Plug-in Prius, why not?

Battery technology for this automotive application (high power density, high energy density, long life) is difficult and expensive. The Tesla costs $100,000. But take heart: it appears that Toyota will announce a plug-in Prius in January 2009, available in late 2009, presumably for a lot less than $100,000.

 

Toyota would like to put Li-ion batteries in the Prius, but they are not ready for the mass market. A $100,000 Prius would have limited appeal.

That is what most Toyota customers would say, which is why they need to work on it more before it's ready.

Amazing, but not enough to make you buy it.

 

They are not out of the UK. Tesla Motors is based in the Silicon Valley. The shell of the vehicle is being built by Lotus (which *IS* in the UK), so maybe that's what's led you to think they're out of the UK.

Designing a high-performance pure electric car is less about the car, and more about electrical engineering and software. These guys *ARE* electrical engineers and techies, so they started with a clean slate. Traditional motor car companies can't help but think in terms of retrofitting electrics into an existing car, rather than building the car around the electrics. Same reason oil companies are having such lack luster success in alternative energy sources...

 

The next two years of Tesla's production is already sold, so while $100k is too steep for the mass market, its within the range of the Tesla Market....which is larger than the Tesla production capability for the time being.

As for Toyota doing the same thing, keep in mind they did it once already with the all electric RAV-4.

Now that gas prices are going up on a daily basis, a key insight is going to dawn on the major auto manufacturers. Who gets to the market first with a mass production, all electric vehicle is going to survive.

 

I did not notice that when I wrote may note. However, I watched "Who Killed the Electric Car?" last night, so I know that now.

Interesting as that movie was, they do not reveal the likelihood that GM, Toyota, and the others were probably losing money on their electric lease programs. They were doing it as a pilot to see if they could comply with the law, and probably concluded that they could not make money at it. I love a conspiracy theory as much as the next guy, and I would LOVE to have an EV, but getting one ready for the mass market may be tougher than we realize.

 

You are right about conspiracy theories, but the real lession of the movie is that all the car companies have the capability to engineer electric vehicles if motivated. The "conspiracy" part is when the companies state that the "technology" is not ready. That's the present day PR garbage that makes a lot of us hope that Tesla is a resounding success, inspite of their internally mangled management.

The technology is not ready to make money on the first sale, but a battery powered car is quite simple with today's technology.

 

The part about that movie that had me thinking "hmmm" was when the patent for the battery was bought up so no one else could make it.

And even if they couldn't make money producing the electric car, why make such an issue of taking back every one from the people who wanted to keep them?

 

There are lots of threads and info about plug-in mods for the current Prius. For me I have doubts about it's economic benefits. In town, the current battery configuration is good for 2-4 miles before the ICE kicks in to charge it. I've read this in several threads. Maybe a little more with the AC off. So if your trip is 5 miles is it really worth the initial cost to recharge it from the household current?

Cool, for sure. But how much would most people really save in the big scheme of things? Less emissions? Yes, but then with the ICE working harder to recharge the battery on a longer trip,wouldn't it put out more emissions?

A plug-in designed for longer trips (20 mile range) might make it worthwhile. But the current design, for me, for now, I don't think I would spend the extra $$$$

Bob

 

I had a rare opportunity this week to meet Alan Taub, GM's Executive Director for R&D, so I asked him why they did this. He said that GM was concerned about their obligation to make spare parts and other maintenance issues for those cars. My interpretation of this is that although the owners say they would love to buy the cars, the first time they broke down and there were no parts available to fix them, that love for their car would turn into hate toward GM. Better for GM to take the heat up front than get sued by disenchanted owners who suddenly realize that buying the cars was a bad decision.

I'm not saying I agree with what GM did, but when you look at it from their point of view, there are some point to be made. It's just a shame they flubbed the PR game by failing to come forward with a clear statement of their reasons.