PiP sales seem to be really lagging the Volt and Leaf

I agree more data would be much more useful.
I strongly suspect that hybrid and electric sales will do better after incentives drop, than before incentives start.
The reason I say this is because the incentives help expand a new product and allow more people to quickly see the benifits.
While I suspect this is true for both hybrids and electrics, I think it is a stronger effect with electrics as they have a broader appeal.

However, this is all based purely on personal experiences as the level of data doesn't seem accessible.

 

My guess is that as great a vehicle the PiP is, Toyota never wanted to market the current generation for volume sales. After all, it was introduced mid-cycle and may be a sort of beta test for the next generation which should run the full model cycle.

This may be why it is limited to certain states, with purposely limited supply, and essentially no advertising. Toyota may want to build a PiP that will thrive on little or no government subsidies when these will run out in a few years.

 

from your lips to toyota's ears!

 

Not to mention all the PiP owners "beta-testing" for future plug-in prius designs. By having a wide range of data available to them, in the form of PiP owners driving them in cold/hot weather, some driving only in ev mode, while others treat it as a non-plug in prius, it gives their engineers some useful data on what works, and what doesn't work.

Of course, whether they do anything with said data is up in the air, since they're still all about the hydrogen fuel cells. But when that inevitably fails, they at least have some plug in experience now so they're not starting entirely from scratch like some other car companies had to.

 

That real-world data is priceless. Rather than follow marketing hype, they can deliver what owners actually need.

As for the fuel-cell effort, I see that as diversification and a multi-decade endeavor, rather than any harm to hybrids.

 

Based on their behavior, I would agree.
Based on their public statements, that is not the case as they stated they were rolling the PiP out nationwide a year ago last summer, and then delayed it to the end of last year. I have heard no further statements since then.

 

If you recall, the primary goal of Prius is to reduce emission. It seems Toyota is launching PiP in the states where the emission from generating electricity is the lowest.

Here is the top 20 lowest electricity emission from eGRID 2010 which Toyota would have used. eGRID 2012 data was released after the PiP launched.

Rank / State / Total output emission rate (lb/MWh)
1 VT 8.45
2 ID 140.71
3 WA 260.74
4 OR 412.72
5 ME 540.77
6 CA 567.82
7 NH 668.71
8 CT 695.72
9 NJ 703.27
10 NY 756.49
11 RI 909.33
12 SC 912.48
13 LA 1,086.71
14 IL 1,112.53
15 AK 1,137.39
16 VA 1,144.86
17 NV 1,165.54
18 AZ 1,184.01
19 MA 1,205.49
20 AR 1,207.00

13 out of the 15 launch states are on the list. The only two exceptions are Hawaii and Maryland.

I can see short commutes in the islands of Hawaii being ideal for PiP. I am not sure why Maryland was chosen.

Florida and Texas are #25 and #26 on the list.

 

That is the best reason I have heard besides the "those are the 15 states that generate some ZEV credits" reason.
I actually give yours more credence as I have not found the data to back up the partial ZEV credit idea.

I would like to see Toyota expand to owners that generate some of their own power by solar/wind and increase to states as they improve their grids.

 

Toyota accounted for the need to change based on market. That flexibility is good business and less impactful in the long run.

Look at the corner GM backed itself into by betting the farm on a single choice... which ended up not fitting the market. They have nothing customers to buy in the meantime and conquest sales have not resulted in retention.

 

I see FCV as a poor attempt to upstage EVs.

 

In what context?

The 2015-2020 market will be filled with lots of theater.

The 2020+ market will be quite a bit different.

 

Did you mean BEV? FCV is an EV too.

I don't see a problem with promoting it's advantages for the launch / education period. What else should Toyota do to launch it?

 

Pay for their own infrastructure rather than having all CA residents pay for it?

 

H2 pumps are universal, following SAE standard. FCVs from other manufactures will be able to use it.

It is not a proprietary station like Tesla SuperCharger.

 

Yes, BEV. I would rather they cancel the launch. I despise fool cells. Incendiary on the road, look out!

 

You asked what else they should do, I answered. I'm sorry you don't agree.
I do believe having the people using the infrastructure paying for it, rather than everyone (through the government paying for it) you will speed adoption.

 

There are a lot of misinformation out there. Make sure you are spreading facts, not FUDs.

Twenty Hydrogen Myths | PriusChat

That's how it was with hybrids and plugin incentives. Gas and electric infrastructures were built with tax payer money a long time ago. Why should FCV and H2 be any different?

Car manufactures have already invested in R&D and perhaps loss with every sale.

Infrastructure need to be done by gov and institutes. A collective effort is needed to crack the chicken and egg problem of any new mass adoptable technology.

I disagree with putting all the burdens on the early adopters/manufactures.

 

You may disagree, which is fine.
I still put forth that we have an example of a better, more fair result by Tesla doing exactly that.

Btw, there was no new infrastructure needed for hybrids and minimal to none needed for plugin hybrids.

BEVs require some/a lot for some users, FCVs require completely new infrastructure. The vehicles are not attractive enough to get it built without the entire population paying for it.

If Toyota would step up and pay for it, or form a consortium of manufacturers who all chipped in and paid for it, that would go a long ways towards showing confidence in the future of their product.

 

The fundamental problem is the government is not putting money into solving a public issue whether you classify it as pollution, Energy Independence, or Global Warming. What they are doing is exclusively subsidizing a particular technology AND giving specific firms and individuals taxpayer money with rules that explicitly fund a few exclusive corporations favored.

Instead of universal rules written to solve the issue at hand, they channel money to specific corporations for technologies not proven to be the most effective answer.

Make no mistake. This is not an effort to fund the only possible technology that can address "air resources". Once CARB starts awarding "points" based PURELY on the technology used and IGNORES the final result of how effective the technology accomplishes the real goals then the taxpayer is being abused.

 

I agree that incentives should be based on the results and tech neutral.

I called out plugin incentive based on the battery size rather than the reduction in emission.

I think if Toyota and Hyundai are perceived to be getting unfair amount of money channelled, isn't it because they are ahead of the curve in rolling out by taking highet risk?

It is not like Toyota gave up on hybrids and plugins. PiP was released in states with low emission electricity that makes sense. Once PiP gen2 improved EV efficiency abd the grid gets cleaner, we should see national roll out.

In regards to the comment on ignoring the results, they have scientific estimates with data from million of miles from the prototypes.

This is a bit old but makes the point.