Toyota Chairman STILL down on EVs

i agree with the article. they are learning everything they need to know with hybrids and plug ins. taking the ice out down the road if necesary, is no big deal. i think your making a big deal out of it because you want them to lead the way, but if they are being genuine, they don't see ev's as the way. and that doesn't make them wrong.

 

No, I think its a big deal, because toyota doesn't get it.

You see bmw and porsche embracing plug-in technology not because it saves a little gas, but because it improves the driving experience. Toyota in the GS and LS hybrids showed they didn't understand hybrids for better driving, and the IQ and prius phv also demonstrated lack of understanding.

I would like Toyota to lead, being a fast follower would be all right, but right now they seem to be attempting to shoot down plug-ins in all these press releases. Lead, Follow, or get out of the way. Don't be a road block Uchiyamada.

A minimal stategy is mercedes. A negative plug-in strategy is Toyota's strategy, and a negative politicing against plug-ins by the largest car company in the world can definitely slow adoption.

 

Well, good to know that this forum has more experts than the Toyota organization. What is the "others develop better technology" that Toyota is not working on?

110 Focus EV sold in September, Toyota is losing dozens of EV sales every month!

So, Toyota Chairman still down on Evs, while the general public is ready to buy them in big numbers!

 

Sorry, Sergiospi. Perhaps my language was not as clear as it should have been. I was suggesting that Toyota would indeed be working diligently, despite what we think they're doing. My intent was quite the opposite of being 'the expert' who knows better.

 

I guess you think toyota knew what it was doing with the IQ EV? The Toyota Chairman is likely to be proved very wrong when he claims the fcv is going to sell much better than plug-ins. Twisting the words doesn't make the statements from Uchiyamada proclaiming FCV winners over bevs sound any better. How many do you think he will sell in the next 5 years world wide?

 

Textbook, this is what I meant when i said "Experts"

 

Big companies have a tendency to ossify and relegate innovation as a second priority to cash flow. The innovative leaders that grow a company are eventually replaced with the business leaders who milk the company. (e.g. Microsoft anyone)

Toyota is showing all the signs of doing what GM, Ford, and Chrysler did when they were ruling the car world.

Clearly Toyota does not see the money in EVs, nor BMW, Audi, Mercedes and many other high end makers. Tesla does. Toyota may claim they have the ability to shift to EVs when the market arrives. I can also see Telsa having far better EVs when Toyota thinks it can just take over that market. That might be pretty hard if you have spent decades on the sideline.

 

+1

Mercedes and BMW are now investing, and vw chairman has argued by press release with toyota saying plug-ins in america, not fuel cells are the future (diesels are still big in europe). GM is talking about a 200 mile bev and is heavily supporting the volt, ford is playing but at the minimum. That leaves Toyota standing with only fiat with the statements that batteries don't make sense.

 

I think Toyota look at the entire life cycle -- upstream production of electricity and big battery pack. That's where the advantage of BEV sinks.

Until the grid electricity gets significantly and they find a breakthrough in cleaner battery manufacturing tech, BEVs may have disadvantage in the entire life cycle carbon footprint.

 

If Tesla had not whacked them with their amazing sales to high end drivers, I'm pretty sure that BMW, Audi and Mercedes would be thinking like Toyota. Another crafty thing about Tesla is their extremely aggressive approach of assuring the owners that Tesla will fix any problem that occurs in their vehicles. Crafty and effective, if it can be executed.....and it probably can with the detailed engineering and effective repair organizations being fielded as company assets, not dealer cash extraction centers.

 

Since hydrogen is likely made from natural gas in the US and coal in Japan, but 39% of plug-in drivers in california (where this great fcv-r is expected to sell much better than bevs?) put in solar electricity, how are you going to sell people that fcv are cleaner?

 

I like that redefinition of "entire life cycle". I don't want to minimize USB2k's rational comment, but that wider viewpoint is a good discussion point.

 

Its fairly clear that someone that buys a tesla S and fills it with solar, is going to have a lower life cycle cost than a driver that gets a bmw M5 and fills it with gasoline. What about that guy in Florida that buys a toyota fcv-r in 2017? Its not very likely because there will be no infrastructure and they will not be for sale.

What about that fcv-r in the OC in 2015? First it isn't likely to have the same comfort or acceleration, but may cost as much. Will that california OC driver buy it because of lower life cycle ghg? I seriously doubt it, but discount it enough maybe some takers will be had. Tesla owner with solar panels at home and recharge at solar powred super chargers will have a lower fueling ghg foot print than that OC fuel cell driver filling at public hydrogen stations. Then it comes down to carbon in manufacturing - carbon removed in recycling. For that number I don't know, but in 2015 that low volume likely makes the fcv-r higher carbon in manufacturing. Feel free to give manufacturing figures with guestimates of volume, shipping, equipment, etc.

 

(I agree 100% that fuel cells aren't a good idea)

But I completely disagree with the fact that this is bad marketing. First, it isn't marketing, really. To most people marketing are the ads on TV, ads on billboards, ads on the internet and newspapers. About 85% - 95% of future car buyers have zero knowledge of Toyota's EV position, fuel cells, etc. The only thing they know from TV and what they see on the road or at dealers. A few percent (like us) know industry info. Another few percent read magazines (and are more than likely big ICE enthusiasts, anyway).

So, yes, it is a silly position to be stated by Toyota...but its effect on future car buyers is almost zero. The real issue is what effect is has on R&D.

Mike

 

It goes to the dealers they all get the corporate vision against plug-ins. Changing that takes time. It has made businessweek and the WSJ multiple times, and displayed on the inside ev website. It may not get to Joe Camry buyer, but clearly has gotten to the dealers and initial adopters.

Just to show I'm not totally anti-fuel cell

Daimler group to spend $500 mln on filling stations for fuel-cell cars| Reuters

Seems like a good place for toyota to test their fcv-r in 2017, without complaining that we need to build more hydrogen stations in the US.

By the way, you will notice nowhere in the article did they bash or criticise plug-in technology. hmm, could that be because mercedes is actually making money from plug-ins (mainly tesla stock, but 4 in the pipeline or shipping).

 

I might buy another hybrid when my Prius gets recycled, but I'd rather have an EV. If Toyota can match Tesla by then, maybe I won't change my brand loyalty. Right now, it's no contest.

Which is odd, in a way, because it's Toyota that built the 'bridge' I'm on now. I was thinking I'd like to cross the bridge, not necessarily buy another one.

 

Looking at the EV(not plug-in hybrids) scorecard, the Leaf sells in somewhat significant numbers. The others are not selling those ~75 epa-rated EVs, 55 on a sub-zero morning temp?.

Watching these sales numbers, Toyota, GM and others may not make EVs until they have that battery, "the magic range seems to be: 200-mile range. Imo, keep making hybrids & plug-in hybrids until they have that battery. Monthly Plug-In Sales Scorecard

BEV passenger vehicles, would prefer to charge at home and leave every morning full, with "Full Range".

Hydrogen on the other hand would work for school buses, city buses, taxis, post office vehicles, delivery van and small truck fleets. This maybe better for these vehicles than swapping battery packs or charging.

18-wheelers use natural gas & diesel.

 

I would say a natural thing for toyota to say is batteries are too expensive to sell in a high volume car, so we will leverage our hybrid experience and give people phevs. That is quite a different message than, battery technology isn't there (tesla proves it is), or people don't like plug-ins(really you wouldn't like to drive that 918>), so we are working on fuel cells instead.

 

And carbon fiber, high pressure tanks are pristine. The fibers are literally charred plastic. The tanks themselves also have an expiration date. That can be as high as 20 years for a CNG tank, but they aren't rated as high as a hydrogen tank.

If this actually why Toyota feels this way, why not say so?

 

Where do we stand with the efficiency of hydrogen production? My understanding is that this 'extra' step in conversion of another energy source to hydrogen greatly reduces the actual efficient of hydrogen vehicles when we look at the complete picture. Yes/no?