Hybrids in the News

nippononly

just the ticket, and long overdue IMO! Actually, I can fully appreciate why Toyota brought in HSD in more plebeian vehicles first, much better business case.

But I find myself anxiouly awaiting a test-driveable hybrid MR2 as the first hybrid I might actually buy.

Sylvia

http://www.goupstate.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20040619/ZNYT- - 05/406190340/1051/NEWS01

nippononly

is spot-on: full hybrids save a lot more gas in all-city driving than they do in rural areas and for people who do mostly full-speed highway driving.

Of course, the woman they quoted in there was still getting around 45 consistently, which has to be at least 5-10 mpg more than she would get in the next-best gas-only car out there.

moparbad

http://www.thecarconnection.com/index.asp?article=7269&sid=19- 2&n=156

Another spot on article.

quote-By selling small volumes of $40K HEVs at half price, Toyota and Honda have reaped huge PR benefits while concealing the actual cost of hybrid technology from customers and, more importantly, from technologically ignorant media and environmental advocates. But how long will they continue heavy subsidies as they drive HEV content, capabilities, and volumes upward?-

Sell the hybrids for their real cost and let's see how many people buy them.

quote- Toyota's intent to make and lead a viable business in HEVs seems more realizable. But it will not succeed until the capability and desirability - not just the efficiency - of HEVs can overcome their weight, packaging, complexity, and ultra-high cost disadvantages.-end

To summarize, ultra-high cost disadvantages explains the hybrid problem.

midnightcowboy

Interesting article. However, if you havefollowed these Hybrid forumms for some time, heavy Prius proponents, such as John1701a, have stated time and again that the 2004 Prius is profitable and even during the last years of run that the 1997-2003 classic Prius was profitable. However, there never were any exact references or statements from Toyota to back up his claims; now we know why, there aren't any! (see #108 Hybrids lose money refrence article: http://www.thecarconnection.com/index.asp?article=7269&sid=19- 2&n=156 )

So are hybrids all hype? Is Toyota artifically limiting thier Prius production to mitigate loss ?

Have you every seen grocery stores advertise a loss leader with the disclaimer "quantities may be limited". The reseon fro loss leaders is to get you to the store .. Thanks for coming , we know your time is important ..we are sorry we don't have any Priuses avaialble .. they are so popular that it will take 8-12 months to get you one ... BUT WE HAVE ALL of THESE other Toyotas avaialbe that we can sell you today.

I can't believe that Toyota is resorting to the old "Bait and Switch" tatic to see cars.

YMMV,

MidCow

P.s - My car buying is temporarily on hold after we bought some property this weekend with the (163,000 acre) Sam Houston National Forrest as out backyard. Oh Well! more time to let the hybrid, diesel ,fule cell, solar, elevtric , ICE issues resolve themself

backy

That was a terrible example of "journalism." I'd call it an editorial at best. There was no substantiation of the charge that the Prius, HCH, and Insight cost $40k each. The article challenges Toyota's assertion that the Classic Prius was profitable, but provides no proof of that claim.

moparbad

Where is there ANY proof to the point that hybrids ARE profitable? There is no substantiation, no proof and any claim that hybrids are profitable is as "editorial" as the article. Further, I place more credibility in a journalist than I do John.

gagrice

When I considered the Prius in 2000. The dealer told me that the cars were costing Toyota between $35k-$40k to build. They were selling for an even $20k to test them in the market. I almost bought one just to recoup some of my losses from Toyota. Also the warranty at that time was 8 years 100k miles Bumper to Bumper. It seemed like a no brainer to buy one. My wife squashed the deal.

usbseawolf2000

Some comment to the article:

"...batteries, motors, controllers, and wiring are heavy."

True but Planetary full hybrids also remove unnecessary parts such as alternator, starter, transmission, flywheel, etc... In the end, full hybrids seem to add only about extra 5% of the curb weight.

"Another is packaging - all that extra componentry takes up valuable space."

I didn't realize how short Prius' hood was until I open up and saw it in person. Prius drivetrain packaging under the hood is significantly smaller than my Celica. I thought my compact hatchback is pretty small already. HSD packaging is amazingly small!

"Another is the daunting development challenge of seamlessly blending ICE and electric torque, friction and regenerative braking, engine stops and starts, electric power steering and HVAC."

Toyota did a wonderful job blending ICE and electric power with the PSD. Planetary setup is probably the most simple and smooth design.

"By contrast, the '04 is a unique, high-content car on a dedicated platform,..."

Not true! 04 Prius shares the same platform with Toyota Allion mid-size sedan. For more info: usbseawolf2000 "Toyota Allion Vs. Prius" Jun 18, 2004 10:01pm

"Toyota's intent to make and lead a viable business in HEVs seems more realizable. But it will not succeed until the capability and desirability - not just the efficiency - of HEVs can overcome their weight, packaging, complexity, and ultra-high cost disadvantages."

Weight: Prius weights between Corolla and Camry. Prius is manufactured with traditional steel unibody frame unlike Insight all aluminum body.

Packaging: Smaller than traditional car because HSD is mechically simpler.

Complexity: In software, codes can be reuse. In fact, Toyota even sold it's codes to Ford and Nissan.

Ulta-high cost: Toyota does everything in-house, even combining interter and aux unit into one. Toyota is in for longterm profit and by judging from their track record, they know what they are doing.

Dennis

backy

The statement in 2000 that Prius cost $35-40k to build is at least partly corroborated by the third link I posted above, stating that when the Prius was first introduced, they sold at a $16k loss. But this is 2004, not 2000, and Toyota has had years to recoup their investment and gain profitability on the Prius--as the articles I linked to mentioned.

I am still waiting for proof of the claim that hybrids like the Prius, HCH, and Insight cost $40k to build today.

wco81

The reporter commuted with the Escape hybrid for a week. He said it's "plenty peppy" on the highway, passing trucks and dodging potholes with "agility and more than enough speed."

He averaged 30 MPG according to his display, for the week he had it. Ford said it should average 32-33 in combined driving.

The V-6 ICE Escape gets 19/25 and costs $3300-3400 less. RAV4 gets 24/30. Ford is building only 20k for the year, compared to the 160k Escapes they typically sell.

Reporter thinks Ford and Lexus will have to change the marketing somewhat to highlight the V6 performance and (better than) V4 fuel efficiency.

But if Ford doesn't sell out the 20k hybrids, maybe 5 years from now, the hybrids won't be as common as many expect. Because the Ford person claims the price difference doesn't make up for the higher costs to make the hybrids.

john1701a

> for some time, heavy Prius proponents, such as John1701a, have stated time and again that the 2004 Prius is profitable

That is just plain wrong. I never said "2004" even once. The profit comments were always about the classic model, since we had plenty of published articles supporting that it had in fact been achieved.

And why are you in total denial that Toyota has announced double the production for 2005 than in 2004?

Also, why are you completely ignoring the fact that Toyota will in fact reach it's long-standing goal of 300,000 systems per year worldwide by the end of 2005?

JOHN

moparbad

quote-Being green is also profitable — if you can swallow Toyota’s claims that the vehicles not only turn a modest profit on a unit-for-unit basis but that the research and development costs have already been offset.-end

Even the author is skeptical.

moparbad

OK, so your position is that the Classic Prius was profitable, and the 2004 Prius is not profitable.

john1701a

> There are good reasons why most automakers have been reluctant to hop headlong onto the HEV bandwagon. One is weight - batteries, motors, controllers, and wiring are heavy. Another is packaging - all that extra componentry takes up valuable space. Another is the daunting development challenge of seamlessly blending ICE and electric torque, friction and regenerative braking, engine stops and starts, electric power steering and HVAC.

That's a pretty standard anti-hybrid comment.

"weight" is totally meaningless, since it is not quantified at all. In fact, it is so vague you are easily lead to believe that hybrids are significantly heavier. The 4-cylinder Camry, which only a little bigger inside, is actually 252 pounds more.

"valuable space" does the same. You are left totally clueless to what that actually means. The battery-pack is the only component that consumes interior space, and it is just the size of six loaves of bread.

"daunting development challenge" is clearly misleading, since the goal is already achieved. By the end of the 2004 model year, there will be 250,000 Prius on roads worldwide. Obviously, development is complete. In fact, initial rollout is too.

JOHN

john1701a

But as I have stated *COUNTLESS* times now, I am only concerned about the LONG-TIME outcome.

So your "is" reference means little to nothing.

JOHN

backy

Skepticism is a good trait in a journalist. Making statements such as today's hybrids costing $40k to produce without substantiation is not.

moparbad

Profit on hybrids sold is little to nothing. Discussion of LONG-TIME outcome is not constructive.

Your concerns are not shared.

john1701a

> Discussion of LONG-TIME outcome is not constructive.

Can't handle it, eh?

LONG-TERM discussions make the plans for HSD technology very, very appealing from a business perspective. And the consumer perspective will soon realize the variety of power configurations offer lots of potential for future vehicles & models. But you don't want people to discover that.

Discussing the 2004 Prius is totally pointless, since production for it ends in just a few days.

LONG-TERM discussions are quite constructive. People are very interested in what the future holds, to help with a purchase decision. So what are you going to do, impede that information exchange?

JOHN

usbseawolf2000

Is Toyota making money on the Prius?

Toyota is in business to make money and this generation Prius will be profitable sooner than the last generation Prius. Economies of scale, especially with the unanticipated volume of the new Prius, will make that happen even earlier than initially projected.

Is there a recycling plan in place for nickel-metal hydride batteries?

Toyota has a comprehensive battery recycling program in place and has been recycling nickel-metal hydride batteries since the RAV4 Electric Vehicle was introduced in 1998. Every part of the battery, from the precious metals to the plastic, plates, steel case and the wiring, is recycled. To ensure that batteries come back to Toyota, each battery has a phone number on it to call for recycling information and dealers are paid a $200 "bounty" for each battery.

http://pressroom.toyota.com/photo_library/display_release.html?id- =20040623

Dennis

PF_Flyer

Be sure to check out our Town Hall chat lineup for Tuesday evenings... First up, talk the latest in new automotive technology during the Hybrid Vehicles Chat from 5-6pmPT/8-9pm ET

Hybrid Vehicles Chat Room

Immediately following at 6-7pm PT/9-10pm ET, we keep the chat party going with the Mazda Mania chat.

Mazda Mania Chat Room

The Town Hall chats are a great place to take these message board topics LIVE. Hope to see you there this week!

PF Flyer
Host
Pickups & News & Views Message Boards

backy

I replied to this earlier but my post was removed because one of the links had an "add reply" on it. Here are the other two articles, which refer to the profitability of the Prius:

http://articles.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3012/is_10_183/ai- _109505549

http://www.globalexchange.org/campaigns/oil/1312.html

Personally, I would trust the executives and financial officers of Toyota to know how much money they are making (or losing) on a vehicle than I would some writer who provides no substantiation for his claims.

backy

I found the original article from cars.com for the third link:

http://www.cars.com/carsapp/national/?srv=parser&act=display&- amp;tf=/features/mvp/toyota/prius/prius_overview.tmpl

usbseawolf2000

- 145 DIN hp from the electrically-boosted 1.5-litre petrol engine
- Accelerating to 100 km/h in 8.7 seconds
- Fuel economy at normal speeds virtually unaffected by performance potential(because the effects of a more powerful petrol engine are counteracted by efficiency gains from the electric circuit and the overall weight reduction.)

http://www.clean-auto.com/article.php3?id_article=2633

Dennis

kornklan

I can't see why everybody is so concerned about whether Toyota makes money on the Prius. Who cares!! As long as Toyota is willing to sell the car for the MSRP and is increasing production to meet demand they must know something we don't know, like maybe they see a tremendous potential for the Hybrid concept and are trying to get as many cars into the hands of the public as possible. Create a huge demand, get ahead of the competition and the profits will come. Toyota is the most profitable car company in the world. I'm not worried if they don't make a profit on the Prius now. It will come. I've had one on order since Dec. 2003 and I'm willing to wait.

john1701a

Perhaps I should (again) point out that Toyota has posted overall results of quarterly profits recently, while GM & Ford both report losses.

In other words, Toyota has capital to invest into LONG-TERM projects. GM & Ford are simply struggling to survive.

JOHN

rfruth

Yep Toyota is doing something right, the Prius gets award after award, Toyota is laughing all the way to the bank. - snip - Toyota Prius to Receive Top Honors at 2004 Industrial Design Excellence Awards, Scion xB Earns Bronze Award TORRANCE, Calif., June 28 /PRNewswire/ -- The Toyota Prius continues to collect accolades as the innovative hybrid-synergy drive sedan will receive a Gold Award at the 2004 Industrial Design Excellence Awards (IDEA) competition, presented by the Industrial Designers Society of America (IDSA) and sponsored by BusinessWeek, in October. The Scion xB, with its aggressive Gen Y styling, will also be honored with a Bronze Award.
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/040628/lam035_1.html

moparbad

Who cares if Toyota makes money on the Prius? People who purchase Toyota vehicles other than Prius might care. I own a 2003 Tacoma. The money that is lost on Prius results in higher prices for other Toyota vehicles. Toyota has to make a profit somewhere. Prius is/was subsidized by profits on other Toyota's.

moparbad

New full size truck plant in Texas and new plant for Tacoma in Mexico is evidence that Toyota is putting it's resources where the profits are. Toyota is planning for the long term. SUV's and trucks.
Toyota is not building the Prius in the US.

john1701a

What is your point?

All along I have been saying thing. HSD will later be available in the other popular vehicles too.

JOHN

backy

Toyota is not building the Prius in the U.S. today, but Toyota's president said publically last spring that Toyota would build the Prius in the U.S. if U.S. sales reached 50,000 per year. They are pretty close to that now if not already over. They have also increased production of the Prius in the Japan plant, at the expense of Corolla and Camry (that plant can make all three).

Also, who is to say that the full size trucks and Tacomas in the future won't offer hybrid powertrains?

rfruth

General Motors Corp.'s 2005 lineup will begin showing hybrid vehicles at retail, but a bus fleet with GM hybrid technology is already being delivered. What if the nine largest U.S. cities replaced their 13,000 conventional buses with versions using hybrid power plants? More than 40 million gallons of fuel would be saved annually, says GM. http://motortrend.com/features/news/112_news55/

gagrice

I think that is encouraging. It was pointed out to me when I posted that information in "Diesel Hybrids" That we are subsidizing that venture. Those buses cost $600,000 vs $200,000 for a conventional bus. So those 225 buses in Washington state are actually ours. You and I are paying for them. You know what they say a billion here and a billion there, soon you are talking serious money. I would be real curious how much all this hybrid, Electric, & fuel cell research is costing the tax payer.

backy

Tax money spent on research towards reducing the use of oil in the U.S., most of which is imported, is money well spent IMO.

gagrice

That is your opinion and I respect that. I don't feel it is the government's place to subsidize the auto makers in their ventures. Unless the government gets paid back when the research pays off. Not just the taxes that they owe on profits. Their is enough corporate greed and welfare. Where is the risk in business if we bail out every poor design?

quasar4

--Gagrice, where do you get your figures from?? Conventional buses are reported to cost $200k less than hybrid buses (i.e., around $400k)--not $200k apiece. Hybrid Bus Facts

--The feds only kicked in 5 million to subsidize the purchase (compare this with the revenue lost by giving gas-suckin', planet-killin', OPEC supportin' Hummer buyers their outrageous tax break). Not only that, but the buses are expected to last longer, kick out up to 90% less pollutants, drive quieter, and oh yes, save around 750,000 gallons of gas per year! Yes, you're right about one thing --it certainly does add up!!

mfullmer

Actually it IS the governments place to subsidize when the government takes on the role of dictating what kinds of vehicles a manufacturer must produce. With the governments mandate that manufacturers make cleaner cars, of course they should pay.

If the government set out a mandate that at least 2 days out of every 7 you must wear a uniform that is specific to their standards and is made out of a fabric that is not very well known, wouldn't you expect the government to pay for at least part of that uniform (if not all of it)?

gagrice

Thank you for the the link. I stand corrected. Your Hummer analogy is a bit irrational. That tax break is for any kind of vehicle that is 6000 GVW, used for a business venture. It has been tax deductible foro as long as I can remember. It was an incentive to make business investment without the normal depreciation as well as the increased cost of vehicles. Clearly we have a difference of opinion on the role of government. I will leave it at that.

john1701a

What is it with this "all or none" perspective?

Instead, goals should clearly be defined. That way use of government money can be much better accounted for and accepted.

Just look at the "hydrogen" mess. Money is being provided without any requirement to actually deliver anything specific and within any specific timeframe either. What the heck is the benefit of hydrogen? Overall it is dirtier, less efficient, and quite a bit more expensive.

JOHN

gagrice

I disagree with that thinking also. If I am dumping crap on the street and the city tells me to clean it up. I should not be paid for cleaning up my mess. The same goes for the air and water. I expect the government to tell business to clean up the air and water they are polluting. I don't believe the taxpayers should have to pay for someone else's polluting. Mandating clean air and water has fallen on the government because industry has no conscience. The taxpayers should not suffer because of industries lack of concern. The people of Seattle will save money in the long run for the hybrid buses. They should bear the burden and receive the benefits of cleaner air and less fuel consumption.

kornklan

Do you really think Toyota would add to the price of their other models to cover the alleged short fall of Prius cost? That doesn't make sense since they have to be very competitive in the market place on their entire model line. Like any other manufactures product, the company calculates the cost to make the product and how much profit they can add while still being competitive. It's obvious that Toyota has the right formula since they are the most profitable auto maker.

moparbad

I don't just believe that an auto manufacturer would increase the profit on one model and have a loss or minimal profit on a different model, I know it. The manufacturers do not make a secret of this and have publicly stated this for many years. It is prevalent throughout business. In case of new technology there is often a need to lose money in the beginning in order to make money later when the scale of manufacturing is greater. Common sense is that the compexity of the Prius will cost more to manufacture than a Camry. Camry and Prius are similarly priced.
Do you really think Prius and Camry cost same amount to manufacture?

john1701a

> compexity of the Prius

There's the source of your confusion.

Prius is *LESS* than a traditional automatic, not more.

The HSD engineering is elegantly simple. But it is so different that you perceived it to mean more complex, when really it isn't. Compared the designs. You'll end up finding Camry propulsions components to be much more intricate than you originally thought.

JOHN

moparbad

John- I certainly hope that you are correct. If adding hybrid powertrain has similar or less cost than traditional powertrain everyone wins. Less cost, higher mpg, less emissions, less imported fuel....

mfullmer

Good point but both Bush and Kerry have committed to focusing on fuel cell vehicles instead of Hybrid.

Oh well, at least the Japanese are looking and developing viable alternatives now.

john1701a

I had bad transmission problems with my Taurus.

The quest for something better is actually what introduced me to Prius. The discovery of that entirely new approach to managing power transfer really made an impression. Finding out that it also delivered improved efficiency & emissions sealed the deal.

But trying to sell people on improved engineering or emissions is a daunting task, to the point of almost being futile.

The desire for improved MPG is a different story though. The draw to that is quite compelling. That is what makes Prius such a good advertising device for HSD. It will lure people into researching the technology. Then when they find out the vehicle of their choice will later offer the HSD option, they're hooked. That sale will be pretty easy once the market is finally established.

JOHN

mfullmer

My only problem with that thinking is that leads us to a similar socialistic society, not unlike the Soviet Union of 20 years ago. Do we really want to live somewhere the government tells us we can only drive certain cars, just so that we can "stick it to those terrible big businesses?"

If the car purchaser themselves pays for the higher polluting vehicles (maybe smaller taxes and registration fees for hybrids???) then they will not purchase them. In turn the manufacturers will stop producing them. Not everything must come from from "sticking it to those terrible big businesses". And not everything we do has to be governed by what our Federal Government tells us is ok.

john1701a

> Good point but both Bush and Kerry have committed to focusing on fuel cell vehicles instead of Hybrid.

Kerry is strongly behind hybrids. He understands how a full hybrid can very easily be adapted to use a fuel-cell instead of an engine.

Did you know the HSD design already supports an electric-only mode? In fact, all countries (except the US) get that option already. It is scaled of course, to balance with the size of battery available currently. But since a fuel-cell is nothing but an electricity source anyway, it is a perfect component for HSD to take advantage of.

JOHN

mfullmer

Not only that, for all of us "Techno Nerds" it is definitely the vehicle to have. I have to say I was researching two pretty expensive convertibles before I got serious about the Prius. Now, after driving one, I know I have to have it.

That said, I'm having some interesting conversations with dealers here in the Southeast. Most of the dealers have totally closed their lists because they just have no clue when, how many, and how equipped Prius they'll get. They seem totally bummed.

I did get an offer to be 6th on the list for an October or November delivery (if they get what I want) in Birmingham, AL. I might just take it. One thing I don't know if I'll want to do is take something that not exactly what I want. I usually order my vehicles to my exact specifications. Today is a downer for me, especially because I'll be taking my rental Prius back in a few hours :-(

mfullmer

I thought we were talking about fuel cells. I get my facts from their actions, not just what their party line wants you to believe.

John Kerry, Senate bill #865, June 10, 2003, voted in favor of requiring that the hydrogen commercialization plan of the Department of Energy include a description of activities to support certain hydrogen technology deployment goals. This vote would pass an amendment that would call for the Department of Energy to set targets and timelines to maintain the production of 100,000 hydrogen-powered vehicles by 2010, and 2.5 million vehicles annually by 2020. It also would call for the department to set targets for the sale of hydrogen at fueling stations.

John Kerry, in his endorsement of the Strategic Energy Initiative, vowed that tax incentives would be given to manufacturers producing fuel-efficient vehicles that utilize domestic biofuels and clean-burning fuel cell technology, as well as to investors of such technology.

They both are also behind hybrid vehicles. Bush's support is evident in his February, 2003 proposal for a tax credit for Hybrid vehicles in 2004. It is also evident in his statement during his February, 2002, energy efficiency speech - "more and more hybrid cars will be available in the marketplace next year. And this is good news. It's good news for our environment, and it's good news for American consumers who are not only worried about the environment, but understand the ramifications of dependency on foreign sources of crude oil."

Let's face it, there really are very few people out there who are "against" alternative fuels, save maybe OPEC.