Dashboard Feb-May 2013

I think tax credit amount based on the battery capacity is for North America. Everywhere is based on the carbon emission.

It would be great to have a PiP with bigger battery for NA market but you gotta know that Prius is a global car. With the current plugin sales in NA, does it make sense to make an unique model?

I think it is a good reason but not the entire reason. To me, the entire reason for getting a PHEV is to use both fuels where they are most efficient and practical. It is a bonus to do daily commute completely on electricity (as I do).

I can see ICE starting may make some owners unhappy but it is one of those necessary evil to achieve the greater good (overall efficiency).

 

If you only look at total sales numbers. The percentage or ratio of hybrid model to PHV one also should be considered. A greater percentage of Ford hybrid shoppers are willing commit to the life style changes of the plug than Prius shoppers. If Ford hybrids had the market share of the Prius, they'd be outselling the Volt and matching the Leaf.

Why aren't Prius buyers more adventurous? Wider availability would surely increase PPI sales, and Toyota's intention appears to do so this year. I don't see that improving the it's take rate compared to the liftback. Don't take that the wrong way, 1200 PPIs a month is good. Going conservative, I don't think the sales will be that high. It already sells where 60% of Prii are sold. So the other states are less open to the Prius in general, and plug ins face additional hurdles to sales. Plus, the hard core fans that wanted it likely already bought out of state.

Aside: considering the 60% of Prii sales figure, the take rate of the PPI is around 8%, not the 4% I posted earlier. Better but still less than the Ford 13%.

The Fords still have something the PPI lacks that gets people to switch to a plug. Perhaps it's a 'want', but targeting just a 'need' doesn't appear that it will have has high an impact on reducing oil use and emissions.

 

The assumption that I am referring to the particulars of an individual is common.

My references have been to the market as a whole. We need to reduce our emissions & consumption.

 

I don't think so. Gas mileage would suffer. Cargo space would be lost. It would be less practical for the sake of more EV range and less frequent use the most efficient gas engine.

 

I have 2 full years of the same level of detail collected from my 2010 as well. It will provide the ability to directly compare to the PHV model, especially since all the driving was by me the same way on the same route.

Also, most of us here acknowledge the market of Prius as consumers who would otherwise purchase a traditional car from Toyota. Clearly understanding audience is very important. So for those who continue to refuse to state who Volt is attempting to appeal to, they will continue to remain on ignore. I don't have time for those who don't take the time to state goals. I'd rather help those who answer and constructively ask questions.

I'll keep collecting & sharing detail too. That way, others can use the data to draw conclusions on their own.

 

Not sure where you are getting 50% more batteries from.

The PiP prototype cargo floor was not flat. It's gas mileage was rated at 49 MPG combined. It was 200+ lbs heavier. Not sure how it performed on the crash and rollover test.

I don't disagree that more EV range would attract more buyers. Less practical car would also drive away some buyers.

I can see how more batteries could be added if they go the way of the C, tapping the space under the rear seat. That's not going to happen until Gen4.

I would disagree with that. If we don't have hybrids, the world will be different. We will not even have plugins.

The world need hybrids. They are efficient, practical, low cost to operate, low maintenance and low in emission.

 

Seeing how NA is the largest market of the Prius, and how that market's desires(larger, more power,...) influenced the Gen3 design, Toyota probably should have used it as the target for PPI design goals. Instead they appear to have chosen Japan as that target. Where the PPI failed to meet sales expectations too.

Greater good varies with the person. John is going by reduced oil use and improved air emissions. In which case, a longer EV range is more important. EV means no oil use in the majority of cases. While emissions could be worse in some regions with EV, these cars can reasonably be expected to be on the road for 8+ years. Electricity production is trending in cleaner sources while gasoline will require dirtier and more energy intensive sources of petroleum in the future. Getting the longer EV range can make getting a lower efficiency in hybrid acceptable if it means a better achievement of those overall goals.

 

For the Gen3 regular Prius, I think Japan is a bigger market than NA. Isn't it ironic how things works?

Isn't NA the biggest market for PiP? I don't think it is selling that well in Japan. The nuclear power plant (due to earthquake) situation and the price of electricity may be at play there.

PiP was targeted for US, Europe and Japan. Here is a graph/chart from the SAE article they published after the PiP prototype testing.

 

Absolutely correct that I was saying that Toyota should target the phv more to the US market. I do not know what current Japanese incentives are, but the phv is a huge failure in Japan where Toyota had projected it would sell 4x greater in the Japanese market than it does. The prius phv sells better in the US than Japan, and doesn't really sell in any numbers outside these two countries. I only that if they target it more to the US market and increase battery size it will do better world wide. Toyota did changes for the US market in going from the gen I to the gen II prius, and these helped sales in Japan, even though the changes raised toyota's cost for the car.

John was pretending we need a 4kwh battery, but only want a bigger battery. I was not criticising the decesion of anyonw wanting to use less gasoline, but no one really needs this. Its a first world problem. Most of us could get by on foot, bikes, and public transport I am glad for the choice to get phevs and hybrids.

Well we can disagree with him that his definition of the worlds needs are probably different than his own wants. Although the data points are good, I would prefer it wasn't wrapped in such tripe.

Cool graph of day trip distance. Wouldn't you target 40km cs distance for japan if you were trying to sell for that market. That is what it looks like from your chart. If we believe EPA numbers more than JCO8, that would mean a battery about twice the current capacity for Japan. If we assume toyota's cost for batteries is around $500, then adding 3 kwh even with no additional tax credits would cost them $1500. I'm not seeing why that wouldn't be better for the japanese market as well.

 

Maybe you have a thing for John but from what I read, he said covering daily commute with electricity is a want, not a need.

4.4 kWh PHV pack in PiP is optimal for interior space and both electricity and gas efficiency. There is no other plugin hybrid that gets better Wh/mi for EV miles or better MPG for gas miles or a spacious flat cargo space.

 

I would if it doesn't compromise interior space, gas efficiency, cost, charging time or safety aspects. All of those have to be considered.

 

I don't really understand your defense here. How can a prius phv battery to get a little more mpg be a need, but wanting to get even more a want. Its a really shallow definition. Would the next one be, getting 50mpg is a need, but 55 is want? Its redefining something completely in the wrong fashion to pretend he bought something he needed and all those people buying higher capacity plug-ins are doing something else. The prius phv's battery size is an engineering trade off, not the definition of where needs end and bigger is wants.

 

What part of KEEPING AFFORDABLE FOR HIGH-VOLUME SALES requires further clarification? And how many times has BALANCE & TRADEOFFS been mentioned?

We all know that the more battery-capacity you have available, the better the emissions & consumption results. We also know that just plain is not realistic for the masses yet. Competition with traditional cars is too fierce to even remotely take the idea of offering more seriously, especially when it compromises things like cargo space so much.

Years from now, it will be an entirely different situation. But twisting my words to make it sound like I'm not in support of continued improvement as cost & space justify is just plain wrong.

Remember, I'm for deep mainstream penetration quickly. I also welcome the diversity of choices that brings. So, that absolute of 4kWh has never applied. Remember the 20km goal? That was just the first deliverable. More will come later. That's why I continue to ask for goals to be stated.

 

Come on, you don't think you could design a car that had interior space, you just add length. There are engineering trade offs. Will you when the next generation comes out tell me that the battery is too big?

 

How about this in term of a regular Prius?

Drive the first 15 miles with ethanol and the remaining 85 miles with gasoline. I filled up both fuel (E15 gas) in the tank.

That's a want, not a need. You'll use both fuel either way.

 

You kind of poked the pooch there now didn't you bringing up wants and needs. So if they picked 4.4kwh for high volume, and didn't get it, would it be the best trade off? I leave that to you.

Well but isn't 7kwh realistic?

Well why don't you answer on the thead that yes it would be better if the next generation had a bigger battery, instead of the gobbly gook, that toyota picked the best size.

 

I am not denying of the possibilities but accepting the reality. As I pointed out before, Gen4 can be so much more (as every Prius gen do), especially with the price of Lithium battery coming down.

I am glad that Toyota engineers did not trade a rear seat or cargo space for the heavier plugin battery pack. Gen4 will get a new platform that is lighter so they should be able to add more battery.

 

The definition of "balance" for an EV bias person is different than yours and mine. There is no point in pointing that out when that person is not even aware he is EV bias.

 

That is an interesting tidbit about carbon emissions determining subsidy. It might still mean that a larger battery has more subsidy, depending how the test is set up.

IIRC the NEDC calls EV miles 0 emissions. The bigger the battery, the more EV miles on the test run.

 

Yup, the more miles gasoline is displaced, the higher subsidy could be. At least it is based on the displacement and some type of comparable test.

NA subsidy is not based on any test or the amount of gasoline displacemed. It is simply based on the battery size. It doesn't matter the vehicle is so heavy that it taxes the Wh/mi or if the gas engine is inefficient. You got 16kWh? Here is the maximum tax credit. You got 24kWh? Sorry, you get the same as 16kWh. It does not make sense.