Prime destined to be doa?

Japan and Germany have a political interest in hydrogen FCEVs. So their home companies have an interest in doing the research and development. GM and Ford has come to the conclusion that they can't continue on their own because of the cost. So they have partnered with others to help share the cost. Toyota has partnered up with CARB to push hydrogen FCEV in the US in order to reduce their costs for the work in Japan.

But the Bolt is not the Volt.

 

i believe toyota has already stated that they have not ruled out a bev in the future. in the meantime, leasing one of the less desirable manufacturers models seems the best way to go for those so inclined.

 

Political interest or enlightened self-interest? They probably honestly feel H2 FCEV may be a bona fide part of the future answer for Countries less endowed with natural resources.

 

the interest could also just be labeled economic - due to comparatively few natural resources. So whether that's enlightened or not turns on the theoretical future discovery of a cleaner or more efficient hydrogen distilling /reforming process. As it stands with today's technology, Japan intends on burning millions of tons of Australian coal to reform hydrogen. That's good or bad turning on whether the toxins in coal ash &/or CO2 are dealt with in a prudent way. But prudent isn't always economical. Japan/Toyota aren't running ads on how they plan to be responsible for coal's 'aftermath' - but slamming plugins? There is room in Toyota's ad budget to do that. Love to read about coal ash & CO2 sequestration plans ... but find nothing in that regard.
"Honestly part of their future" ?
It's nice they found another country to be their toilet. Unfortunately the air blows over the entire world.
Mirai - or Prime .... people bitch if either are running on coal in the US - so we clean up our grid. Do other countries get a free pass? Not too sure if this counts as 'enlightened'. Self interest? ok
.

 

Perhaps this thread is less about the Prime being DOA, and more about the likelihood of Tesla having success with the Model 3. That's the difference between merely complying with the law, and going all in on BEV.

I wouldn't expect Toyota to achieve as much in electric propulsion as a company whose existence is dedicated to it. Toyota's diversity gives it a high probability of marginal growth, while Tesla's sole focus gives it both a high probability of failure, and a high probability of strong growth.

It's similar to a personal investment strategy. A young person with little to loose can afford to gamble on an undiversified portfolio, while an older (established) person is usually better off diversifying and sticking to conservative investments.

As a market leader, Toyota has much to loose if they bet too heavily on the wrong horse.

 

Toyota did make a BEV, that they originally planned to sell in California before realizing that it had no chance and canceled it.
Toyota iQ - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
It had a 50 mile EV range, and might have had a price tag as high as $45,000.

It is indicative of group think in Toyota that people only want short range, city BEVs. A conclusion originally reached back when the EV1 rolled the roads. With a battery chemistry better suited for BEVs than the lead acid and even NiMH of that time, Toyota manages to make a BEV with about the range of the EV1 on the initial set of lead-acid batteries, and a couple more seats for kids. Meanwhile, the Tesla converted Rav4 EV was getting double the range for $50k.

Japan's push for hydrogen cars started before the tsunami. Then they planned use nuclear power to make the hydrogen. Then things happened, and plans changed for the source for hydrogen. Which is a plus for Japan's point of view for going hydrogen; they aren't tied to one fossil fuel or other energy source for it. That doesn't mean they'll be keeping to clean sources as other things change.

 

Toyota's existence was not dedicated to hybrids and they did wonderful things with it.
As for the original question, I don't believe the Prime will be DOA unless Toyota prices it at a ridiculous level, which I don't believe they will.

And Toyota could achieve a lot more than Tesla, simply because Toyota has so much more production, engineering and R&D budgets and capacity.
They have little to loose in the short term. Just as GM had little to loose in the short term by crushing the EV-1.
But in the long term, that choice still causes them grief and the erosion that came of many bad choices led to bankruptcy.

I'm not saying Toyota will go bankrupt. But if Toyota starts feeling they can do no wrong, as GM did in the 90s...

 

yeah well, i doubt toyota thinks they can do no wrong. not everyone agrees not building a bev is wrong. as much as we might want one, there's no proof not having one will be wrong in the future, and no proof they can't build one if the market calls for it.

 

Because the FCV efforts of other automakers was not primarily focused on exploiting the taxpayers. Intense Toyota corporate resources are devoted to making the US taxpayer pay for ALL the H2 infrastructure essential for an Mirai market in the US. But that is not enough. Additionally, CARB must be corrupted to provide bizarre legislation giving FCVs extraordinary financial favoritism. This has nothing to do with the FCV efforts of other automakers. This is pure political corruption driven by corporate manipulation. Making desirable vehicles is a better strategy.

They are not. They are considered "compliance" vehicles. In contrast, the automakers pursuing EVs above and beyond compliance vehicles are enjoying increasing success (with the exception of the Leaf lately--It is being outclassed quickly). The Model 3 is hardly a token EV.

Because it has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. This topic is about why the Prime may (or may not) be an underwhelming competitor in the EV/PHEV market. There is no question that Toyota will ensure it has a great (if undersized) battery.

 

Not everyone will never comprehend nothing you are saying here.

 

Cost-Reduction resulting from the production of those lithium cells has nothing to do with Prime !!!

It directly affects price, which very much is a competitive attribute.

How can you possibly dismiss that?

 

Agree totally with the later half of your statement. If GM can make an about face on EVs, then it is possible with Toyota.

Not building an EV is a corporate choice. However, the corporate choice has consequences for both the company and consumer. GM, Ford, and Chrysler are now vastly smaller companies. They all ignored consumer trends and priorities for decades. Toyota's approach to EVs and FCVs has some early deja-vu to those old days. You were around then, so you know exactly what I'm talking about. (It's why we own Priuses.)

 

I think I know what you are both saying, Bisco is right

 

It is not dismissed, it is just very secondary. All of the Prime competitors probably enjoy a bigger advantage of lowering LI Ion cost than the Prime.

 

The choice to build has consequences too.

The problem I have is the situation continues to be presented as an absolute, rather than a not yet.

It's your approach that's flawed, not what you're saying. The result is unintentional misleading... unless you do actually believe in the absolute.


MERGED

How can you draw that conclusion?

If there are eight times as many Prius sold, but each only uses one-eighth the capacity of Prime, that's still the same numbers of cells produced. They all contribute to overall production in the end.

It's a basic accounting principal, not rocket science.

 

I wonder how they will package the options for the Prime. I hated how the PiP required a $7500 package even if you just wanted a few options. I know they decontented it a bit to drop the price increase to $5000 or $7500 above base. It made it a no brainer to get the Base instead of the Advanced (or Advanced with Tech Package) even though I would have likely gotten an extra option or two if I could have gotten them individually. If that huge screen requires a $7500 package over the base price of the Prime then absolutely forget it.

 

I agree with Bisco too, but after a 14.5 hr work shift on 2 hrs of sleep, I struggled with that one. I'm normally used to Bisco's smooth flowing sentences, but the last one made me laugh.

 

The screen resolution will matter too.

 

if you do a lot of gps traveling, i suppose it might be nice, but otherwise, isn't it just an attractive nuisance?