Why Didn't Toyota get a charge out of the Plug In Prius?

Toyota has valid points about plugin shortcomings and proposed a better electric car FCV.

Battery fanatics are not happy.

 

Except the ZEV credits were always available for fuel cell cars, and there was also a federal FCV tax credit of $8000. That one just expired before the expected cars arrived. The FCV proponents had been promising them to be here though.

There is nothing wrong with the PPI from the design side. It's actual competitors were the aftermarket plugin kits for the Prius, and it is superior to them. It should have just been kept as the Prius option in that case. It is just too pricy; most plugins started so, but I believe Toyota factored the tax credit value in more heavily than the others. Whether or not they did so, Toyota was in the position to afford a bigger loss per car than the other companies, if they had wanted the PPI to really succeed. They have bragged about a $60B warchest for their FCVs.

At the time the first Prius went on sale in Japan, there were also BEVs avaialable receiving MITI subsidies through the LEV program. These were short ranged vehicles that may have required a fast charge most days to be usable. But remember that this was the time around the EV1. Most of these BEVs were lead acid; the cutting edge ones had NiMH.

BEVs today use Li-ion, but Toyota appears to still think they will be as constrained as if they were equipped with lead acid or NiMH batteries. Just look at the BEVs Toyota had for the ZEV program. The first is the RAV4 EV that was outsourced to Tesla. It had an EPA range of 103 miles, and everyone sold despite being one of the pricier models available. Toyota's in house BEV was an electric iQ that had 38 miles range by the EPA test. It's competitors in size and price; the iMiEV with 62 miles range, the smart ED with with 68mi, and the Spark EV with 82mi.
Compare Side-by-Side

Toyota cancelled private sales of the iQ electric before they begun. While BEVs, and not PHVs, have shortcomings, I think Toyota has overestimated the negative impact of those shortcomings internally.

 

Yet fuel cell vehicles have an even worse range limit than EV's because of the fact that you're tethered to a hydrogen fueling station. Building those are expensive and usually requires taxpayer money, so I'd expect a lot of resistance to building a nationwide hydrogen network if we can't even agree to spend money fixing roads.

So even if I wanted an FCV in the Midwest, I can't buy one. But I can buy a plug-in vehicle, and hook it up in my garage. Sure, the charge would be slow, but at least I don't have to waste time at gas stations either (nice in the winter time or during bad weather), nor worry about sending money to people who don't exactly like us very much. And with solar panels, the "fuel" for EV's would be conflict-free and zero emissions.

Toyota says they'll foot the bill for hydrogen for the first three years if you buy a Mirai. Let's see what the costs of ownership are beginning in Year 4...

 

when there are as many hydro stations as gas, no worries. and by then fcv's will be traveling 600 miles on a tank, and will cost the same or less than a gasser. none of these are possible with bev's.

 

I am a hard core Toyota fan. Nothing but a Toyota for me. No exceptions. I have owned 5 TOYOTAS. When I have had a problem they always addressed it. Unlike GM and Ford.

 

Not true.
BEVs, for most people are already cheaper to fuel than gasoline.

When fortune telling, it is dangerous to label something as "not possible".

 

Seems naïve to expect a plug-in hybrid with range sufficient for nearly all your trips. A plug-in hybrid is all about compromise. Here's a vehicle than can put a massive DENT in your gas usage, say anywhere between 25 and 75 percent, what's the problem?

Personally I'm not interested, for various reasons, but the range seems fine.

 

Cheaper to fuel and cheaper to own are not the same and fortune telling the phrase "for most people" is not accurate.

 

The reason for Toyota's choices is well known; yet, some continue to dismiss it and focus on other argument points instead. Their goal always has been and continues to be the pursuit of clean & efficient vehicles that are both high-volume & profitable.

It's easy to sell a vehicle with a dependency on tax-credits and HOV incentives in small numbers. The challenge of cost isn't taken seriously. So, we get post after post claiming Toyota has given up, despite the effort they've made to deliver something for the masses.

The more-is-better argument never ceases to amaze me. Rather than actually consider mainstream need, it's always the same old thing, claiming the battery-capacity and highest EV speed is too small and too slow. That argument is weak, since it's easy to see how the resulting MPG is always intentionally avoided. No one wants to address the fact that the system delivers over 100 MPG at 65 mph. Those against the approach hope you'll just see that the engine is running and deem the system unworthy.

Reality is, electricity provides a substantial efficiency boost while also reducing emissions. That's the purpose of a plug-in hybrid, which can be achieved with a smaller battery-pack... on that doesn't sacrifice what appeals to hybrid shoppers... interior space... hybrid efficiency... and selling price.

With respect to EV delivery, it's even easier to see the goal of high-volume & profitable remains a major challenge.

So to all those who misrepresent by not acknowledging the reason, we know.

 

I apologize for any misunderstanding. Where I used "for most people" was not fortune telling, it was an accurate statement about the present.

If you disagree with my numbers, I'd be happy to discuss that.

Basically, 20 kWh will drive an electric car 60 miles.
At the average U.S. cost that is about $2.50.

Unless the cost of a kG of H2 is less than $2.50 I don't see how you could come to any other conclusion.

 

No John, the reason you made up for Toyota's choices are well known.
Toyota's actions are at odds with your imaginations though.

Everyone takes costs seriously. Everyone also realizes that when creating something new, it takes an investment of time and money. During the time of growing market share, cost is, temporarily, less of an issue.

Their efforts to deliver the PiP to the masses is lackluster.
They announced they would roll out the PiP nationwide numerous times and still haven't. It is difficult to deliver something to the masses when you aren't willing to even offer it for sale.

 

Your forgetting the part about cheaper to own...unless it is suggested everyone own a POS I-MiEV. I have faith that Governments and Manufactures will slowly (for a reason) make more options available to the masses, but no one solution fits all...or most people...at his time.

 

Lack of patience would give that impression.

Reality is, the market wasn't ready (even among plug-in supporters, not just ordinary consumers) and batteries were too expensive.

Waiting until the upgrade is still the better choice for reaching the target audience at the target cost.

 

I completely agree with that.
There is no, one size fits all, solution.

I was responding directly to the topic of cost to fuel an EV vs a FCV.

 

Since we are talking decades into the future, why couldn't these things be possible for a BEV by then?
They are closer to being the cost of an ICEV than FCVs currently are.

I'm not against FCVs, I just think the push to market for them is premature. The Honda Clarity has 35MPa tanks. The latest models use 70MPa tanks. In addition to new stations, California is spending tax money updating the few old stations left open. Otherwise those stations couldn't completely fill a car or do it in the "3 minutes" they have been saying it can be done in. Japan has started moving to a 82.5MPa standard. Then a Dutch group has developed a tank filling method involving water that circumvents some of the issues the current fill method has. There is also ongoing research into methanol and natural gas powered fuel cells. Improving an ICE or fuel cell stack has bearing on the vehicle. Improvements and changes on how it is fueled, and what fuels it, has major impact on the infrastructure to support it, and will cost far more than having to replace your HD DVD player with a Blu Ray one.

 

You may feel that is the case.
If that were Toyota's, why start sales of the FCV?
If the plugin market isn't ready, certainly the hydrogen market isn't.

 

Sorry for posting!

Toyota Is No. 1 Retail Brand In May 2015
June 02, 2015
TORRANCE, Calif. (June 2, 2015) – Toyota Motor Sales (TMS), U.S.A., Inc., today reported May 2015 sales of 242,579 units, a decrease of 0.3 percent from May 2014 on a volume basis. With one less selling day in May 2015 than in May 2014, sales were up 3.6 percent on a daily selling rate (DSR) basis.
May 2015 Highlights:

• Camry posted sales of nearly 44,000 units
• Corolla posted sales of 36,768 units
• Total Toyota light trucks up 13.4 percent, a May record
• Highlander up 25.2 percent
• RAV4 sales rose 22.8 percent to 28,808
• Combined Tacoma and Tundra pickup sales exceeded 29,000 units, up 15.4 percent
• Lexus luxury utility vehicles set a new May record, up 23 percent
• RX posted sales of 8,000 units
• All-new NX posted sales of 4,014 units
• GX up 11.4 percent with sales of 2,182 units

 

i love your posts serge, no need to apologize!

 

I know posting these results will have an effect on some of our guest members.

 

absolutely.