Featured Toyota's Master Plan for a Low Carbon Future

Through 2017 12 other manufacturers have improved their fleet mpg while Toyota has gotten worse.
They went from 6th in 2012 to 9th in 2017.
Care to predict how long it will take them to get back to 6th?

Yes, hybrids were a wonderful thing. They are still the best ICE vehicles out there.
However, it seems Toyota is doing the minimum they can do to allow themselves to sell as many trucks as they can.

 

Rumors for the Tundra hybrid have it being a power hybrid, so it might equal what the other makes offer in ICE models.

 

Governments should really be incentivizing reduction in greenhouse emissions, not dictating how that is to be achieved. Carbon tax is the perfect example.

 

That establishes a strong set of criteria for both types of technology, but doesn't actually address "What do suggest for a 2030 target with regard to a majority of each automaker's production?" It's the red-herring GM willingly followed. They established targets, but kept moving the goal of production quantity.

This is the primary difference top-down and bottom-up approaches. Working from the top means basically means low-volume with high-price. Working from the bottom is pretty much the reverse, high-volume with low-price. Everyone likes to focus on the top, because that's what is exciting. It highlight niche offerings, rather than focusing on the masses.

As for the suggestions, I would be careful about state minimum & peak that way. Instead, it should be a "sustained" value. You really don't want an initial spike, then a drop due to vehicle or infrastructure limitations. That's especially important when it comes to DC charging. Sustaining 125 kW would be great. For L2, it really isn't practical for rates beyond 10 kW. In fact, that as an upper-limit makes sense. It requires a 50-amp dedicated circuit. That's the most we can expect a homeowner to be able to provide, especially one with multiple plug-in vehicles. More realistically, we'll likely see 40-amp as common. Think about how under-powered many household service-panels are.

That 65-mile range for PHEV would be nice, but address the "majority of production" part. 2030 may be reachable for Toyota, since they already have something solid to build upon. Other big legacy automakers... Ford & GM ...will be able to convert how much of their traditional fleet with what? I see them scrambling to offer more modest EV range.

It's what happens when all the low-hanging fruit is gone that I'm concerned about.

 

Toyota is picking the low-hanging fruits and I commend them for it. Their bread and butter is a Corolla with a sub-$20k starting price. There is no EV with a starting price under $30k that I'd pick over the Corolla. If cost is my consideration and I still wanted to be relatively green, I'd pick the Corolla hybrid. I see nothing wrong with Toyota strategy.

As for their fuel economy numbers in 2017, the only hybrid they were selling in any volume at the time was the Prius and its sales were dwindling. Not because it was a hybrid but because Toyota botched the design. Their latest dynamic force engine had also not penetrated the market yet in significant numbers. Methinks they've already climbed back to 6th if not higher.

 

Yes but each Country has alternatives that it would like to mandate. USA have corn. Europe has yellow flower rapeseed all over the place for biodiesel. You can see the above discussion, many here would like to mandate Electric Vehicles, and they are upset that Toyota is not on the same page politically (me or John on Toyota page).

 

Au contrare, I said it was good business.
I don’t agree that it is the best route to lower emissions

 

I heartily agree, as a matter of fact, I couldn't agree more.
The carbon tax would eliminate the need for the patchwork of regulations we have now.
It is also a great example of a market driven solution, which conservative claim for favor.

Again, hybrids are good and do help. PHEVs and EVs are better, and I would love to see more of them in the market, rather than Toyota buying GHG credits to balance off their trucks.

 

No, you didn't. When I requested clarification, you instead shot me down. No effort to be constructive then followed. Again, we are discussing:

"Carbon reduction can only be achieved by consumers deciding to spend their own money in ways that deliver a practical return for themselves."

After a decade of watching failed incentives from government efforts, it makes sense to stop beating that dead horse. We can obviously still invest in infrastructure, but focus on the vehicle itself simply wastes time & money toward reaching the masses. Have you ever considered how when each state that decides to adopt ZEV requirements must face a mountain of litigation? Those fighting the advance forward expend an enormous amount of resources to prevent that progress. Toyota recognizes this and has the balls to acknowledge it. Too bad if you don't agree with that. Facts are not subject to debate.

We must find a way to deal with that reality. Again, this is why "know your audience" is so important. With 17,000,000 new vehicle purchases annually here alone, its up to the automaker to find a means of delivering. Dealers will supply focus on what they can sell with minimal effort and maximum profit. That's a cold, hard reality. Our contribution is to make that process easier. Infrastructure is the monetary investment to encourage. We can make things happen with regard to charging. We can also provide the knowledge transfer to others. That will help the process along.

Watching consumer behavior, we have witnessed obsession with the SUV become normalized to the extreme of it now being an expectation. Sedan production is ending for Ford & GM. That blatant abandonment on their part is a response to the self-deprecating message they have been spreading for 25 years. Toyota found a way to adopt, adapt, and improve. RAV4 Prime is an undeniable solution to the problem, one that focuses on consumer decision.

 

A failed two decades of hybrids then, I agree

 

When phaseout is triggered (reaching the 200,000 limit), there is an additional quarter (3 months) of full tax-credits available after that current quarter completes. Following that, the volume restriction is lifted but tax-credit value is reduced by 50%. After 2 quarters, the value is reduced to just 25% of the original full amount.

That process worked exceptionally well for Tesla and the same should be true for Toyota. The reason why is simple, intent of the tax-credit was fulfilled. Demand for the technology was established and brought up to the level of sustainability. In other words, the automaker takes advantage of the unlimited volume aspect of phaseout... which contributes to consumers accepting the offering as the next natural step forward.

The cold, hard reality of GM having exploited tax-credits for conquest with a terrible disregard for their own loyal customers became undeniable as their triggering of phaseout grew near. They had not established their technology. Showroom shoppers at GM dealers had nothing desirable. Volt had failed to grow beyond a niche and Bolt was struggling to survive. So naturally, there's a lot of downplay about the resulting fallout... especially with regard to Toyota's progress.

Toyota will face phaseout with 2 models of Prime already well established and the expectation of new & updated offerings to follow. There will be no doubt among showroom shoppers that change is underway. That confidence in those steps forward is vital for both dealer & consumer. So regardless of any future government incentives, progress will have already taken place.

It's not magic. It's just a lot of careful planning and a mission unbroken by endless rhetoric.

 

Yaris hybrid won't have D-4S. In the link below there is a pdf spec for 1.5 hybrid engine:
New Toyota Yaris - Designed for urban life

Yaris will have 3.7 l/100 km under WLTP, Prius has 4 l/100 km

 

I like how ‘someone’ always brings up gm, to try to justify any stance Toyota takes

 

Classical Systems Engineering as practiced at NASA and DoD starts with a process of refinements:

• Mission statement - where we want to be
• Systems requirements - a set of performance specifications
  • Includes a market survey of technology
• Decomposition of requirements into specific subassemblies

So my working career was based on this top-down approach . . . what I am used to dealing with.

The bottom-up also works, especially in quality systems. Having been an operating system programmer (i.e., diagnosis and correcting the 'hard' defects,) correcting the inevitable mistakes, I was often the last of the integration and test team. You might have noticed my Prius engineering studies since 2005 and only ending last year. Well that is what I do for fun. Truth be told, finding and fixing latent defects has always amused me that they paid me to do it.

I agree that larger volumes can save a huge amount. So let me propose a valve cap/stem that not only reports pressure and temperature but also has a filter/pump that automatically keeps the tire at the set pressure. A universal solution that works for all road vehicles (and available on some semi-trailer trucks,) it would universally improve vehicle mileage for everyone. The fuel and tire saving would be huge. Starting at the tires, it is the second lowest bottom just above pavement.

There needs to be a feedback loop that allows lessons learned fixing the problems that feeds into public policy requirements. The specifications proposed is what I would like to see in any tax/no tax policy to improve ordinary fleet performance.

These top-down, initial low number, aspirational specifications have the benefit of bleeding into the market. So a Saturn V rocket sends men to the moon and is then abandoned. The Shuttle approaches reusable but with excessive refurbishment costs. Then comes the Falcon 9 that reuses the first stage boosters and subsequent efforts at flaring reuse. These are generational changes where what came before led to what we have now and thinking outside the box.

We share the goals of efficient transportation and differ only in how we seek to make it happen. Engineering skills and unlimited curiosity is my path. You have communication skills I have long and continue to admire especially dealing with 'skeptics.'

Bob Wilson

ps. As for @bisco, every court needs a jester to help us laugh.

 

I find the top-down approach from others quite enthralling and really enjoy gatherings with those plug-in owners here. The catch is, there is a lack of balance and someone must support the other end. And of course, the online community pushes single-approach solutions, since those narratives are what stir participation.

It all works out in the end. Denial results in spin when those pushing a narrative discover the cost of their omission. In this case, Toyota is about to take the market by storm. That will provide a supportive nod to all the other offerings, despite claims to the contrary. What I find most fascinating out of all of it is the repetition of mistakes. Despite how much evidence you provide to the contrary, some will argue any without substance.

Thanks for helping out by providing more perspective for that bigger picture.

 

With 7.2 kW sustained (40-amp line) you get 200 miles of EV in 8 hours. That should work just fine for most households.

 

The Toyota speaker from the OP was likely thinking of incentives for hybrids, or ending the ones for plug ins. A tax that hit their ICE vehicle sales would likely be hit with resistance.

Agree that Toyota's CAFE values are likely up.

The problem with this strategy, as Toyota is doing it, is that it is slow, and doesn't look forward. The Prius came out in 1997, and the major ramp up for spreading the hybrid technology only started a few years ago. People here were asking for a Rav4 hybrid back when I got my 2005 new. It took three generations of Camry hybrid to get one that didn't lose trunk space. They spent millions on TNGA, which will underpin the next couple generations of models, and it is ICE centric. Forget space for batteries. Toyota didn't allow for space of hydrogen tanks, and they are supposed to be believers in that future.