Toyota admits being hurt by Tesla, gives tepid response

Irony how the gloom & doomers will complain for not expanding manufacturing & charging infrastructure - as well as complain for not doing more - and not doing it more quickly - no way to do it right

.

 

not if you're shorting, and trying to drive the price down. have you read mrs musks twitter feed? spot on.

 

The gen2 went from compact to midsize, expanding the potential buyer pool, and I suspect it had more going for it in terms of incentives on the global front. The major gas price spike in the US happened during its tenure. The Auris and Yaris hybrid likely took the majority of potential gen3 sales in Europe because they were locally built.

They may not have been Prius owners before, but I think many Prime buyers would have been a Prius buyer. The Prius sales had a steeper than typical drop the year the Prime was available.

 

The Prime for the most part is the Prius many have been waiting for a long time, it’s not an overpriced compliance car with a battery like the PIP, it has real range, technology and features.

I would almost bet if looks, flat floor and 5th seat, and better nationwide availability were present you would have even higher Prime sales but Toyota has the same identity crisis GM had with the Volt.

I have yet to see a Prime in Wisconsin

 

that's what makes it a compliance car

 

I am only expressing my opinion, of course. But the energy density is the key. We really don't have a transportation energy problem -- we have plenty of fossil fuel for the foreseeable future. For alternative fuel cars, H has a lot of power density, a lot of headroom for R&D, is zero emissions and interested manufacturers.

 

I don't believe Toyota has anything to worry about from Tesla, in light of recent lay-offs, and due to the fact that the $35K entry Tesla car is still not realized for at least another 2 years.

Also coming into play is that Tesla's sold in 2012 are now coming off of warranty, and those owners now are finding out that they get ZERO support from the manufacturer.

 

The issue is cost, and today's BEVs are beating hydrogen FCEVs in that while providing the same range.The fuel cells themselves may come down in price, but battery technology is also advancing.

Getting the car cost down won't solve the major hurdles; where does the hydrogen come from, and how to get where we want it. The cheapest source for hydrogen is fossil fuels, which doesn't address the carbon emissions of transportation. Renewable sources increase the cost. California mandates a certain level of renewable, and hydrogen costs $16 per gallon gasoline equivalent.

Hydrogen is a small molecule that can be corrosive, which means more issues in transporting it so that it costs more to ship than gasoline or natural gas, and that is before we have to compress and chill it in order to get a reasonable energy density for transportation and refill time.

 

H2 only has zero emissions if it was produced from an actual energy source that has zero emissions.
This is not really any different than saying electricity has zero emissions...again very true. No emissions in the car. But not the whole story since it depends on how you generated the electricity.

There is no reason to try and use any sleight of hand here. Apply the same standards for H2 and electricity.
Neither exists in nature in a mine where we can just go get it.

Mike

 

Maybe we can go back to the Bronze Age

 

The bottom line is BEV/FCEV tech and infrastructure is still not prime-time ready. I very much admire early adopters, whether they be for limited use and/or for well off customers, but they still do not fill the everyday needs required by John and Jane Smith compared to ICE and/or Hybrid vehicles...at this time. So...this "discussion" is more academic for the rest of us. Now if "I" had the money, the new Tesla Roadster might be on my shopping list...but...not because electricity (or hydrogen) was cleaner.

 

There is a benefit in not having the cars emit pollutants to local air quality. For instance, L.A. air would be much better if all the car emissions were moved to the other side of the mountains.

That is how I read zero-emission for these cars, but many don't.

 

link?
not paid for by the carbon generating industry?
I suppose after our grandkids have passed away ..... if that's for the foreseeable future - that notion of, "we got plenry" is true true.
Then again, the Donner party had enough supplies for the foreseeable future .... until they started cannibalizing each other. Nothing new ...
The notion that "we have plenty - so enjoy it now" goes back 1,000's of years. Eat drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die. Isaiah 22:13
Just because the road warrior scenario isn't in the near future, doesn't mean we can presume fract fuel will continue on. Don't forget. China buys & uses more fuel than us now - & they want more - too.
.

 

there's a lot of mental gymnastics going on here to discredit tesla and bev's in general. not sure why, as i doubt there are too many shorters reading priuschat.

 

multi-pronged - not just shorter - not just prius fan - not just oil industry - not just hydrogen lobby - and not just all the faction's lobbyists .... even the "fear of changes" crowd are ready, willing, and desirous to jump bev users - with golf shoes. Like Sonny and Cher used to sing, The Beat Goes On.
.

 

Yep, the luddites are still among us.

 

Or GM which equates the workers jobs tied to the tax credit sunset
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/business/2018/dec/27/general-motors-ohio-auto-car-layoffs

Or Ford
https://www.google.com/amp/amp.timeinc.net/thedrive/news/24176/ford-loses-1b-to-trump-tariffs-announces-massive-layoffs%3fsource=dam

Or FCA
Chrysler to offer more workers buyouts, early retirement - ABC News

Or Nissan
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.clarionledger.com/amp/2603235002

Or Honda
Honda to cut production of Accord in Marysville

Oops
Report: Toyota considers cutting 1,000 jobs - ABC News

 

but, but, but