NY Times article on Toyota: "From 0 to 60 to World Domination"

A good article in the NY Times magazine today. It gets to the essence of why Toyota is poised to become the largest auto manufacturer in the world, while GM and Ford are struggling to stay afloat. While US car manufacturers (like most US companies, and I would say our government as well) only look as far ahead as the next quarter's profits, Toyota is looking at their position 100 years from now.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/18/magazine...xprod=permalink

Skimming through the document quickly (wanting to find out how much hybrid content there was) revealed the underlining theme I've been following for years now: PATIENCE

It takes far longer for change to occur than most people ever imagine.

As for me, I knew from the beginning that the entire product lifecycle would need to be experienced before it would be embraced as the new baseline. In other words for a car, 8 years minimum. When Prius owners purchase a replacement Prius because their first simply wore out due to an extreme amount of miles, then the majority will accept the technology... as if it had all along been destined to be the natural next step in automotive history... wondering how anyone could have ever questioned its success.

That's the way progress takes place in the real world. The misconceptions are eventually forgotten and the resistors just fade away as if they had never been there. But all that takes a tremendous amount of time.

The gist of Toyota's philosophy behind the Prius as expressed in this (admittedly lengthy- it took me at least two cups of coffee to read it this morning) article is summarized in this paragraph:

This quote does bring up the point that Toyota sells SUVs as well (their latest announcement is an even bigger Tundra). And they say in the article that their sales of SUVs and trucks, which are the most profitable vehicles to sell in the US market, enable them to spend all that they do on R&D. That sounds like a lot of rationalization to me, but if their sales of Land Cruisers to buyers who are going to buy SUVs regardless of who makes them enable them to then invest that money into building hybrids- well, I guess we have to live with that.

I said this once in some other post.

The Japanese have long-range visions. They don't plan for the end of the fiscal year or a year from now. They look five, ten, twenty and even 100 years down the line. Americans don't do that. And we should.

We should at least look beyond the next election and beyond the end of the next term.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Feb 18 2007, 01:54 PM) [snapback]392430[/snapback]</div>

That is a good way to explain why the "bush man" spends so much on defense and war and so little on education.

It's a good read. The money paragraph is on page 10.

"...Toyota created its hybrid systems not so much with the current era in mind, but because it views hybrids as more practical and energy-efficient. Whether the future is in biodiesel, ethanol or hydrogen doesn’t seem to matter; the hybrid system could be adapted to any of those fuels, says Bill Reinert, Toyota’s U.S. engineer in charge of advanced vehicle planning. Reinert also told me that the current Toyota system already has the ability to accommodate the larger battery capacity of a plug-in hybrid, which would use electric power for local trips and fuel only for longer excursions. But those large batteries don’t yet exist. Was that extra capacity put there on purpose? “Hell, yes,†he says. “This company is not stupid.â€"

AND

"Designers must consider the total amount of carbon dioxide produced in the design, production and lifetime operation of a new vehicle."

I've said this before too. Toyota didn't make the Prius to be a gas/electric hybrid. They were looking the whateverthefuelsource/electric hybrid of the future. The Prius is a bridge to what's next.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(larkinmj @ Feb 18 2007, 12:50 PM) [snapback]392427[/snapback]</div>

Do you believe everything said by toyota spokespeople? Some of you can rationalize anything as long as it is form/about Toyota. If GM or Ford would have been quoted with the same quote you would be up in arms and picking it apart. So if Toyota is really the altruistic company most of you seem to believe they are, why build a new pickup plant in Texas? Why was that not the new plant for the Prius? They could save all that diesel fuel transporting the Priuses thousands of miles. So the more Tundras toyota sells the better off you will all be? When do they hand out the kool-aid? Yikes! :blink:

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(malorn @ Feb 18 2007, 05:53 PM) [snapback]392595[/snapback]</div>

The answer to your question is a very easy one. Toyota picked Texas to build its pickups because Toyota knows that if it builds pickups in Texas, Texans will be a LOT more likely to buy them. And it is the Texas market as much as any market that Toyota is going after.

Or put another way. Texans want to buy stuff built in Texas. Therefore they are building them in Texas.

We keep picking on Ford and GM because they have been rotting from within for over 60 years. Good gawd. Cadillac is still basing their "best in class" and "best in the world" on something they made over 80 years ago (meaning the 1930s). Cadillac has been far out of the race for best of anything for a long time.