Dashboard Feb-May 2013

Ford plugins have about 7kWh plugin battery. Do you think Ford engineers could make a flat cargo floor? How about the same gas mileage as the hybrid version?

 

It does not make sense to you or me because we view the question through a prism of energy/mile.

Politicians (with the help of GM) just see substituted energy. The 16 kWh maximum just "happened" to be the Volt's battery. Coincidence, no doubt

 

We point out the cost & space tradeoff.

You call it gobbly gook.

 

Toyota correctly surmised that the *EV market is tiny, and they invested R&D accordingly -- meaning they shoehorned what they could into the current Prius.
I hope that the G4 revision of the Prius will be able to accommodate a 20 mile range PHEV battery; but again, with minimal extra R&D.

Every time I read demands from EV fanboies I laugh and think of the GM flop with Volt. I bet GM learned it's lesson, even if the fanboies did not.

 

Other than some bad math and reasoning - Toyota says not to use E15, it may adversely wear some components that weren't made for it, You can't use one then the other, they are mixed in your tank, you could do it with two tanks. Because of lower energy, you would be going 11 miles on Ethanol, and 89 on gasoline, and that ethanol production uses diesel, at least everywhere in the US.

But yes, that would be a want not a need. Absolutely. I don't even know why we are talking about needs here. It would doesn't seem to make sense in the scope of this conversation.

Can you show me where in your discussions of needing a prius phv, but only wanting more range, where you took any tradeoffs into consideration.

 

As an engineering an accounting decision, going with the shorter range makes sense. Unfortunately, that doesn't always equate to moving cars off the lot. It probably isn't in the SAE paper, but I wonder what feedback Toyota got from the testers on the range.

The exception I have with stating the PPI got higher total sales than the Ford hybrid is that it ignores the fact that they are doing a better good of getting people to move to the plug. Regardless of why, reducing oil consumption is the goal. PHVs are an effective way of doing that. I believe the PPI's success there has more to do with the Prius' and Toyota's reputation than with its merits as a PHV.

They actually made changes on the gen1 for the NA market. Not major, but they tweaked the ICE for more power.

Why is having statement on who the Volt is to appeal to important? A company's ultimate goal is to remain profitable. The ramblings of the GM PR machine may not have met your criteria, but they seem to have worked. The Volt is the highest selling PHV on the market right now. Maybe that will change when Toyota is done with their research and go nationwide with the PPI.

What happens after the tax credits is a good question. At the current rate, GM will be into the next gen before the credits run out. The Prius wasn't a stellar seller when it first arrived, and didn't take off until the gen2 arrived. I have no problem giving the Volt the same chance.

Putting people on ignore for not being privy to GM's inner thoughts is a bit petty, but I might be one of them.

 

Then you should have no disagreement with anything I said on this thread.

 

They built 100 of them, since the factory was ready for production, but wisely decided to not try to sell them to consumers. These are test vehicles, I'm not sure if they were given away or leased.

Sure, but everyone that presses them seems to present them as better than. Honda and GM said FCV instead of hybrids, which seems to have hurt both of them in respect to building good hybrids. GM has sinced reversed. Toyota every time they present FCV seems to say they are better than batteries, like this
Toyota Boss: Hybrids and Fuel Cells Are Future; EVs Are Not - HybridCars.com

That kind of sentiment and thinking can hurt you when trying to sell plug-in hybrids and BEVs. I'm certain the RAV4 EV would be selling better if Toyota would stop saying EVs won't work. They also would have done better with starting at a lower price instead of deep discounting. Plenty of time for toyota to change this around though. I would think the future of a $50K fcv-r is a lot more uncertain than a tesla S, when we get to today. Toyota is already saying it may cost more, and that they may make fewer because there aren't refueling stations.

I think people with a 200 mile range that can plug in at there garage are going to be happier waiting on long trips than those that buy FCV and can't find any fuel at all when they travel out of state, and have to go out of their way to find stations. For those that routinely go high milage, there is the phev strategy Again its about messaging as much as anything else. When you bash BEVs, you are likely to hurt PHEV sales. I tend to think FCV will have to have a decent sized battery that you can recharge at home to be commercially viable. I'm all for R&D on FCV, but if you want to sell cars in the next 5 years, the hype works against you.

If you have electric capacity at night, you can charge BEVs and PHEVs, or get about half the miles Making hydrogen, compressing it and having fcv fill up at the station. GM was one of the bad guys that helped write the ZEV rules against Phevs and for fuel cells. Different management now thinks they are at least a decade away. I really think toyota will sell more phevs, if they stop hyping hydrogen. That will require they add more range, but I am expecting that in the next generation.

 

Absolutely, they could have a flat cargo floor but they would probably use JCI engineers for the design, as they already are trying to sell this, and Ford buys interiors from them. Toyota also buys interiors from JCI, but this likely would be an internal Japanese only Toyota design. If you read further up the thread, you will see my conjecture that Ford simply took the european c-max then added hybrid, then added plug-in. It was not an optimized plug-in/hybrid design. It would definitely have taken ford more development dollars to make the c-max energi more aerodynamic and longer to be a better phev. Toyota does have the engineering resources for the prius to do this right, it only takes the will. I think they have that too.

The same mpg as hybrid version, I don't think so. It would likely have to stay about 250lbs heavier with todays battery technology. I would guess that will slightly hurt city fuel economy, especially if they gave it more hp like the current energi, but doesn't need to change highway fuel economy. If you think of gallons per year, instead of mpg, then a phev will use a great deal less gasoline, oil, etc. I don't think there really is a consumer demand for exactly the same charge sustain mpg in the city, as most city miles in a energi or gen IV prius phv could be done on electricity.

On the current phv, they could have had about 6kwh in the form of the prototype and that cargo space. This wouldn't have affected mpg. They decided for lower cost instead.

 

We don't know what the PPI's consumption for EV miles is because it doesn't do pure EV. The 0.2 gallons it burns is about 6.8kWh of energy it uses in addition to the electricity it consumes. That puts it 0.8kWh/100mi the Volt in EV mode efficiency and 6.8 under the Accord PHV.

The higher mpg only really matters if the car isn't plugged in. For most commutes, a longer EV range leads to less total gasoline burnt. It does help on long trips. Which makes it a better choice as a sole vehicle for those that make such trips regularly. But lets be honest, most of the people that can afford these cars own more than one.

I'll agree on passenger and cargo space. It just seems the PHV buyers feel this something worth trading off for more EV range.

The seems to be putting the cart before the horse. Plain old hybrids have only recently topped the 3% of sales figures, and it yet remains to be seen if it keeps up. Focus on getting the hybrid sales up, and PHV ones will follow. As long as they meet consumers wants out of such a vehicle. People that need a fuel efficient car aren't going to be buying a PHV at this point.

Lets look at the BEVs. Nissan is trying to take the Leaf mainstream as fast as possible. They aren't selling badly, but this may be do to some great incentives. Nissan is making a gamble and is willing to take losses in order to be where Toyota is with hybrids in relation to BEVs. It could pay off, but involves risk. Like most of the BEVs on the market, the Leaf isn't ready to meet most peoples demands of a daily car to actually go mainstream.

Tesla decided to give what EVers wanted and show what a BEV can be without much concern for price. Once the public sees what BEV could be, they'll start desiring the have one they could have. That's Tesla's goals, and they appear to be working, Despite being 2 to 3 times as much as a Leaf, the S has about the same sales numbers. Tesla problems have more to do with being a new company than with product.

The Tesla model is actually the natural order of most new technologies coming to market. They are costly so only a few can afford them. Then the price drops. We've seen this time and again in the automotive world. Power windows, GPS, push button start, smart key, etc all appeared in the luxury brands first. The only reason hybrid systems didn't is because their initial goal was to lower fuel consumption. Not something of a high priority among the luxury brand buyers.

Going back to PHVs, Toyota seems to be following Nissan's plan with the PPI. Make a Model T as you will. It's just the public isn't clamoring for Model T. They may want a hybrid, but those that want a PHV aren't large in number. They seem to be willing to make compromises Toyota didn't when it comes to actually buying a PHV. Current Volt sales and the Ford Energi ratio to hybrids prove that.

You won't go mainstream when the public isn't buying what you selling.

 

I see no reason to disagree with those numbers.

What someone interested in efficiency needs to look at is which is more efficient for their driving patterns.

Is the Volt running on electricity more efficient than the Prius running on gas?
From a pure efficiency level, yes.

So then the next question is how often is it that a driver would be past the EV range of the PiP, yet within the range of Volt's EV range.

You could graph miles vs CO2, miles Vs fuel energy content, even miles vs trade deficit contribution.

Each is valid, and each will give you a different look at the two cars. And each would be more or less important to a prospective buyer.

 

Context is required to draw that conclusion. Toyota's choice of a small battery-pack is great for next-step rollout.

The one-size-fits-all mindset is preventing many from seeing the opportunity for MORE THAN ONE model. The current capacity would become the affordable well proven base and the bigger more expensive one the upgrade.

With the goal of mainstream production & sales, they must BOTH continue advancement and increase offerings at the same time.

 

Then Toyota will be fighting an up hill battle in regards to PHVs, if the PPI is their everyman plug in. Ford sold high priced, fancy cars to the rich before making the Model T.


Plug ins aren't a new concept here, but they still are to the general public. Some of which think plugging a car in every day will be too much of a hassle while doing the same with a phone. Those that willing to put money down on one at this point are going to be early adopters of a PHV, and those that really want a BEV but won't work with current available models. EV mode is the draw for most of them.

Why not craft your first offering for them? Then come out with the everyman PHV that can that advantage of production cost savings that will come in time and the publicity of their first model. Instead, Toyota is offering model compromised for the masses for what is still a niche market.

 

Actually new products tend to come to multiple different forms. The most common is a minor improvement sold to existing customers -- how I see the PiP. A sustaining innovation is a small incremental improvment with generally very short term payoffs. Its why many did no go after Hybrids, sustaining innovations in ICEs can get most of the gain of a hybrid with lower cost and greater market acceptance (since its familiar).

One class of disruptive innovations (and may sustaining innovations) go after under-shot customers, people always wanting more and usually can charge a premium on that technology. That is what Tesla is going after, the top end of the market where the only "compromise" is price (tough for luxury products high price is often a feature not a flaw). The fact that they are doing business so differently (no dealers, supercharger network) is a clear signal they are trying to be disruptive. Such innovations start at the top then use the experience, reptutation and profits to move down market.

Other disruptive innovations go after over-shot customers, people for whom the current product is more than good enough, at least in some dimensions, while introducing improvements on other dimensions Such new market innovations often release a product that underperforms existing products on some "classic" dimensions and improves significantly on other dimensions. To me the Volt is following the this "over-shot" strategy making compromises on seating and price, providing something more than good enough when on gas (MPG_CS), but giving great improvements in ride quality and a radical improvement in fuel costs and the use of gas. It appeals to those that want to get off gas but have range issues and/or those that want a powerful near-luxury level ultra-hybrid. It allows GM to further their experience in the EV space while balancing the range concerns and price concerns. This class of disruptive innovations tend to migrate both upmarket and down market. The Spark EV will, hopefully, their low-end disruption going after people for whom 80 miles is more than good enough and for whom price is a more important factor.

I've explained why I cannot provide GM's stragey/goals for the Volt (I'm not GM). I've provided back data, based on John's own data, that allows us to draw conclusions that his usage the the VOlt would be more fuel and cost efficient. (In contrast, I believe USB's usage patters are more likely better for a PiP than a Volt). I belive that this message is a smoke screen for John1701a to hide behind ignoring people because I push back with data/details that he refuses to address/acknowledge.

Well ignoring those providing data and asking questions is itself telling. To quote john1701a.com log 124 (8-27-2004):

So hiding behind ignoring the analysis that suggests a volt would have used less gas and cost less to operateover the year is telling. It guess, as john pointed out earlier, that it is a natural a defense mechanism for some people that are being intentionally deceptive.

Will be interesting to see the graph and I've not see that comparison. (Though drag is only one part of the equation since power train efficiency is also important. )

Note, that john's 27kWh electric efficiency is only on the low-speed part (i.e. no gas) usage
while EPA for the volt is for the full EPA test. My personal electric efficiency in a Volt is much better than EPA,
with an average over the Mar 12-March 13 time frame of 27.519 kWh/100mi. (I do 40-50% better in the summer but only 0-30% better in winter). So actual usage of a Volt can be much better than EPA.

 

Since more than one model (capacity/config) could be offered, as well as the dedicated model they've shown a concept for, that's a moot issue.

There was a documentary recently aired explaining how that common misconception has impaired progress. The counter-intuitative nature is an easy trap to fall into with so many elements at play.

In other words, the reduce-cost-later approach doesn't work well.

 

I clearly stated the reason was for his responses repeatedly being personal in nature. Rather than sticking to facts, there were attacks on credibility. He knows all he has to do to get attention is stop and just focus on objectives instead.

As for goals, we know very well that GM was attempting to make Volt appeal to those who would have otherwise purchased one of their traditional cars. They backed off and recategoried this generation as "early adopter" when mainstream sales did not materialize.

Haven't you noticed how receptive Toyota has been to input? Why in the world GM supporters don't do the same thing anymore is troubling. They use to. Consumers set the goals. The change to just accepting what ever they choose to deliver is a red flag.

 

Frankly, no, I haven't.
When we bought our second Prius, we let both the dealer and Corporate know how thrilled we are with the efficiency and how much we would enjoy an all electric Rav4 or other BEV.

Toyota expanded their lineup, which is good. But I have yet to see any BEV options from them. The closest they came was to make a compliance Rav4EV available only in CA.
They have publicly dissed BEVs, stating they are moving instead towards Hydrogen.
The public is asking for electric drive, and Toyota seems to begrudgingly be offering as little as possible.

Meanwhile, many more people are happily jumping into Volts, Leafs, and Teslas.
When a 70k-100k car is outselling a 30k car.... Well, perhaps Toyota should start listening to the marketplace?

 

That is a self-contradiction -- complaining about not sticking to facts then asking for speculation on GM objectives instead of facts. Whatever..

What is your source for that statement? Not only do we not "known very well", its a stilly statement. Car companies also want conquests, i.e. bring people in from other brands. GM needed to stop the loss to other manufactures GM's early stated goals were more about restoring their environmental and technological leadership, which is not what they were known for at the time, so it was clearly not about getting more of the current customers to buy one.

The Volt was about GM listening.. as quoted in EV world article here

That same article goes on to quote Larry Burns from GM's press release on the volt,

So the actual history pretty clearly shows Volt's target market was not the existing GM ICE drivers..

Never seen toyota as being receptive to input. Can you provide citations/examples?
People wanted plugins in so bad companies sprung up around kits to expand Prius, while Toyota did nothing. After the volt was announced they promised us a plug in for 2010
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/14/business/14plug.html?ref=automobiles&_r=0
Then missed that delivery by more than a year and produced the PiP. Not sure who your you think they are listening to, that makes the "receptive".