Toyota Shows Distain: Even for their Own RAV4-EV

There are many EU cars that get 60 mpg because of their 3-cylinder engines. Volkswagen used to make a diesel Lupo that got 88 mpg (highway) and 75 mpg (city). Those are US gallons by the way. It was advertised as a 3 Liter/100km vehicle.

 

Yes, and those European cars accelerate slower than a Prius, which would hurt sales in the US. The public here isn't willing to compromise as much as the one in Europe for fuel efficiency with the cheaper fuel prices.

 

Not only that, but the euro fuel economy test is a joke. The Prius gets 60 mpg on that too.

 

Well, we all knew Fit was strictly a compliance car, so it's no surprise that they are pulling it as soon as they've leased as many as they need. I mean, you can't even buy the damn car.

 

It is actually what I call a compliance + car. The Leaf and Tesla aren't compliance cars. While the compliance car are ones that are only sold in California; the Rav4 EV, Fiat 500 EV, and Spark EV.

The compliance + are in between the two, and are BEVs primarily released for the California regulations, but the manufacturer hasn't limited sales to just that, or one more state. It might take some effort on the buyers part to find a dealer for a Focus EV or Smart ED, but no where as much as having a car shipped cross country, if that were even possible with a compliance car.

Honda said the Fit EV lease was for gathering real world data, and the 14 states it was available in covered a range of climates. There was hope that they would have continued with the leases or even offer it for sale, but that was before CARB changed the ZEV credits in favor of FCEVs.

 

i like your categorization strategy, but would still argue Fit was always meant to be compliance-only. Where is the 14 states coming from? The Fit page currently says CA, OR, MA, RI, CT, NY, NJ, and MD, which is just 8. Smart is in 9 (+CT) and is supposed to go nationwide this year.

Similarly, while Spark EV is technically compliance-only, as it's only available for sale in CA and OR, I consider it more of compliance+, because I know that Chevy has gotten off the FCEV bandwagon and truly believes in electrified transportation. It's also worth looking at sales numbers: the Spark averaged 77 cars/month in 2013 and 109/month in 2014 so far. Fit? 47/month and 37/month, respectively.

 

So, a large battery in a used plug-in vehicle significantly lowers the residual value and Toyota may be looking at that.
Volt, Leaf Criticized For Low Off-Lease Residual Values - HybridCars.com

 

Yeah that is just dirt poor analysis. They are taking resale value is bad compared to the MSRP, but no one pays the MSRP. It makes it seem as if the glass is empty when its full.

1) cars are not an investment
2) price of initial adopter cars drop. This is a good thing.
3) used plug-ins look expensive compared to new ones ;-) Both the leaf and volt have improved. Add in the price drops and tax credits, new plug-ins are a fairly good deal. If you don't want to depreciate lease.

I don't believe the prius phv was originally meant as complinance, but states chosen for CARB politics. Toyota at some point seemed to have changed their minds and have not expanded to other good states.

Fit ev - compliance all the way.
Spark ev and b-class ed are starting in california but are meant to sell nation wide. Its a roll out strategy. They are not compliance only.

bmw i3 is not complanence, they already are selling them in texas ;=)

fiat ev is compliance smart ed is not.

We had hoped the rav4 ev would not be compliance, but until toyota is hurt more from bevs, which will take years, they appear to be building fcv for compliance only and bashing bevs.

 

I must have gotten the Fit EV states confused with the number of PPI ones.

GM has only gotten off the FCEV bandwagon only has far as partnering with Honda on them. I'm making my judgement of compliance, +, or not based soully on the company's actions with regards to the particular model.

Honda may not have been up front about choosing which states they released the Fit EV being based on ZEV mandates(I was not aware all the states choosen for the Fit EV had such earlier), but they were upfront about it being a limited production test program. GM, on the other hand, at least implied that the Spark EV would be available nationwide in time when first released. Living in eastern Pa, I could have tried to get a Fit EV for lease. I think the low production numbers may have kept that from happening, but I had a shot. GM banned the few Spark EV dealers from selling out of state from the beginning. The Rav4 EV was more readily available to the nation when released.

GM may have honestly intended to expand availability of the Spark EV, but changed plans when they didn't get CAFE credits due to it being made in Korea. A US made Sonic EV would get such credits. GM could still roll the Spark EV out to more states, but I have stopped betting on it.

We didn't get much news about a new Honda Clarity until after Toyota started talking about their FCEV and the changes to the ZEV credits. Meeting regulations was surely a big part in Honda's Fit EV decisions, just as they are in regards to the FCEV.

Considering that the fuell cell stack is a wear item, the hydrogen tanks have expiration dates, and the cars will get larger consumer incentives than the plug ins, I don't think Toyota cares about that.

 

"Compliance" isn't that far removed from "compulsory"...ie: doing something you don't WANT to do but are being FORCED to do.

 

I think you are too late. Some folks (CA residents) are already being force to subsidize all these compliance cars. The only real question is whether this is justified or not.

 

BIG BROTHER(s) really aren't into admitting mistakes, they prefer blaming others instead.

 

The best DEFENSE is a good OFFENSE...works for war, works for marketing.

 

Let's face it, since Toyota started bashing BEVs loudly they have -

Federal and Provence governments in Japan to pony up to 3 million yen ($29,000) subsidies per vehicle, plus hundreds of millions of dollars worth of subsidies for fueling stations and fuel whether or not even 1 car gets sold.

California has levied a $220 million tax on other motorists to build hydrogen infrastructure. They may recind part of this when the hydrogen highway starts falling again, but at least $48 Million is being spent, most of it to First Element. Remember FirstElement is being run by an ex gm executive that was let go for ethics violations and a UC-Davis professor that had inside information on all of the bidding process. Neither has ever built a hydrogen fueling station or a gas station. Toyota has loaned the company $7M to help it get the state contract.

California has recently rewritten the fast fueling provisions to make sure that bevs can not get extra ZEV credits, while at the same time rewritten fuel cell rules to give them more zev credits. They also have $5000 state subsidies for fuel cells, versus $2500 for bevs (some CARB tried to institute a special tesla rule to eliminate it from state credits, but it failed).

All in all toyota has been very successful at their lobbying. I have no problem with Japan spending to subsidize toyota there. Those in California should let their representatives know they don't like CARBs corruption or bending over backwards to subsidize Fuel cells.

 

Caliprunia deserves itself...CARB is the evidence as to why.

 

Volt owner's response to the Lexus ad:
With Humor, Chevy Volt Owner Fires Back At Lexus' Anti-EV Ad

Pretty funny, and spot on if you ask me

 

I like it.