Featured Shareholders Concerned About Toyota Anti-Electric Car Lobbying

What, specifically, is your solution?

Mike

 

Having owned a Prius Prime and still own a BMW i3-REx and Std Rng Plus Model 3, I have some operational experience:

• Fast DC charging required - one of the weakest aspects of the Prime was no fast DC charging. So trying to drive cross country with a maximum L2 rate of ~7.2 kW taking +2 hours for a full charge is painfully slow ... and expensive.
• Must have +100 kW charge rate - our BMW i3-REx is limited to 50 kW which means drive for 72 miles, an hour, and then charge for 45 minutes. Worse, the CCS-1 charging costs are running 4x the cost of gasoline.
• High peak rate at low SOC vs constant rate - our Std Rng Plus Model 3 charges at up to 170 kW when the battery SOC is less than 10% (aka. ~20 miles.) This means drive for ~2 hours, 120+ miles, and charge for ~20 minutes to reach the next SuperCharger.

As much as I appreciate @john1701a insights, more than just Prius Prime experience 'rubs your nose' in the subtle aspects of EV cross country travel. The "block-to-block" time of cross country travel is a complex function of:

1. high peak kW charging region - an early, peak charge rate, makes hopping charger-to-charger the fastest way to go. In contrast, the BMW i3-REx has a 'square' shaped charging curve at just under 50 kW until taper at ~80%. The Tesla is triangular shaped with the peak rate at low SOC that gradually slopes down.
2. high density of fast DC chargers - it is best if the typical distance between chargers is short enough, ~120 mi, to arrive in the high charging rate, SOC.
3. automated driver assistance - at a minimum, dynamic cruise control but lane keeping, not alerting, is a must along with the integrated autopilot suite.

We have strayed quite aways from the thread title. Just I like questions that address my hands-on experience.

Bob Wilson

 

Anything Toyota does or says is John’s definition of the perfect thing to do.
Anything another company does (especially GM) is John’s definition of the wrong thing to do.
Anything both Toyota and other companies do was wrong when the other company did it, but perfect when Toyota does it.

 

That is unfair as @john1701a explains the technical aspects. We can disagree with Toyota engineering and marketing decisions but he is explaining, not blindly following. Sometimes he gets a little snippy but often due to being provoked.

Bob Wilson

 

I have no issue with his technical explanations, they are quite good.
When he tangents off into policies, and facts of things other than mechanicals, he goes off the rails.

Remember how he criticized the gen1 Volt for its 4 seat configuration? He lambasted GM over it.
The PiP comes out a bit later with, yes, 4 seats. Suddenly it is a brilliant solution.

Tesla selling BEVs was an awful idea back when the equivalent GHG effective mpg was less than that of a hybrid in over 50% of the USA. Now that BEVs are cleaner than a hybrid in most of the USA, there are good reasons for Toyota to continue to try to slow the world’s transition.

His ‘anything Toyota=good’ has gotten really old.

 

You are fixated on GM. How does their actions apply to Tesla, VW's BEVs, and others?

Yet it seems that you are unwilling or unable to present that information here yourself. Asking readers here to do your work will just result in them giving less credence to you.

How did Toyota siding with the Trump administration for lower MPG standards bring attention to concerns of public charging or other barriers to plug ins?

 

irony is - as Volt fans used to do - lash out against the prius .... (which does nothing to promote efficiency ) ..... we PC'rs too, sometimes throw our own out with the bathwater. That's likely what gives rise to the 'anything Toyota' (even hydrogen cars) stance. As for rehashing the Volt - it no longer being sold, that's like the Prius C & V .... markets for littler cars come and go with the cost of fuel. NO one thinks Volt, or Prius C/V were bad cars - but for the money they brought in - manufacturers' profit considerations reign supreme. There are exceptions .... nevermind major stock holding now weighing Into the frey, we also have government intervention, pushing BEV's. That now drives the market Direction. Toyota sees that, although protesting.
It can't be denied modernly that the BEV can be as useful - desireable & profitable as ICE, in many instances.
.

 

Not trying to be snarky, just trying to understand your point about the lack of fast charging for the Prime. Would people really want to try to drive cross country in a Prime using only electric? Stopping every 25 miles or so to use a fast charger?

 

Regardless of battery-range capacity, no fast DC charging makes it impractical to do an EV cross country in a Prime.

Bob Wilson

 

It's all about simple messaging... that of which, the points above are not. We need ways to promote the wide-audience offerings to come.

DC fast-charging will be for BEV and PHEV with larger packs. Quoting peak & sustained kW rates is still a big problem. After all this time, there is no type of consensus about what's realistic for day-to-day needs and travel. That is absolutely essential for setting expectations. We won't be able to get any type of business or legislative support without. Investors won't invest with so many unknowns still. How will the service be paid?

AC charging at home is still very much a problem too. There is at least a standard connector, but rates and how connections are achieved far from simple. We witness early-adopters downplay the challenge of wiring old homes and outright dismiss what it takes to support multiple vehicles all charging at the same time. They obsess with the vehicle itself and neglect infrastructure.

This topic is about Toyota and how when they bring up these barriers it gets twisted into anti-EV lobbying. The narrative has become so diluted, there is nothing but a few vague talking-points now. Yet, those involved see no obligation to re-evaluate, despite a continued flow of new offerings and undeniable progress with difficult to reach consumers.

This new stage the technology is entering requires an entirely different frame of mind to advance within. Those unable to cope due to lack of experience or absence of awareness end up complaining and placing blame, rather than coming up with a simple message... something actually constructive.

We have done great things with critical thinking in the past. It is now time for a new round of it. Tools of the past don't work with this new audience.

 

Rewriting history is not your strong suit. Lambasting Volt for having 4 seats came about because it was marketed as a solution for the FAMILY, a vehicle that was somehow superior to their other offerings. That was a blatant attempt to deceive. Enthusiasts fought relentlessly to mislead about GM not targeting their own loyal customers, that GM had no intention to actually spread the technology as they had promised with Two-Mode.

Toyota never did any such thing. We were told at the reveal that the Prius Prime was targeting the empty-nesters who started with a Prius, but now the children they raised we grown up. We were also told that approach (adding a one-way dry clutch to enable greater EV power) was a simple upgrade to the hybrid system that would be spread across the fleet. Toyota's fundamentally different approach was a clear effort to target their own showroom shoppers... which has since been undeniably confirmed with the rollout of RAV4 Prime.

What I find most telling is how you excluded the rest of my "lambast" argument. You left out the part about the low headroom and the tight legroom, neither of which was a limitation to that degree for Prius Prime. It's a good example of misleading by omission.

Want even more evidence of deception, note the timeline. Back when Volt was rolled out, the market was thriving on giant vehicles. 6 years later when Prius Prime was rolled out, downsizing had become the them. 2 years later when the "gig" economy took hold, Toyota recognized that shift back to larger and altered design to provide a 5th seat. GM never did.

In summary, you're not doing anything to help us reach the masses. My push to get you to engage you in something productive is what?

 

It has CHAdeMO in Japan, but that country has different electrical infrastructure. More people don't have access to home charging there, and a large part that do have a lower power supply than even old US homes. Fully charging a Prius Prime would take over 10 hours.

So Japan needs quick charging to allow even small battery EVs to work for daily use. In the US, it is needed more for those long trips away from home. Charging at home is plenty for many people's daily use. In the future, fast charging may come to be used for those without home charging access, but it would be most efficient cost and energy wise to increase access to slow charging. Europe is trying such solutions now with chargers attached to lamp posts or built into kerbs amoung others.

Again, how was Toyota supporting lower fuel economy standards for ICE cars bringing up these these barriers to EVs?

You are claiming that Toyota was trying to bring up these issues, but haven't provided any examples. Even after asking others to define this lobbying.

 

That's a pretty lame attempt to provoke, exactly what was needed to bring this to a close. You know I provided examples. You know I never got a straight answer about lobbying. You know I am correct about the outdated & misleading claims.

 

No you haven't. You've brought what you see as barriers, but have not shown Toyota doing so. You sure haven't shown how being against higher fuel economy standards does so, and Toyota's siding with Trump is one of the incidents cited by this group of investors.

"Right up until now, the company has repeatedly undermined climate action, from opposing the U.K. government’s ban on internal combustion engines by 2030 to opposing car fuel economy standards in the U.S" -one of the fund executives in the original post of this thread. Other examples were brought up in the thread.

These funds' complaint isn't about Toyota being anti-EV, but about them working against actions taken to mitigate global warming. That is the lobbying and statements they have issue with.

 

You still have not answered my question from post #101 where I asked you to give specifics on charging.
Yet you continue to leave vague posts like this one.

Mike

 

john all your distortions and trying to move the discussion to some big bad gm did years ago instead of the topic at hand do not serve you well.

Toyota shares have been lagging companies that embrace the environment and plug-in cars. Toyota says it embraces environmental goals yet pays its pacs and advertising agencies large amounts of money. lobbying against corporate values is definitely something the board should stop, and since they haven't, shareholders are pushing it to a proxy vote. Do you think they should be doing this lobbying?

hmm. Do you remember further up when I put out numbers to your vague generaliztions. Toyota with its chinese bev, and multi country phevs and fuel cell vehicles still only sold less than 54,000 world wide. I'm sure the tesla model 3 and model Y sold to more of toyota's customers last year with 444974 sales. Numbers matter. I know you will find excuses. I'll give you the first one. Both tesla and toyota did not sell as many plug-ins because they couldn't make enough batteries. Somehow I would think toyota could come up with 100,000 battery packs for the rav4 prime. Maybe they will in 2022. We simply don't know how many rav4 primes toyota could sell if they were committed to plug-ins and invested in dealer training and production.

Less than 54,000 vehicles with the bulk being expensive before tax credits doesn't seem like they are reaching the masses. If they have decent sales in the US they will lose their tax credit advatage they get versus tesla and gm that maxed them out long ago. Then again if they up production of the rav4 prime and kill the mirai they can probably be more profitable even with lower prices they need without the tax credits.

Toyota did successfully lobby the US and california government to give the mirai $12,500 in tax credits and to subsidize the fueling. It is now lobbying the US government not to expand charging infrastructure. I'm not sure how that helps the environment or toyota's profit. That lobbying and the lobbying to make looser regulations on fuel economy standards in the US in 2017-2020, are part of the problem shareholders have with the corporate lobbying.

WSJ has a great article behind paywall about toyota lobbying the Japanese economy from forcing all cars to be hybrids, plug-ins, or fuel cells by 2035. Toyota's argument was they need ice only cars. If all were plug-ins right now the grid couldn't handle it. Really distorted. The regulation included toyota's strength in hybrids and the plug-ins are going to expand slowly not all in a year.

Of course you know that toyota was held for false advertising in europe for calling hybrid cars self driving electric vehicles. Advertisements were banned in Norway stating that calling them electric was clearly misleading to the population.

I don't see how any of these things help the environment or the stock price.

Again. The toyota board should embrace its corporate values.

I hope toyota will soon produce bevs sold in the US, and get enough batteries to sell volumes of the rav4 prime.

 

A correction to Volt drive train history. It was cancelled, along with many other car models, in the US. The drive train is available in China in car and crossover form. GM did not abandon it.
The next Bolt comes out year, and preliminary pricing is $31k. That isn't a huge increase from the Prius Prime. Yes, the federal tax credit gives the Prime an advantage, but Toyota won't have those for long if they increase Rav4 Prime availability. There will also be a Bolt crossover for $34k.

But GM is not the sole EV carmaker. The VW group currently sells 4 EVs built on their BEV platform along side other plug ins. Those BEVs range from entry level to luxury brands. Representing hatchbacks, crossovers and SUVs. In addition to retooling factory for those new BEVs, VW built a BEV only plant outside Shanghai. At full capacity, that plant will produce 300,000 BEVs. That is a big investment for some token effort.

Which could have Toyota stockholders concerned about the company's future. There are advantages to the slow approach, but change can come much faster, and Toyota is just starting to invest for mass production of plug ins.

The issue with the OT funds isn't that though. It's Toyota stating they are for the environment and addressing global warming, but their actions saying otherwise. Which could be hurting the stock's performance, but stock holders, even funds, are free to evaluate stocks by other values. If Tesla announced an ICE car, I'm sure many stockholders would be upset even if the stock price went up.

 

At the 12:00 minute mark in this video are some stated quotes from the investors and Toyota.

The earlier part of the video is interesting, but off topic.

 

Toyota Stockholders should be head over heels happy- one solid stock pick that has paid dependable profits for many, many years.

Toyota - 45 Year Stock Price History | TM | MacroTrends

 

A tiny, climate-conscious player is creating a giant headache for Big Oil
A tiny, climate-conscious player is creating a giant headache for Big Oil - POLITICO

A short story on a small investment firm attempting to force change on Exxon, including replacing four board members, to address climate change. The Church of England is one of its fellow investor supporters.