Featured Toyota President Says 'Silent Majority' Not Convinced on EV-Only Future

Except the ICE isn't getting melted down. That is only happening with a car that can't be driven anymore. Even if the owner takes the car directly to a scrap yard, the car will be stripped of useful parts before finally being recycled.

Yes, a seldom used car could have a lower carbon footprint than getting a new car whether ICE or plug in. But it is hyperbole that getting rid of the car means it is getting taken out of service. Most likely, it will remain in use with someone that probably couldn't afford a BEV or have one for some reason.

In order to have the fleet turn over to plug ins and other lower emission cars, we need people to buy them new, over the ICE choices. Holding onto the old car might be better for some's carbon foot print, but they are the minority. Most are driving to the point that isn't so.

Was this discussion in this thread or another?

Individually, holding onto the old car is a solution. At the society level it isn't. There is a constant stream of cars being retired every year. As long as there are cars, new ones will be made to replace them. Best for those that buy the new to get that plug in. Even if they drive low miles, as most cars stay in an individual's possession for 3 to 5 years, and the next person to get it could drive more miles.

 

there is a difference between leading and following. toyota set an example with prius, and many people here expected them to keep leading.
but as far as n/a is concerned, they've been content to rest on their laurels by expanding their hybrid offerings while letting others lead with bevs,
and now, they are being completely two faced with one arm of the company saying they are going to try to play catch up with bevs because they didn't realize how fast the market would develop, and the other arm (this thread article) saying their customers aren't interested. it's quite a dichotomy, and further proof that toyota is currently a rudderless ship with infighting at the top.
fortunately for them, they make a fortune on gassers and land yachts

 

This is true, but I've always assumed that any car is going to be stripped and recycled like that. For the purposes of discussion, I frequently make the assumption that they'll all be equally recycled even though I realize it can't be so on a unit level.

We're in full agreement on those points.

 

They'll be recycled, eventually. Even the ones destroyed in a crash.

The average age of registered car in the US is in the 11 to 13 year range, and the average distance driven by a person is approaching 15k miles. Odds are that a plug in will be in use long enough to cover its extra production emissions and have net lower than an ICE. The odds are also good that a car bought new, and driven very low miles for its entire life, are a minority. Such examples are strawmen.

The majority of cars will see enough use during their lifetime that in service emissions will be the main contribution.

 

One of the big cosumer decision factors whether to go plug-in is their cost. Initial cost & cost to run. Looking at the dirt cheap price of the Chevy bolt makes the plug-in switch a lot more attractive to many. Not so for those people with electricity costs that bend over the consumer. Ergo choices are good.
.

 

double whammy here:

42626657

 

But a far more important point is that the question was not posted as a "straw man" argument. We ran into that exact problem when they did the "cash for clunkers" program back in the early 2000s. They removed a huge number of cars from the roads and made them inoperable, eventually melting them down for scrap. But in the program there was nothing in place to determine if the destroyed cars were actually generating high levels of pollution. As a class, they tended to be high polluters, but individual cars were found to be well maintained and able to pass the same emissions standards as the newest cars on the market.

During that time period the automobile industry was pushing SUVS and pickups, making it almost certain that some if not most of those cars were replaced by pickups and SUVS. Those "light trucks" could have emissions standards that allowed higher emissions than the cars that they replaced.

To stop global warming, we need stop the shotgun approach that takes usable machines off the road only to replace them with machines that are not going to be any cleaner FOR THAT SPECIFIC PERSON/application.

And the last point to consider is the assertion that every car is recycled and usable parts are stripped from the cars before melting them down. Based on what I see leaving the wrecking yard, the cars are crushed into cubes or slabs with plastics, lubricants and metals intermixed. I occasionally see a truck on the freeway with a dozen or so pancaked cars stacked one on top of the other. You can't guess that all cars are routinely stripped of usable parts in a clean and safe way.

 

I am sure this has been asked many times, but no you are better off driving an old car if you are looking at break even without many miles per year. Then again you may want the latest features and if buying why not a BEV?

27% of new vehicles are sold to those 65 and older in 2017, up from 13% in 2007. I expect that the trend has already reversed. It is likely that those that are retired (which is the majority of those in the 65+ catagories will not drive as many miles and be more adverse to large changes in technology. If the goal is to reduce oil consumption by say 2040 by favoring plug-ins (BEVs and PHEVs), even if this group is 30% of new purchasers, they will disproportionately drive fewer miles. I would put this catogory seniors adverse to buying a plug-in as a not important segment of the plug-in market at least as far as reducing oil consumption.

I would be more worried that they will never make it 70 miles to urgent care if they are driving themselves than a plug-in won't get them there.

 

Is there a proposal for an EV incentive that would result in safe and working ICE cars getting scrapped?

The requirements for the program had nothing to do with emissions, it was based upon combined fuel economy. The trade in had to be 18mpg or less. In the case of trucks without a mpg rating, they had to be at least 8 years old. For the new vehicle; real cars had to be 22mpg minimum; SUVs, minivans, small to medium vans, and small to medium pick ups had to be 18mpg; and the larger pick ups and vans were at 15mpg.

Minivans are one of the most economical and cleanest way to move families and their stuff. The Mazda5 aside, the ones available in 2009 were 18 to 20 mpg combined. A limit of 20mpg would only allow the Odyssey and the Dodge siblings. 18mpg cut off all the large SUVs, and many of the medium ones, including the Forerunner and FJ Cruiser.

The unprecedented high gas prices was limiting the sale of those trucks and vans that needed just a 15mpg limit. Many of those sales at time were likely replacements for trucks too big to have a mpg rating. The program couldn't be applied to the sale of such trucks.

There were flaws and loop holes with the program, but it wasn't what you present here.
https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/fmvss/CARS_1stDayNotice_06262009.pdf

We should have allowed VW to export the cheater diesels to countries in their emissions were legal for that reason.

But this is the strawman. Where are people being forced to give up their car or truck? Where are there ZEV programs that require a working vehicle to be turned in and destroyed? I've only seen incentives designed to encourage a ZEV to be purchased.

California does have a car retirement program. While a 25+ year old car can lead an easy life in Southern California, I don't know how usable a car that failed smog is considered. Maybe the $1000 to $1500 is higher than the car's market value, but I don't see how that is an enticement for someone to retire their current car for the sake of getting something new.
https://www.cashforclunkers.org/california-cash-for-clunkers-program/

Then call the EPA on that site, cause they are required to remove the fluids before crushing. The plastics will get removed after the slab or cube is shredded.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle_recycling

The concern some might have is what becomes of the cars after they've 'moved on'.

 

That was the mini-mini van. (And could be had with a 5 or 6 speed manual! )

I do wonder when someone will make an EV mini van (and what it will cost). There is the VW ID.Buzz coming up I guess.

 

There are more than one reason as VW has terribly handled EV design and manufacturing. They are racing BMW to the bottom.

Bob Wilson

 

• 'Fired' Herbert Diess who had a clue about the changes VW needs to make.
• Ford came to the same conclusion of their once joint venture with VW on EVs.
• VW EVs were unable to charge at VW's Electrify America, fast DC chargers.
• Pathetic efficiency:

When 3d parties are able to convert older VW MicroBus into EVs while VW keeps 'press releasing' year-after-year ... one begins to wonder if their heart, much less their brains, are engaged.

Worst of all: "Porsche begins production of ‘e-fuel". This is worse than the hydrogen fuel cell fraud.

Bob Wilson

 

From what I understand, the efficiency loss is due to VW trying to follow popular demand. People want to drive boxy SUV's. But making boxy SUV's aerodynamic is extremely hard. That's why the SUV's made by Tesla look like blimped sedans and still get worse efficiency than their real sedans.

Making an efficient SUV is like trying to mix water and oil (by hand, without solvents and detergents and soap, etc. you get the point).

Mind you, the actual rating doesn't reflect the whole story either. Tesla has invested in extra testing to bring their number up. If both cars (the Model 3 and the ID.4) were tested under the same tests they would likely be a lot closer.

 

The Model Y would be another to compare to the VW offering:

I did a quick search for SUVs by Tesla, VW, and even Porsche. There may be better (or worse) comparisons such as the Tesla Model X.

Bob Wilson

 

In VW's defense, these are their first efforts at designing and manufacturing an EV. But the staff changes remind me of what BMW did to the BMW i3 team and production facilities. Instead of tuning and expanding their world leading, BMW i3-REx, their board of directors and management 'lobotomized' themselves. My first reaction to the BMW i8 was to spontaneously laugh ... which I regret was done in front of their earnest salesman. I should have waited until I got outside to my 2014 BMW i3-REx where I could properly ROFLMAO.

Bob Wilson

 

You can buy the ID.Buzz in Europe. The US getting later is just how it goes. We got the ID.4 later, and never got the ID.3. Considering were the US is positioned as an EV market, we are lucky to get something from a non-domestic company.

Another how so?

There is a higher cost to turn green hydrogen into a liquid fuel, but the difference shrinks when transporting and getting the fuels into vehicles is considered. There is already extensive networks of infrastructure to get gasoline into cars. An engine and gas tank take up far less space in a car for a range extender than a fuel cell and hydrogen tanks. A BEV does not work for every application.

It is backwards compatible. Existing gasoline vehicles don't need modifications to run it. The cost is impractical for daily drivers that aren't high efficiency hybrids or PHEVs, but Porsche's intent for it is to fuel pleasure cars. Give the ICE fans an outlet for their desires, and they'll be less entrenched against to EVs for daily use.

The i3 and i8 were proof of concepts that managed to get into production. BMW cut the costs of carbon fiber use, but its extensive use with an aluminum frame was still pricey. If the performance and cost of batteries hadn't improved at the rate that they did, BMW would have continued with the models. Even expanded the line up.

But batteries did get better. The weight savings of a full carbon fiber and aluminum car wasn't needed. It is cheaper to just add more battery capacity now. BMW is still using carbon fiber, but in strategic locations of their more traditional chassis.
After the i3 and i8, There’ll Be No More Carbon-Fiber BMWs | News | Car and Driver

I like the i3. An used BEV is on my short list. But it is an odder car than the Prius to most people.