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

I don't disagree that in certain areas, driving a BEV can result in as much or more Carbon pollution. However, for the majority of Americans, an EV will have better Carbon emission than a Prius (page 17).

http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/legacy/assets/documents/clean_vehicles/electric-car-global-warming-emissions-report.pdf

In CA, you need to get a Prius up to ~78mpg to see the same Carbon emissions as a Leaf.

 

Yup. Only if the $7,500 is granted if you lower your carbon footprint.

The loophole of the plugin tax credit is that it is not tied to the resulting emission -- just the battery size, as if bigger battery is going to lower more emission.

Toyota only rolled out PiP in the cleanest electricity states. I think it is intentional. That should also answer the question OP posted in the title. Toyota wasn't going for sales but rather lowering emission. It is what Prius is about.

 

The $2500-$7500 is aimed more at a reduction in the dependence on oil b/c the marginal price elasticity of demand for oil is pretty low (as we learned during the rationing in the 70s). Depending on the region, there are savings due to lower GHG/pollutant emissions, but those aren't the primary drivers of the incentives.

 

If it was done to save gas, BEV should get more incentive than PHEV with a gas engine. Efficiency of EV miles also should be in the equation.

Gas mile displacement is also not linear. For example, PiP with 4.4 kWh would displace 29% of gas miles to EV. Volt with 16 kWh would displace 64%.

 

The fanatic term is funny - what with the hydrogen car folk (a non-owner existent / over priced / 10yr from now technology) setting the fanatic bar some where out around Neptune

And no matter how many times you chant their mantra, "they'e no cleaner than a prius" continues to address the large share of plugin owners who charge of their own green power. Try to get over Kansas coal, where virtually no plugins exist compared to the states that buy most of 'em.
.

 

I agree with this.

Even within Toyota's very limited advertising for the PiP Toyota seemed to go out of their way to stress that the PiP was a Hybrid and didn't NEED to be plugged in.

In other words, the plug in aspect of the PiP was just a benefit to owning what is still a Prius at heart.

I think the only debatable and arguable aspect, is whether you believe Toyota could of gone further in pressing the separation between a regular Prius and the Plug In Prius?

Toyota was arguably conservative in trying to maintain the real and perceived "family" bonds within the Prius family. Seemingly IMO not wanting to make the PiP too much of a different animal. Would a stronger battery and more EV range made the gap between PiP and Standard Prius wider but made the PiP a better product? Arguable.

Separately, I think this is kind of an interesting and dynamic time in regards to "alternative" automobiles. Plug Ins, Hybrids, EV's, Fuel Cell, simply applying new ideas and technology to existing ICE vehicles and making them more efficient.

There is a lot happening, even if at times it seems slow moving.

 

I know many on here won't accept it but I think Toyota just got the PIP plain wrong. They messed up. They thought 10 miles would be fine, whereas phev cars with 25/30 miles EV range are selling more in one month than the PIP does in a year - at least over here.

It really is barely worth the bother of plugging in for 10 miles or EV, and thats from a country where petrol is $8 a US gallon.

 

"Range" was never part of the marketing consideration.

"Plug-in Hybrid" was always the approach.

You get a MPG-BOOST rather than any targeted EV range. The system clearly delivers that.

 

It certainly does.

It also isn't selling in anywhere near the numbers expected whereas others are.

 

I started this thread in the hopes of diverting any side discussions about the tax incentives here:
http://priuschat.com/threads/alternative-fuel-incentives-discussion.152081/
It's in the politics section, which you have to sign up for, because the reason for their existence ultimately is a political one.
I guess a moderator could move it to the climate or off topic section if they felt it would stay safe.
The link is also in my signature now.

I don't think Toyota got it wrong as much as doing a piss poor job of marketing it. It probably also needed to come out a little earlier than it did, and those two things are likely tied together.

There were DIYers and companies selling kits to convert the Prius to a plugin since the second generation. The cost of some of those kits went up to $6000 installed. In most, some conversions kept the spare tire along with cargo space, ways the PPI is better than those conversions. I think Toyota could have internally subsidized it in order to make the price more appealing. Get more cars into more hands, also offer it in some more states, and the word of mouth advertising would have been higher. Then again, Toyota was projecting sales of 40,000 in Japan and 20,000 in North America in the first year, so they may not have wanted to spend that much to support the car.

Perhaps piss poor is too strong for how the marketing went. Coming to market later may have just made marketing the car more difficult. The gen3 arrived as 2009 model year, and was supposedly designed with a plug in mind. The PPI then came as a 2012 model year here. Which was just in time to go sale after the Volt. This let GM make a first impression upon the public of what a plug in hybrid is. If the PPI had arrived first, it could have been Toyota dictating that impression. Defining a PHV as a hybrid that used grid electricity to further improve the car's fuel economy with enough EV range to avoid using the gas engine at all on short trips where fuel economy would be the worse

Then questions on why it didn't have the EV range of a Volt could be countered with, "the Prius plug in is a PHV and the Volt is an EREV." That could have nixed direct comparisons between the two in the general public consciousness.

If that was the goal, I then think treating the PPI as a separate model was a mistake. I don't see the v as a separate as model either, but admit that Prius wagon would face challenges in marketing here. Perhaps it is time for someone to try rebranding the car class an estate here. That sounds more luxurious that something that got pulled around by some smelly horses.

Anyway, the technical difference between a hybrid and its plugin isn't much different than having different engine and transmission options in other cars. Offering the plug as an option on model III and up Prii would have done a much better job of telling people the PPI is just a Prius that you can plug in if you want too. Instead it has its own page on the website, with trims equipped close too but different than the liftback, and the trims don't even use the same naming scheme as the rest of the Prius family.

 

That misses the point.

Toyota already understood both the market and their audience. That's why they planned for rollout flexibility... which continues to be spun as a shortcoming, despite proving a wise move.

They steered clear of the obvious rollout issues GM was about to face. They knew... which is why I blogged stop much back then about that very problem. The concern was clearly documented.

Looking forward, we see the fallout as avoided. The mainstream consumer will have no idea and just see any of that history they stumble across as ordinary really-adopter issues.

 

Volt supporters tried, but the definition ended up weak and contradictory. Labels don't mean anything to those who don't consider engineering anyway.

Sorry, but your looking-backward perspective is preventing constructive discussion. Remember who said what to who about dwelling on history?

Take a look forward, considerating the majority of the population who has yet ever give any plug-in any thought. Their introduction will be Gen-2 offerings. None of what happened so far will mean anything to them. Pointing out that past won't accomplish anything either.

Look forward. Recognize audience. Consider goals.

 

What ever Toyota's real intent was with the PIP, the fact remains this "mpg-boost" to cost ratio is a financial wash at best for short haul markets, the rest it's just a premium priced toy. My opinion is the current PIP is still nothing more than a compliance vehicle marketed and sold primarily in compliance states. One might consider comparing the Gen I to the Gen III lift-back. Perhaps they are just taking their time to work out the bugs...if they continue the line. We shall see.

 

Aren't compliance markets the ideal location for initial rollout?

What do you call the Gen-2 Volt, knowing projected sales for the entire country for 2016 are only 25,000?

 

Perhaps, those compliance state ZEV incentive allowed Toyota to not take loss on the PHV models. They were discounted at about the same price as regular package 3.

 

toyota built the pip on the gen III chassis. that in itself was a limiting factor. chevy built the volt from the ground up. i think they both maximized the possibilities with what they had to work with.

even though many here want maximum ev miles from a phev, that doesn't mean it will sell or be profitable.

 

New Phev/Bev models for this year and the numbers!.
MB-B Class - 278
BMW i8 – 117
Kia Soul ev - 108
VW E-Golf - 410
Porsche Cayenne S-E – 105
Total May 2015 = 1018; (did not sell last May 2014) ,Tesla & Fiat (estimates);

May 2015 EV Sales Up 27%: The “Big Boys” Re-Take The Playground

 

...In compliance to my needs!

 

I think the PHV compliance was to simply avoid paying fines. PHVs never got credits that could be sold to other companies, and thus not extra income to counter any incentives. The fines may have been higher than the discounts in cost, though. Also, IIRC, those discounts were mostly on the East Coast where there was no HOV sticker available.

http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/zevprog/2011zevreg/attachb1.pdf (This is a 2012 version, so the exact details are likely different now)
Alright, after a quick skim, a large manufacturer is required to have a percentage(this version starts at 11% for 2009 to 2011) of its sales to be "ZEV" vehicles. Only part, about a quarter, of that amount has to be ZEV(BEV or FCV). These have the credit system that allows some models to be worth more than 1 car for calculating the quota amount. Excess can be sold to other companies that don't meet theirs.

The rest can be met with sales of PZEV, AT-PZEV, and T(transitional)ZEV vehicles. PHVs, along with hydrogen ICEVs, are TZEV. There are limits on how much of each type can be counted to the quota.

The manufacturer can use a three year sales average or the single model year to calculate if they meet their target, and that can switch year to year.

 

That was not the only purpose.

We know there was also the clear benefit of gaining experience and marketing knowledge for plugging in and lithium batteries.