Toyota FCV first driving impression

will never make it out of cali.

 

Interesting thought, comparing FCV behaviour and output against a Camry.
Isn't that sedan a best seller?

Either way, and many questionable Toyota/FCV-cons after, as the title suggests stating "mediocrity", it sure brings a good point: a Tesla Model S is brilliant competition, and IMPOV, much more easy to "fuel". It just takes more time.

 

How well would the Camry sell if it were 3x the price? What if it were also slower and smaller?
Yes, the FCV will have the trimmings of a Lexus. That just isn't enough to justify the cost for most people. The LS isn't just a luxury barge. It is also a performance car. Same with the Tesla S. Which would not sell as well as it is if it were merely a longer range Leaf. That is this article's main criticism against the FCV.

It will seat four and be roughly the size of the Volt. A car that was expensive when released. This costs more, has very limited refueling infrastructure, and lower performance specs.

With the FCV available in Japan, I am kinda surprised the review was with a test mule.

 

Yes, in the US, the camry is the best selling car (f150 is the best selling vehicle). I would choose the camry hybrid xle for the comparison.
FCV versus camry hybrid xle
???($50,000 with losses?) versus $30,000 highly profitable (important because hybrid premium may shrink, but toyota will come again with its hand out for fuel cell subsidies)
0-60 about 10 seconds versus 7.2 seconds
interior unknown versus near luxury interior
seating for 4 versus seating for 5
around 60 mpge versus 40 mpg
refuel only in limited areas of california versus gasoline everywhere
questionable weird styling versus conservative styling


+1

I doubt the model s will take more time per year to fuel. Most fuel it at home which takes 2 minutes a day, or less than 12 hours a year. It will take more on a cross country trip, but the toyota fcv can't go on a cross country trip. The fcv, if takes 10 minutes out of your way to get to the station, and 5 minutes to fuel and you fuel once a week, that is 13 hours a year.

 

You haven't suceeded in get my point. To drive a Tesla you have to "fuel" during hundreds of hours a year charging on the grid. Takes a lot of time if the charging is done at a moderate power, as best practice.

 

Oh.... I thought you were doing human time to refuel, that misleading lexus commercial. Sorry.

If you are talking grid emissions to refuel that because very different depending on where you live. Teslas fuel standard at 10 kw, and at 89 mpge, that will likely fill at 26 miles per hour of charge. Typical daily dring allow to recharge the car at night in less than 2 hours, or if you don't plug-in for a couple of days in less than 6 hours every 3rd day. This is time you are sleeping, not time you are waiting for your car. If this is timed to start at midnight in most of the country then there is plenty of spare capacity on the grid. Specifically I live in an initial adopter area, where in the future if all the plug-ins started at exactly midnight might cause problems in some neighborhoods. Luckily we are also a smart grid area, where the utility can give you a lower price to slow your usage, and that will take care of it here. I envision the cars talking to the grid here, and you setting a time you need to be charged, then the utility trying to fill the cars with wind first reducing natural gas needed for charging. But.... that isn't most of the country let alone the world. SCE in southern California is not that forward looking, and there may be problems in southern California. A tesla has multiple days worth of charge, while smaller batteries like in a leaf are harder to manage, and the fastest charge is 6.6kw which makes it harder to postpone charging. Definitely can be a problem, but a much simpler problem than building hydrogen infrastructure.

 

Yes, but you don't have to baby sit the car, twiddling your thumbs while it is fueling up off the grid.
Recharging on a long trip can be an issue, even with a Tesla you need to come up with a way to kill 20 to 30 minutes, but long trips aren't a common ocurrance for most people. For those that it is, a BEV likely won't be workable for several years. Even with an Al-air battery, an ICE PHV may still be a better choice for them.

The refill time of a FCEV does make them attractive for long trips. Hydrogen fueled ones just have a big hurdle in regards to such trips in there being a limited number of stations. Considering where most of the hydrogen will come from, and the cost of the cars and stations, natural gas hybrids would be a better deal. If the ICE was made dedicated to NG, and its 130 octane, these hybrids may exceed a FCEV in well to wheels efficiency and emissions reduction.

 

Every "alternative fuel" car in the US has a price premium, limited and restrictive refueling infrastructure and limited range compared to "normal" cars at this time. Only after those restrictions are lifted will a true everyday replacement be found. Until then they are just limited production compliance vehicles.

 

True. Even E85 and biodiesel is hard to come by in some areas. Plug ins have less restrictive refueling infrastructure than the others though. They just require access to a dedicated outlet for the PHVs and EVSE for the BEVs. For the most part, those restricted are apartment, condo or restrictive HOA dwellers. Which tend to be closer to population centers where the limited range of current BEVs isn't as limiting. Otherwise, the block to wider plug in acceptance is mental. Comments like, " plugging in everyday is a hassle," and "BEVs need 500 mile range," illustrate this.

Back to the OP, Toyota's FCV is going to be priced close to luxury flagship models. It will get all the Lexus luxury trimmings, but cars of its class and price range offer more. It is being compared to a Camry in terms of ride and performance. Which is fine for a car that starts at around $23k, or $27K for the hybrid. A Lexified Camry would be a bit nicer in terms of features and appointments than the XLE trim, and cost a few thousand more.

The FCV is going to cost around twice as much as the Camry though. People are only going to pay so much for fancy trimmings and the latest gadgets in their car. Those buying cars of the class that the FCV price range falls into, also expect performance of atleast better than the typical family sedan. Yes, the cost is mostly in the fuel cell and fuel tanks. The cost of the Tesla S is mostly in the batteries. Neither facts will change the consumers' expectation of what their money will get.

Tesla knew this. They could have gotten better efficiency and range if they built the car for a sub 10sec 0 to 60mph instead of a sub 5sec one. But for the amount they are being asked to pay, the people would feel at least a little cheated if it wasn't any faster than a Leaf. Targeting the BMW 7 series segment also meant they needed the performance to wow the press and general public. Even the Caddy ELR is tuned for acceleration at the expense of EV range in comparison to the Volt.

The price gap of a FCEV over a traditional car is greater than that of the first hybrids. They need to offer more than being a FCEV to be successful with that price. Heck, even the gen2 Prius offered features(the SKS) that has just appeared on Lexus models.

 

I still can't get over how fugly it is. It looks like a Chinese cloned disaster.

 

phevs do not have limited or restrictive fueling infrastructure, in fact they have more infrastructure than normal ice cars.

The volt, outlander phev, and ford energis are not compliance cars. They are not sold at a big price premium, and not only let you refill at all the gas stations, but also allow you to refuel more conviently at home. The outlander phev is not sold here becasue of a california regulation, but it should be by the end of next year. These cars are subsidized, but are not compromised. The bmw i3+rex has a compliance limited gas tank size. Toyota seems to only want to sell the prius phv as a compliance car, but I hope this changes with the gen II (or IV) that will be shipped at the end of 2016.

The tesla model S and nissan leaf are also subsidized but not compliance. The leaf is definitely compromised by shorter range , but most of the leaf households have anouther car to take for longer range. The model S is much less compromised. With the recharging infrastructure that will exist in 2016, many owners won't spend much more time refueling than in a gasoline car, as they mainly charge while the owner sleeps.

The refueling infrastructure though is a major problem with fuel cell vehicles in the US. Even after 100 california stations promised before the end of 2024, more than 95% of the US population would need to drive more than 20 minutes out of their way to refuel. It would take a mamouth government program costing hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars to simply get things as convient as a nissan leaf. In the US this is a big deal. In japan they may actually spend the money, and it should be a lot less money than would be spent in the US as Japan is much smaller, with a much more concentrated population, and many less vmt.

 

Clarification - When I said alternative fuels, I meant those not using gasoline or diesel. To me this does not include hybrids and plug-in hybrids. Hydrogen goes without saying and although Tesla, Mitsubishi and Nissan offer Electric only vehicles outside the CARB (compliance) states, they still suffer the range, infrastructure for unlimited travel and in the case of the Tesla the cost premium.

Don't get me wrong, I am all for finding a true direct replacement for "normal cars" to solve our petroleum dependence, they just do not exist yet without some or all of those restrictions mentioned.

My guess would be that day will only come when the "powers that be" first agree on a direction, then figure how to give it to us at the profit point they have become accustom to. But that's just my best guess at this time.

 

The trouble with all these alternative new but single fuel vehicles, with respect austingreen, is that they can't do what I ask/expect my current car to do and until they can conquer my mental hurdle, I (who am an early adapter of lots of things) just won't be buying.

A recent week consisted of:

Drive from my house to fuel, 10 minutes to gas and go.

Drive 50 miles to pick up 2 grandkids at a residence. During the trip I had 2 large old style beach chairs, a beach umbrella, 2 carry on suitcases, a large bag with 6 beach towels, several small bags of miscellaneous stuff, 2 golf umbrellas one wife, one driver.

Drive 150 miles to the beach. Immediately...like after 10 minutes. Now have added 2 grandkids, 2 more carry on suitcases, one bag, a child seat, a stack of books, some board games. Enough room in the back seat to keep the 2 apart. Park in a outdoor parking lot or covered parking lot, no fueling available, generally park overnight. Few local trips to dinner. Park next to a C-Max, marvel at how small the trunk area and back seat is by comparison. My back seat seat backs have actually been reclined a notch or two and the seats are all the way back despite all the cargo. No kids kicks to the seatbacks of the front seats..

3 days later return to my house 125 miles, dress and go to theater 10 miles and back, next day 50 plus 50 to return grandkids and get back home.

After one night at my house up US 95 250 miles. Gas half way by the side of the road largely dictated by bathroom break. 15 minutes. Overnight at motel. Large metro area. 2 people plus suitcases. Short local trips.

Decide at last minute to go to Syria, VA in the Shenandoah valley. Then home 350 miles. One very short gas stop for convenience, I did have enough fuel to get home but ...

44 plus MPG at mostly 50-70 with A/C on. No delays or panics or searching for fuel. Fuel as low as $2.979. No higher than $3.219. Spare tire on board. Venture into very rural territory on a whim with no thoughts of limits.

Think of the investment to replicate the infrastructure that allows all that. When will it happen? 20 minutes to get 300 more miles spaced 50 miles apart. And those are conservative numbers. The reality today is that each number is better in most places in the East. Think NC will help enable/fund it? Hah. Our politicians are too well bought for that.

I like novel things (was the first in my company to use voicemail, on the net before almost anyone, taught PC parts selection and assembly when you built one from chips, tend to buy cars in their first year, owned 3 mid-engined cars and 2 rear engined cars, invested in the Wankel engine via Toyo Kogo). Part of the Prius attraction was it was different but proven enough. Not really financially limited. So in some ways I am the ideal candidate but ...


(I'm not a commuter and I don't live in CA.)

 

+1

The DOE US federal program does not make the distinction, its more a matter of degree. If we think of a typical car now getting 30mpg for a 15,000 mile per year driver that is 500 gallons per year Your mileage will vary (YMMV). Electrifying can save much of that gas, and reduce tail pipe emissions. Making it an aerodynamic hybrid (prius) can save 200 gallons a year (40%) and drop it to 300 gallons a year, a phev (volt) can substitute electric miles dropping it further saving 360 gallons a year (72%) YMMV. From a saving gasoline/reducing ghg phevs get the country most of the way there. California should be worried about tail pipe emissions and these new 2015 my hybrids and phevs produce less than 10% of the average vehicle on a LA or Bakersfield road.

I definitely see sub 150 mile bevs as compromised when it comes to refueling infrastruture. Teslas are expensive, but so are fcv. The solution the japanese seem to be saying about the expense of fcv is the governments should subsidize them much more than bevs. I just can't see a compelling reason why.

At least in the luxury and performance segments audi thinks plugging in will take major market share (40%). That seems likely at least in the Chinese and american markets. Even if these are almost all phevs, it will significantly drive down battery costs which may push significant oil savings in other segments.

Well the powers that be in california government (carb and CEC) and Japanese government and automakers seem to be pushing these fuel cells hard. I expect that they will fail miserably in the california market but may have some sucessess in japan.

 

But you don't represent to majority of driving households. The majority have daily commutes and 2 or more vehicles. For most of those commutes, the current crop of affordable BEVs will work. They won't work for a trip without some major planning, but the likely hood is that their second car would. So what that a BEV can't do everything. Most gas or diesel cars rarely do everything they are capable of, but people can't get over the what if when buying a car. The logic keeping people from seeing that a BEV will work and reduce petroleum use for them is the same logic that allowed the SUV to dominate the road.

If you were working and still had 2 to 3 kids, would both of your cars be minivans or equivalent, or would one be the family hauler and the other something smaller and more fuel efficient that used mostly for the work commute? A BEV can replace that commuter with some limitations for lower fuel costs. As you said it is a mental block though..

 

trollbait, absolutely. When we had 2 kids it was a minivan and a commuter car; an alternative fuel vehicle would have been fine.

But how many would pay lots extra for a commuter car beyond the current $25k 40+ MPG car with gas at $3 or less? How many live in a house where running electricity would be difficult because of the house's design? How many live with some alternative fueling station within easy access on their commute because they just don't have time to make an extra trip? How many "need" the truck for work? There must be a dozen other "buts". And every one of those limits potential market penetration.

 

You gota take note on the "Wired" article title.

"... a high price for mediocrity ..."

Does that mean Toyota's hype is blowing SMOKE up you bung? ... or are they blowing water vapor up our bung? ... or NG up our bung. Oh well, the blue paint sure is shiny.


Who are the target audience for this. It seams the lion's share of tech savvy Prius owners are insulted seeing ads about a FC car that runs on N/G being advertised as "zero emission". At least plug in electricity CAN be carbon free. That's a much bigger strecth for FC cars ... and WAY more expensive when carbon free. So ... it'd seem Toyota will need to find "ignorant" tech savvy people that have $70K (after grande incentives) to spend. Oh wait ... lease only. It's like the Titanic just set sail. I'll wait for a cruise liner with more life boats thank you very much.

The Japanese government pays well, to lobby CARB (and CA legislators). Like any good whore - legislators & CARB will perform, based on how, & if paid enough. Like you've mentioned before ... follow the money.
.

 

Fortunately I sleep for hundreds of hours a year as well (thousands actually)

 

With the federal tax credit, most of the commuter type BEVs will cost around the same as that $25k car. In states, like California, with additional incentives, they are thousands less. If needed, the cost of a EVSE and running the electric can be done for under a $1000. Doing that shouldn't be a problem for most homes. Getting a plug in is an issue for renters and apartment dwellers that does limit their potential penetration.

Location of an alternative fuel station is an issue that really only applies to hydrogen cars. If it is still available, the natural gas Civic is the only personal car that is 100% NG. The NG GM Impala and truck are bi-fuel with a gasoline tank.

Plug ins need to improve to broaden their appeal, but for the majority of households there isn't any technical or financial reason for the current models to work right now. The main hurdle is a mental one for the public.