cars with multiple engine options. Nearly every midsize available today has a 4 and 6 cylinder option, and in the event of a crash, it and the transmission are designed to drop to the drop and out of the crumple zone.

 

Multiple engine options are planned for during development. The engine compartment is designed with multiple brackets to accommodate multiple engines, or the engines themselves are designed to use all the same attachment points. Again the decision for this is made during development of the initial model, not a mid cycle refresh.

 

Engines are also a large, major part of the car. The SiC is a major component, but does not take up the engine bay real estate of an engine and transmission. Going larger can be a problem for safety because it mean the new part could lead to stuff getting pushed into the cabin. Smaller shouldn't pose such problem. The increased empty space is volume crumple zones and frame metal can deform into while diffusing the impact energy.

If it is a problem, why not use crash blocks to fill that empty space? Not ideal, but neither was it ideal for Mazda to put the SkyActiv engine into the last year of M3. It wasn't designed for it; the engine bay was too small for the exhaust headers. Even without the complete exhaust treatment, the SkyActiv-G gave the car a fuel efficiency improvement over the old engine.

Why, that is, beyond Toyota being conservative or slow moving?

 

The benefit of not letting much change each year is part of the magic of toyota reliability, of continuous improvement in Manufacturing. This higher reliability with lower manufacturing cost has really helped the camry and corolla become so profitable.

The thing is electronics move quickly and can be unit tested and built plug compatible. This means that you could add advances easily and stick to the TMS (toyota manufacturing system). I doubt it changes crashworthiness or handling.

 

Empty space is a crumple zone yes, but if the car isn't designed around that empty space from the start then the components may not move the way they are supposed to. For instance the firewall helps push the engine under the car during a crash, if there is a significant gap between the engine and the fire wall the engine may lurch upwards first and bounce off the top of the firewall into the windshield instead of going downwards as designed. The issue becomes is it cheaper to wait for the new model redesign where all these costs are going to be absorbed as development, or spend all the development resources on a car that is already viable and on the road to compensate for the possible safety ramifications for a relatively minor fuel efficiency gain.

 

The thing is electronics move quickly and can be unit tested and built plug compatible. This means that you could add advances easily and stick to the TMS (toyota manufacturing system). I doubt it changes crashworthiness or handling.
The major modification to implement the SiC assembly will be a new wiring harness and a mounting point for the new part.

 

Why does it need a new wiring harness? If it does its not plug capatible, then toyota did not properly use modular design in its electronics, but I think they would do that right. The electronics should be smaller, but their is no reason they can not be mounted with the same size plate. The module size and cooling system can be fully optimized on a full new design, but smaller electronics are usually easy to add size by simply putting it in a bigger metal box.

 

Semiconductors have followed Moore's Law since Gordon Moore first described the phenomenon in 1952. Basically it states that electronics will become twice as cost-effective roughly every 1.5-2 years. In 1964 he wrote a paper that basically verified it.

Of course Moore's Law doesn't apply unless research and development is in high-gear, and unfortunately many sectors of the automotive electronics industry have taken a "good enough" attitude with this technology, and they have become frozen in time, so-to-speak.

In this case, it's good to see Toyota developing a technology that is continually-developable.