Featured Toyota Announces 2 New EV's

And yet, one of the most popular EVs in North America is in that category (standard Leaf - 149 mile range).

 

It is the bottom five of BEVs in the US that gets over 10k sales a year, and Nissan has some nice incentives on top of the federal and state ones for it. The others on the list are near to, or are, over 20k, and all over 200 miles in range. Two cost substantially more than the Leaf. The other under 200 mile range BEVs are selling just a few thousand a year. At least, through 2019, and some of the slower sales models might be under battery supply limits.

Alternative Fuels Data Center: Maps and Data - U.S. Plug-in Electric Vehicle Sales by Model Sales scale here for BEVs is Model 3; then Model S & X, Bolt, and Leaf; and then the rest

The lower range is plenty for how most people would use them, but the buyers are choosing the longer range now. Battery supply levels aside, a Toyota BEV with shorter range likely won't sell much better than the other 'short' range BEVs. Priced right, it should beat the Leaf, and could get close to the Bolt. With sorted out battery supply, the Kona EV and Niro EV will likely also be selling in the range.

With future decreases in costs, I'd expect the shorter range models do better as they can compete better with ICE choices for second car.

 

So, 5th out of dozens? Sound's pretty competitive.

I wonder why I see so many of them compared even to the Model 3 around here. Maybe because they were out first.

 

You are missing the point Troll. Texico bought the patents to NiMH with the express purpose of suppressing the use of batteries in the auto industry. Statements by the guy who sold it to Texico attest to that. I'm not saying that we have proof that Toyota accepted a prohibition against building and selling BEVs. I'm saying that it fits the facts quite well.

You keep pointing to the prototypes and cars built by a subsidiary as evidence that Toyota was allowed into the BEV market. Depending on the wording of the agreement, they may or may not be able to make prototypes. There may or may not have been a loophole that allowed them to commission drive-trains from other companies.

Just in case it was not clear... We have no proof either way, but it sure fits the facts well. And since every post in this thread is chock full of supposition....

Dan
P.S. That last link also mentioned that Toyota was restricted from making PHEVs above a certain battery capacity until 2015. That explains the timing of the Primes. Again, the conversation was talking about NiMH but there was nothing in that thread that would restrict the prohibition to just that chemistry.

 

And yet Panasonic has been the battery maker for Tesla since ~2009

Your conclusions don't seem to fit the known facts

Mike

 

The move away from fossil fuels to zero emission cars, we need models that will sell over a thousand units a month, and be available nationwide. The third tier scale cars don't sell enough, and some are still limited availability compliance cars.

I am aware of what Chevron did, but the desire to block plug in cars doesn't mean they were able to do so beyond blocking ones using NiMH

The iQ EV was going to be released at the same time as the Rav4 EV, and it was 100% in house Toyota.

The Rav4 EV was not evidence of Toyota wanting to do BEVs. They did not sell it outside of California, it was a compliance car, and they did order more than the first 2600 despite there being demand for it. If time lines are evidence, Toyota ditched the Rav4 EV for the Mirai.

We have Ovionics report to the SEC on the settlement that specifically spells out the batteries subject to the terms were NiMH, and reported leaks on what was in the settlement. There is also Toyota and Panasonic doing BEV things with chemistries besides NiMH.

Your evidence is that Chevron is evil, and it explains Toyota's plug in development schedule in a light that is more positive for them. Then you brush off any contrary facts with a "we can't see the actual settlement."

 

Troll, I don't see why to are trying to find fault for not having evidence to support a supposition. It's a guess, just about like every statement that has been made on this thread about "why" Toyota is doing what it's doing.

 

If it is any interest here is a link to Toyota's worldwide page explaining its future plans and vision, you can click though the pages to see the Company's long range plans.

Sorry if this doesn't help.

CASE | Mobility | Toyota Motor Corporation Official Global Website

 

Only if Toyota gets rid of their ugly styling. Today for the first time I saw the back of the newer Gen 4 Prius. Somehow they fit it with an ugly stick.

 

I wouldn't call him a troll just because he disagrees with you.

It is certainly an interesting supposition--that the reason Toyota isn't building EVs is that they were not allowed to by some secret legal agreement. I've never heard anyone present this theory before. It makes Toyota look better than the theory that they just misjudged how quickly the market is changing, or the slightly more favorable theory that they decided they can continue helping the environment with hybrids and plug-in-hybrids, while also making big profits selling big trucks, and take those profits to later build EVs when the market is ready.

Certainly strong statements by their CEO suggest the last theory is the correct one. They've not shown any regrets that they haven't been building EVs up till now.

 

Wow, Prii must be extremely rare in central VA!

 

How much money has Tesla made on actual cars

 

It wasn't clear in your first post that you were just guessing, and when pointed out, with evidence, that the guess was likely wrong, you preceded to defend it.

The Model S had higher margins than the Mirai when it first came out, and all the models probably have a higher margin than a Prius.

 

Actually not that rare but the local dealer is awful. They even messed up the first inspection and tire rotation on my 2017! That is one reason I drove 150 miles to my preferred dealer for the wiring harness recall.

We were also impacts by this minor thing called COVID which has had me working from home and not traveling into town much. My son is on his second Prius and there are many around here.

 

But perhaps, not abbreviating would have been a good idea.

 

Well, the name is Trollbait, the one eaten by the troll.

 

Only if the rest of the party isn’t fast enough

 

Enough to build a new factory in China, and two in progress in Germany and Austin.

Sort of how Ford did it 100 years ago, no?

Mike

 

Money is not from manufacturing cars, Tesla has not made a dime on their cars. Smoke and Mirrors.
The $1.6 billion in regulatory credits it received last year far outweighed Tesla's net income of $721 million — meaning Tesla would have otherwise posted a net loss in 2020.