Featured Will Biden change Toyota direction?

Biden's approach is not to build giant electricity guzzlers. That just shifts the problem of waste over to a different platform. Remember his motto...

Build Back Better

That means not only cleaner, but more efficient too. Electricity is not an unlimited resource. We have storage & distribution constraints to address still.

 

Why? Because people are still going to buy guzzlers, why bother getting off fossil fuels.

How will the incremental improvements in efficiency from a hybrid going to get people to stop buying guzzlers? The upcoming hybrid Tundra should do much better than the current model, because the current one FSP and worse of its segment. The new hybrid will likely not do much better than its peers. Give it a plug, and it could do a much better job of lowering carbon emissions.

Toyota doesn't want to change direction because they want to make the most from their hybrid and ICE investments, while hoping to recoup something from their hydrogen ones. With more hybrid options among their models, with some being hybrid only, increases to CAFE targets shouldn't be a concern for them. Yet they chose to back the cancelling of those increases. Why?

Higher CAFE targets would actually help Toyota in moving people into more efficient models. If that was their goal, but Toyota has always taken a slower approach to rolling out technology that would improve efficiency for their consumers. Doing so lets them make more profit from the investment into the older tech. They would probably have to speed up their introduction of newer tech with higher CAFE targets, which would reduce overall profit.

It is all about making money. Toyota planned to do so one way, but the world and market is shifting away from that vision. Adjusting to meet that change would mean less money in the short term. So Toyota is lobbying to slow down that change instead.

The methods that would encourage more efficient EVs will also encourage more efficient ICEs. The US has chosen not to implement them for ICEs, the likelyhood of doing so for EVs is low. Many that would support such, would be against EVs in general, and would cry foul if you suggested such measures be applied to all types of cars.

"There is no reason that a soccer mom's SUV needs a 0-60 of 5 seconds."
This applying ICE logic to EVs. A fast ICE cars needs a powerful engine, which would be inefficient during most of the time during typical driving. The EV would need a more powerful motor, but such a motor doesn't have the efficiency hit the engine sees during regular driving.

Then the motor is only part of the how to get the EV fast. The rest is in a bigger battery. Which most people likely opt for to get the longer range. They may not need that range, but there are valid reasons to want it now. The availability of public charging is still limited, and may be unreliable; the extra range is to allow for range loss in winter and detours; in case of power outages, or forgetting to charge. There are surely others, but the point is that the acceleration is mainly a side benefit for the buyer.

And let's not forget that successfully get people to switch from the familiar to something new requires extra enticement. Short range BEVs that had performance comparable to a typical car came out first. Sales were not the best, and they did not really take off until longer range cars became available.

 

It is only incremental if you cherry-pick, in other words, feed a narrative.

Reality is, Toyota is upgrading the entire fleet with a staggered approach. The vehicles further along have already been through their hybrid phase and now we are seeing both BEV and PHEV models.

 

You can bury your head in the details of energy systems that will kill the whole planet if we don't make major changes all you want... The days of climate change being a concern 50 years from now are over because 50 years showed up early. Much like the Anit-Vax and Covid is a hoax crazies, climate change deniers are gonna look like the fools they are even more so tomorrow when the next report drops:

"The first part of the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPPC) will be published on Monday Aug. 9. This report will detail how anthropogenic greenhouse gases are causing unprecedented damage. The IPCC, which consists of 195 governments, has emerged as one of the most credible sources of climate science. IPCC members aggregate and agree to the best climate science available globally before publishing. The new IPCC report will contain several key findings to look out for. ...Moreover, there is an increasing moral and economic imperative to respond to the consequences of climate change we are already witnessing. The poorest communities are often those that contribute the least to climate change but are most vulnerable to its consequences." What to expect in the new IPCC report on climate change | World Economic Forum

 

Pig and a poke, registration fees are skyrocketing across the nation,

If it is beneficial to save resources by limiting the size and horsepower of cars (less asphalt, smaller parking, less materials in the car itself, less energy/pollution in city use, less road wear, etc)
Then simply lower insurance and tax costs on vehicles that fit into that bracket.
In Europe your drivers license costs more for an automatic only version and a 2wd, manual vehicle has lower government influenced cost, as does your horsepower, less horsepower is cheaper

Supposedly the US doesn’t like taxes, yet we are doing exactly the opposite to encourage people to waste as much energy as possible in the largest vehicles possible via bad tax policies.

We would almost need federal intervention if we want consistent non punitive tax policies that motivate people in a positive direction in terms of lowering spent/sunk resources, lowering congestion , reducing parking requirements, etc.

 

joe could offer higher incentives for more efficient bev's

 

This is a point in history where the complexion of the power use in transportation can be vastly improved. In the 1970s an oil embargo caused a gasoline shortage which in turn caused a massive shift from muscle cars to econoboxes and 55 MPH speed limits. Today we are facing a similar turning point where the specter of rationing may make the small, efficient cars more attractive.

No, that's not the way it works. To have a 5 second 0-60 you need a whole mess of things to be oversized. A stronger motor needs more current from the battery which in turn needs to be bigger. The brakes need to be beefier to handle the inevitable hard stops that come with jackrabbit starts. The drive shafts and gears (if provided) need to be built up to handle the stress.

Simple physics say that it should take the same amount of energy to go from zero to 60 in 20 seconds as it takes to get there in 5 seconds. But batteries work differently. So does regenerative braking.

As an example, a battery pack that can deliver 10kWH at 50 amps draw will only be able to provide a percentage of that when drawing 400 amps. The exact loss depends on battery design, size (capacity) and chemistry. The simple way to keep the cars from wasting that energy is to limit the acceleration. The profitable way to do it is to sell the customer huge battery packs to limit the drain per individual cell.

A similar problem is with regeneration braking. Inefficiencies in the generator to battery to motor to wheel limit the recaptured energy to somewhere around 60%.

 

The staggered approach is what I am referring to when I say incremental improvements. It is a slow approach to hybrid introduction they are following. Many happened for financial reasons.

There have been several hybrid models in Japan, which had some of the most generous hybrid incentives. Outside Japan there have been fewer. The Auris and Yaris happened to address the import tax on Prius models to Europe. There and other markets just had a low hybrid selection for some time.

PHEVs got pushed out because of the growing third party mod market, and tightening requirements on car types that would qualify for the ZEV program. BEVs mostly happened because of China's own EV program, and until recently was the only place Toyota was selling BEVs.

If global warming wasn't real, going slow wouldn't be an issue. But it is, and governments are taking steps to address it. Toyota now has to pick up their pace to meet the new requirements. they don't won't to because that would increase their costs without increasing profits. So they are trying to slow the world down to their pace.

I thought the Us should have something like a displacement/cylinder/horsepower tax like other countries did back when EVs were just a dream of the few. i am not against the idea, but it has to be applied to all cars, no matter the fuel. make it just EVs, and you slow their adoption.

The gas guzzler tax is still on the books. Might be easier to bring that up to date. Extend it to trucks. Maybe increase the MPG cut off from the current 17.5mpg. Come up with a MPGe equivalent based on average US 'grid' mix carbon emissions for BEVs, and lust use the MPG one for PHEVs

But we aren't seeing that among the available BEVs.The Model Y SR and LR are the most efficient BEV SUVs available, and have a 0 to 60 around 5 secs. The Performance model is less efficient, but matches the the short range Leaf. Perhaps less powerful motors could make the Y more efficient, but it could work out the other way. Less powerful motors will have to work harder during regular driving, which could mean working at a less efficient point.

The other performance BEVs with low MPGe ratings could have other reasons unrelated to their high output affecting their fuel economy. The Taycan has a two speed transmission, but it never went into the more efficient gear during the EPA test. The front motor on the iPace is permanent magnet. If not getting power, it will act as a brake. The larger buffer in the battery also means more dead weight

Then the 72mpge rated BYD e6 has an acceleration in the 7 to 8 sec range of most non- performance cars. Limiting a car's power or acceleration do not automatically mean better efficiency.GM had a midsize sedan designed for a V6. Rental companies, and other fleets wanted a 4cylinder option. GM tried explaining that the 4 cylinder would not be of a benefit, but the customers assisted. The resulting 4 cylinder car did worse on the EPA test. Countries that have taxes on displacement, just get engines of those size with turbo and super chargers take can waste fuel just as well as the larger engine.

While most people do drive harder than the EPA test cycles, they are rarely pushing the limits of the cars' performance on a regular basis.

 

I love your enthusiasm, but that message has been screamed out across the globe for yrs now, and still we see the rapid onset. What was predicted to take 50 yrs has already happened in under 10 yrs and this is compounding meaning the onset is getting faster and faster ..... but the might $$ still rules. The only thing that will change corporate minds is shareholder pressure ..... if the share price drops, so does their remuneration package and the end of term payout because shares are a big part of the package these days.
Over this side of the planet, finance has been refused for any new fossil fuel development including power stations, yet our govt now is talking about funding these projects from tax payer money ..... is the fossil fuel lobby and political donations pushing these doubt full dumb moves ????

No matter how much cheaper or more desirable the gas guzzler becomes, if they can't afford the fuel they won't drive them and their resale value will be terrible, so their decision on the next purchase will be swayed by the household budget more than the drivers desires.
If the cost of registration and insurance is increased, they will just drive them unregistered and uninsured, that is already at toxic stage over here and has been for some time. Fuel stealing will again become an issue if the cost of fuel increases, but trying to steal electrickery out of an EV battery requires a fair level of sophistication and the energy value doesn't lend itself to ever being developed to the level of being a problem .... yet another reason to drive an EV .... cheaper alternate fuels for non piston type combustion engines that power gensets for the range extender aren't likely to be stolen either, you can't run a gas guzzler on the stuff.

How does a govt achieve this price increase, much the same way as the Aust govt did, price parity. The cost of pump gas is determined by the cost of non fossil fuel produced by using renewable energy, cheap poor grade fuel is easier to make synthetically than high octane fuel, but renewable generated electricity should be even cheaper than fossil fuel generated electricity .... the $$ drives the market place and that changes type of vehicle and energy used ... and that drives the type of vehicle and energy that is produced, no value in creating something you can't sell ......

T1 Terry

 

A point you have not covered is the lack of electricity capacity in the typical Japanese home. In the US, most electric utilities have 240 volt 200 amp service available. Though many houses do not have that big a power panel, you can upgrade the panel to 200 amps and install a car charger with 240 volts at 70 amps.
In Japan, the typical house feed is 100 volts at 50 amps. You can see why a Japanese auto company would not see home charging of BEVs as a viable process. Thus the bias to other powertrains like hydrogen.

 

This has been mentioned in other threads from time to time. It is a very good observation
This cultural difference is a good reason for Toyota to look for other alternatives within the home market.
Toyota isn’t new at this game though, they have been the biggest worldwide manufacturer of autos (by units sold) for many years.
I don’t believe ‘tunnel vision’ can be the reason for their worldwide hesitancy to move into the BEV & PHEV market outside Japan.
Toyota could not have become the worldwide success they have with such tunnel vision.

 

when it comes to incentivization - history repeats itself. If the government cheese pays for ½ of solar panels, the installer jack's up the price accordingly. If Toyota sells the RAV4 Prime premium package for $50,000 ..... the stealership - knowing the feds & state(s) may incentivize up to $10,000 - then stealerships jack up the price to $60,000.
50% price off your 240V home install wall mount EVSE? Guess how much the installer will mark it up. Been there/done all that.
How do you stop the price gouge that corresponds to the discount.

that thinking fails to account for drag. You get higher speed, & eventually you need a car with a very low drag CD - or else it will be like driving through fruitcake.

So, it will be more profitable to carry a 3 ton battery - rather than ½ton batteries? Is that because doubling or tripling all that extra product is going to make it more affordable? Carrying all that tonnage is going to help with efficiency? Just because individual cells will last longer? Sorry for over exaggerating - but it's to make the point of the flaw in the logic.
.

 

Many Japanese companies use the home market as a test bed for new tech and Toyota definitely wants alignment between markets to minimize global supply size and engineering costs.

Their “Tunnel vision “ focusing on what could fit the domestic and foreign markets historically was a benefit since a Japanese mindset was foreign and methodical , with a required focus on waste reduction/thrift, compared to their US counterparts who forgot about thrift in the 50’s)

In a market with rapid change they have gotten caught with a few large markets fragmenting from the rest which doesn’t align with their goals to fully vet sunk investments.

They also don’t appear to internally have the same battery tech or enough production to support BEV aligned markets , it’s possible they worry about becoming a Nissan tied to the wrong battery horse and their unwillingness to outsource outside vertical integration means they have to slowly expand at the pace of their own R&D endeavors .

This unwillingness to go outside their network means Toyota is mostly immune from the so called chip shortage (nothing like having large surpluses of all the wrong chips and none of the ones anyone wants)

 

Would be better if any future discussion on electricity guzzling go here:
What is an electricity guzzler? | PriusChat

 

carb seems to work pretty well for this. due to toyotas need for credits, they've been selling primes as low as 20k in the northeast for 5 years now

 

This is as good a place to discuss inefficient electric cars as any. After all, if you have patently inefficient BEVs going up against well designed PHEVs, there is a case to be made for banning the inefficient BEVs instead of restricting the use of ICE propulsion.

One of the flaws in the USA's environmental protection policies is that there are very few instances where wasteful designs are out and out banned. We use punitive taxes and fees, but if you can afford the pay for it, you can get a 8 MPG truck and use it for commuting 100 miles a day.

Now that I've typed that, it's ironic that we have drag strips where the cars consume gallons of fuel in seconds and have no pollution controls at all. We have 500 mile NASCAR races where 40 cars drive in big circles with 800 HP engines pushing them at 150 MPH, and still not a catalytic converter in sight. They get as little as 2 MPG. 2 million gallons consumed by NASCAR races in a single season. That's a lot of unburned hydrocarbons released into the atmosphere.

 

But not in the non-carb states.

 

no, but that's the states fault. not the feds

 

Since the first lead-acid recycling law wasn’t until 1994 (Minnesota), how many millions of batteries from just the 40’s, 50’s, 60’s, 70’s, and 80’s wound up in landfills or just buried in someone’s back yard, back lot, back 40, etc.? Combine this with their short design lifetime of 3 years and yes you are talking about perhaps billion(s).


iPad ? Pro

 

good luck forcing econo-boxes on everyone. There still are families of 6 or more that need more seating .... & folks over 6'-5 that can't necessarily fold in half .... & elderly that can't easily egress and Ingress smaller cars, etc. Then there's the whole ego/status/vanity/statement thing, signifying sucess & such. Heck, even in communist China folks aren't required to wear the same Bland Gray jacket & pants that even their head dictator used to wear. even though one color & one clothing pattern can be argued to be more economical.
.