Hybrids in the News

rfruth · July 2004

The wait time depends on your local, i bet the west coast wait time is more than 6 months but where I'm at (south Texas) there is very little wait, I e-mailed a dealer (Fred Hass Toyota in Spring Tx) a couple weeks ago and was told two of them with the option package I asked about were due real soon now (within 10 days) and two more (for a total of four) were coming in next month (August) - I asked about a Prius with option package 8 in any color. Now if I showed up at the dealer with check book in hand the story might change but they sounded sincere to me and no sales critter has ever steered me wrong before. (ugh)

john1701a · July 2004

Fuel-Cells only have a life expectency of 30,000 to 40,000 miles. The ultra-thin membranes in the stacks cannot handle anymore use or vibration than that.

Fuel-Cells require a lengthy warm-up time... and that's when the water is in a liquid state. When it freezes, you're basically screwed until a practical solution is invented or spring arrives. (So the lowest realistic temperature you could drive in is only 20F right now... not even close to what us northern folk require.)

Fuel-Cells have a very limited driving range and you lose your trunk completely. The 2005 Ford Focus adapted for Fuel-Cells has a range of 150 to 200 miles using three 5,000 PSI tanks filled with gaseous hydrogen (which take a very long time to fill).

Fuel-Cells wastes energy, since they lack the ability to regenerate electricity without the aid of an ultra-capacitor or battery-pack. The also take several minutes to start-up without the aid of an ultra-capacitor or battery-pack. Adding them adds costs to the already very, very expensive vehicle.

Fuel-Cells are inherently noisy (sounds like a big kitchen blender), caused by the air passing through the system to invoke the chemical reaction.

Fuel-Cells are thankfully very thin now, but unfortunately extraordinarily heavy... we're talking an additional 1,000 (or more) pounds to the vehicle (including the fuel tanks)... which leads to handling, tire, and suspension complications.

In other words, "full" hybrids will be far more realistic for at least a decade still. And even then, without a hydrogen infrastructure in place, they won't be too practical. (The hydrogren must be affordable as well.)

JOHN

moparbad · July 2004

quote John- blah, blah, blah, blah, blah-end

For many people hybrids are considered to obtain higher mpg to save money on fuel. This is as wise as buying a lottery ticket to pay the rent. Relying on a false vision of the future is foolish. A hybrid does not prepare you for the future.

john1701a · July 2004

> For many people hybrids are considered to obtain higher mpg to save money on fuel.

That is a gross over-generalization.

Attempts to lump all types of "hybrids" together and draw a conclusion already (even though many are still not available yet) is not objective in the slightest.

Also, how are the actions of the 2004 buying market at all an indication of what future years will hold? Haven't you noticed how the SUV market is collapsing? The new fat-wagon designs are rapidly becoming the popular choice, a clear indication that appeal factors are changing.

JOHN

john1701a · July 2004

> Relying on a false vision of the future is foolish.

I find that rather amusing too!

And the lottery ticket analogy doesn't make any sense, since you will likely end up with nothing. Buying a hybrid means you will save, which is far from nothing. It's a matter or how much, not whether you will win or not.

Issues are not "all or none" as you continue to claim. Hybrids will continue to penetrate the market. By how much is the question.

JOHN

kalmikey · July 2004

Relying on a false vision of the future is foolish. A hybrid does not prepare you for the future.

I, for one, am buying a hybrid because I want a better car *now*. Not 20 years from now when someone finally figures out how to make fuel-cell work as practically, or more likely 40 years from now, when the major automakers finally actually get convinced to produce fuel-cell vehicles and hydrogen filling stations are as common as petrol stations.

There's nothing false about this. My current car gets 18-25mpg. The lowest average of the least optimistic, most clearly-bought-off press coverage of the Prius averages high-30s, most mid-40s, and many of the users on these and other forums are seeing 50s.

Ergo, I will obtain higher mpg, I will save money on fuel, more to the point, I will *use less fuel*, which matters to me. I will also be putting less crap into the atmosphere per unit time.

These are all things that are accomplishable right now. A hydrogen fuel-cell car...isn't.

gagrice · July 2004

We are in agreement on the Fuel Cell cars not being practical in the next 20 years. At this point in time you may as well convert the ICE to CNG and burn the Natural Gas direct. Fuel cells are not any more efficient users of Natural Gas than a CNG Civic.

Haven't you noticed how the SUV market is collapsing?

As a matter of fact that is far from true. 149K+ more SUVs have been sold this year than last. The big winners are GM, DCC, Ford & Toyota in that order. GM alone has sold 67k more this year with the new bigger TrailBlazer leading the pack. Explorer lost ground to the TrailBlazer. Just as the 2004 Prius is larger so are all the other vehicles. I feel real vulnerable driving my old Mazda 626 beater except on the side streets.

http://www.autosite.com/editoria/asmr/svsuv.asp

gagrice · July 2004

for the first time in over 20 years, I'm considering the FORD "Escape" because they said they would have them in stock and I wouldn't have to "order" one,

I hate to be the bearer of bad news. My Ford manager friend at the largest Ford dealer in San Diego told me a couple weeks ago that she has a deposit from 100 people wanting to buy the new Escape. Ford informed her that the dealers would only be getting one Hybrid Escape per month, when they do get around to delivering them the end of August or first of September. I think all the hybrids are suffering from over exposure and the inability to catch up with demand.

usbseawolf2000 · July 2004

"For many people hybrids are considered to obtain higher mpg to save money on fuel."

Not really. Even if current hybrid cost more up front, the money that one can save from buying less fuel is appealing because the money is going into the manufacturer or the hybrid instead of oil companies. To me, it is a clear choice. I'd rather give my money to hybrid manufacturer to make even better hybrids. In a sense, the statement is putting one's money in the technology rather than in drilling for natural resource.

Dennis

mirth · July 2004

...but I'd rather put my money in my retirement account or my kid's college account, thanks.

usbseawolf2000 · July 2004

Sure, if you choose not to drive, you can save a lot of money.

Dennis

moparbad · July 2004

http://www.detnews.com/2004/autosinsider/0407/26/a10-222604.htm

quote- Owners of 2001-model Toyota and Honda hybrids reported twice as many engine problems as owners of gas-engine Toyotas and Hondas.-end

rfruth · July 2004

I hate to be hard to get along with but I'm good at it - anyway I agree with sebring95 in the hybrid vs diesel debate, the article talks about engine problems then computer problems, it does no good (well it helps sell copy) idletask "Hybrid vs Diesel" Jul 26, 2004 6:28pm

john1701a · July 2004

Another 50 MPG tank.

Car ran fine.

No worries.

Same story everytime.

Over and over again.

Nothing new.

Just push the button and go.

JOHN

eheading · July 2004

I think there is a factor here that although maybe not completely rational, still its a factor for many of us. For my wife and me, we would always rather spend more up front and then have lower operating costs. Once I've spent the up front money, it's history. From then on I have the satisfaction of feeling great every time I fill up the gas tank. That good feeling lasts for years, and occurs often - every time I get gas. I know it isn't really rational, but it's just the way I am. I suspect others may be the same way.

Ed

kneisl1 · July 2004

USA Today has hydrids on its front page. They examined the 2001 edition of the Honda and Toyota hybrids and found that, in the case of the Toyota hybrid, the engine needed repair in 8.7% of those cars as opposed to 1.2% of a similiar Toyota gas car. And those cars are only 3 years old. Also, the VW Diesels didnt do very well either, a whopping 27% of the 2001 VW Jetta diesels needing work. Something to think about.

john1701a · July 2004

What does "repair" actually mean?

A mechanic could do anything from replace a cheap part to replacing the entire engine. Was any attention given to the part costs & labor? Or was everything generically lumped together?

JOHN

misterme · July 2004

And don't forget that the main power cables run through the door so rescue personnel have been instructed not to cut through the doors for electrocution?

I wonder if they run the gas lines through the roof A pillars and if an oil filter change is an engine repair?

kneisl1 · July 2004

They didnt say. Its probably information not understood by the people who publish it. Im not saying theyre trying to scare people away from hybrids, but it may have that effect. Then again VWs themselves have pretty aweful repair histories. The diesels get a full black circle in CR when it comes to reliability. It wouldnt suprise me if hybrids themselves turn out to be economically impossible to own as they get older and need repairs. And remember the hybrids on sale today are Jananese made. Theres no telling how mechanically defective they will be when made by American manufacturers. They couldnt posssibly be as well made as Japanese hybrids. And when you think about it, wouldnt it be for the best if hybrids ceased to exist? I mean after all youre buying a option that will never pay for itself and will only make big business a lot of money. We need cheaper cars that save gas not more expensive ones. So I guess I hope that front page USA Today article does scare a lot of people off.

john1701a · July 2004

Believe it or not, there are actually some complaints filed (publicly available online) with the NTHSA about the engines in hybrids routinely stalling.

Are people so poorly informed that they don't understand the engine is suppose to shut off by itself?

Are they intentionally trying to blemish they reputation of hybrids?

What are the real motives behind some of the vague stuff we read about?

Finding a realistic solution that delivers both improved emissions & efficiency shouldn't be so difficult.

JOHN

jprice · July 2004

<And don't forget that the main power cables run through the door so rescue personnel have been instructed not to cut through the doors for electrocution?>

I have seen on one of these Edmunds forums - I don't recall which one - that this is false. The battery power cables run beneath the floor.

J. Price

Sylvia · July 2004

That is the post that started this discussion pf_flyer May 4, 2004 8:33pm

little_pogi · July 2004

It just amazes me how certain concerns raised by a Rescue Personnel organization could be manipulated to imply that the Prius 2004 model has high voltage cable running through the door. Of course, an ignorant or less informed Prius enthusiast may believed this to be the case. It all boils down to fear, that someday these Japanese hybrids might become the best selling vehicles in America. A huge backlog of Prius orders will sure scare the competition to come up with creative news releases to possible win back those unhappy former customers.

eheading · July 2004

As I have read these threads for the past one and a half years, it fascinates me all the reasons why we shouldn't use hybrids. One sure thing is that the hybrids today offer the best fuel consumption and equal to or better emissions than any other cars. Surely for the sake of our environment and to reduce our dependence on the middle east that should be worth something. But it seems that in our society that we aren't willing to compromise anything. We must have bigger, faster, cars all the time whether they are good for the environment or not. God forbid that it should cost a little extra money to achieve this. Very interesting outlook on our lives.

Ed Headington

usbseawolf2000 · July 2004

"A shortage of key components such as batteries rules out further output increases, Cho said. Batteries for the Prius are made by a joint venture between Toyota and Matsushita Electric Industrial Co.

If Toyota can solve the parts-shortage problem, Toyota might build the hybrid in a second plant, a Toyota official in the United States told Automotive News."

http://www.autoweek.com/cat_content.mv?port_code=autoweek&cat- _code=carnews&loc_code=index&content_code=07170640

I thought Toyota already announced that they will build a second hybrid plant to double the production for 2005 Prius model. This must mean battery manufacturing output is being increased. The law suit regarding the battery had been settled.

The period of delay for 400h and HLH would be the time it will take to fulfill current waiting list of Prius.

Dennis

gagrice · July 2004

I wonder if it is that difficult to expand the manufacture of batteries? It sounds like the Toyota guy in the US and President Cho have different points of view on expanding to a second plant or building the Prius in the US. If There are 22,000 people on the wait list today according to the Toyota web site. There is a possibility they will send an additional 12-15k units still this year. That leaves 7-10k customers that won't get a Prius this year. That will probably delay all the hybrids from the way they put it on their website. I would bet if there are orders for the Prius in Japan to be filled they will get the cars first. Only seems fair, to take care of your own then the rest of the world.

quasar4 · July 2004

Sad, but true...

john1701a · July 2004

No, it's quite fair.

The United States got the new generation of Prius a entire year before those in Japan did.

Study the history of the 4 different models: 1995 prototype, 1998 original, 2001 classic, 2004 HSD

JOHN

quasar4 · July 2004

Uhm John, my "sad but true" comment was directed to message #233 --not #235.

john1701a · July 2004

I'd use a word far more abrasive than "sad" to describe that particular situation.

JOHN

stevedebi · July 2004

High-fallutin' concepts have never driven economies. It is a fact of life and human nature. One can <sigh> over it or get over it. Economics are about dollars and sense. Personally I don't drive a hybrid because they weren't available when we bought our commuter (a 2002 Civic), and even if the 2004 Prius had been available last summer, the cargo capacity was too small for a primary family vehicle (at least this family). So I'm driving the least I can get by with, a Honda CR-V, which yields fairly good mileage with careful acceleration.

This country has always been driven by economics. The key to our success has been to make technology work more efficiently. What I'm saying is that industry needs to produce the vehicles at (life-cycle) cost effective amounts. Then the consumers will rush the gates, and nobody would own a car that didn't get at least 30 MPG - not to mention that fewer monster vehicles would be built.

In effect, "If you build it (at cost effective rates), they will come". But for Joe Sixpack, the added cost of the technology has to be covered by the fuel savings; life-cycle costs. For crying out loud, the new Escape Hybrid is going to cost $6,000 more than a 4 cylinder Escape, AND be limited to 1000 lbs towing, as opposed to the 3000 lbs for the V6. What is the point of such an SUV? SUVs are supposed to be utility vehicles... might as well drive a hybrid Accord or Camry.

As for pollution, all newer cars have vastly reduced pollution output. The problem here in LA is that there are so many older cars, which put out a lot of pollution.

john1701a · July 2004

That is why I primarily promote the full hybrid technology, like HSD, rather than any specific vehicle. It can be configured to serve a wide range of needs and placed into a variety of different bodies.

Far too many people jump to conclusions, thinking Prius represents all that hybrids have to offer. That it is the only configuration that will ever be available.

This is the very reason Toyota is releasing the "power" hybrid version of Highlander first. Did any of you know there will be a second version later? It will be an "efficiency" version... same body, but lower price (smaller engine & battery-pack) and greater savings on gas.

That concept of "one body with multiple engines to choose from" exists already. (In fact, it does on Highlander.) The same will be true for hybrids too.

JOHN

john1701a · July 2004

> SUVs are supposed to be utility vehicles

They stopped being that 10 years ago.

Virtually none of the owners actually use their SUV for the purpose (and capacity) it was designed for.

JOHN

usbseawolf2000 · July 2004

"Tuesday, Toyota Motors shocked industry analysts with the announcement that their critically acclaimed concept car, previously named the Volta, after the man who discovered electricity, redubbed "the Priapus" by both Car & Driver and Road & Track, will be available to consumers in Germany by Christmas 2004, and the U.S. three months later."

"MSRP for the "three-plus-one coupe" is expected to be around $72,000 and is expected to revolutionize the independent racing circuit."

"Orders are already being accepted so contact your local Toyota dealership to place a deposit on this piece of automotive history now. Production will be limited and no one doubts this will become an instant classic."

http://www.glossynews.com/artman/publish/toyota-volta-priapus-845- - .shtml

WOW! $72,000 is $17,000 less than Acura NSX $89,000 price tag!

Dennis

gagrice · July 2004

for those that cannot get a Prius that looks like a lot more fun to drive. Start saving those pennies.

moparbad · July 2004

WOW! Look how much a hybrid costs when it Toyota prices it to make a profit, unlike the Prius.

mfullmer · July 2004

Virtually none of the owners actually use their SUV for the purpose (and capacity) it was designed for.

Talk about vague. What exactly are your definitions of how a SUV is to be used and its purpose? What is your data to support this?

You are biggest opponent here of broad based generalizations. Of course that's only on a subjective basis, that's obvious.

Although I am moving away from my Tahoe I used it a lot, including many trips that would have taken two vehicles and used many more resources and created more pollution.

stevedebi · July 2004

Well, I don't off road (and wouldn't have bought a CR-V if I did - it isn't designed for that). But many manufacturors no longer make a station wagon, and I needed that 40 cubic feet behind the second row of seats for our vacations.

Nevertheless, I did use the RT4WD system this past winter, and the high ground clearance came in handy at Chaco Canyon, NM. Plus I have carried a lot of stuff in the vehicle (72 cu feet with the rear seats down). So it has a lot of "utility" for me.

john1701a · July 2004

It's a sad world when people don't know what a SUV is designed for.

JOHN

stevedebi · July 2004

"It's a sad world when people don't know what a SUV is designed for."

What they were originally designed for and what they were designed for in 2000 (when my CR-V was designed) are two entirely different things. I think my vehicle does exactly what it is designed for, and does it well. Hence my remarks about not going off road.

I'm not sure you got the import of my post when I said the manufacturors are not providing alternates, like station wagons. The SUV has taken over this slot.

john1701a · July 2004

I was baffled by that comment.

I see brand new station wagons everywhere!

Station wagons are becoming very, very, very common now. They are simply new SUVs with a lower ground-clearance and a dramatically more aerodynamic body.

JOHN

kalmikey · July 2004

"and I needed that 40 cubic feet behind the second row of seats for our vacations."

So...what you're saying is you could have bought a smaller, more efficient car to use 95% of the year, and rented something bigger when you needed it...

mfullmer · July 2004

Yes, I'm so sure that's going to happen. I guess in your way of thinking:

Why have cars like the Prius available to the open market when we can all drive Insights and rent Prius or larger vehicle when we need one?

Why have an insurance policy when we can just buy insurance when we need it?

Why buy a car with Air Conditioning when we can just rent one whenever it gets hot.

You see, there are differing types of people in this world. Some decide that the smallest car they need on a daily basis is fine for them. Some decide that an all around useful vehicle is better for them.

That, you see, is why we have many different car manufacturers, models, sizes. Fortuntely we aren't like some communist countries who only allow government sanctioned cars to be purchased.

vicever · July 2004

In many places it is very expensive to rent a car with AC when you need it. For example, you need AC at least half a year in San Diego. It will cost about $6000 extra money to do that and is obviously impractical.

stevedebi · July 2004

"So...what you're saying is you could have bought a smaller, more efficient car to use 95% of the year, and rented something bigger when you needed it... "

Hmmm, try that when you have to make a trip to Home Depot or Sears and come back with slightly outsized cargo. Could get substantially expensive! Keep in mind that my vehicle has more cubic feet behind the rear seats than the Prius has with the rear seats folded. I can fit a lot of stuff in there... but then my vehicle wasn't designed for high MPG, but rather for high utility.

Re: Station wagons. The high end ones are out of my price range. I won't buy a Chrysler product (don't get me started), and wouldn't pay for a Pacifica or Magnum type vehicle anyway (too expensive). I could have gone for an Accord, but that also was expensive. Ford and Toyota stopped making their mid sized station wagons. Ford does have a Focus wagon, but I preferred the rear seating arrangement in the CR-V (reclining and forward/backward sliding).

Anyway, after all was considered, it came out to either a Forrester or CR-V. Rear seat room (again) was the deciding factor for me.

gagrice · July 2004

Toyota has also clearly stated that they want to expand their US market share by 5 percent by 2010. I could not agree more that they are expansion minded. What I am saying is that they are more profit minded than you believe they are. If the success of the Prius is any indicator of the success they would have with other HSD vehicles, it would be safe to say they could storm the US market. That being said, they would put themselves in a position of dependence on outside sources to keep them alive. I don't believe that Cho is going to do that. As the interview with him clearly shows he is NOT planning to build the Prius in the US and he is only looking at expanding the production. He backhanded the US guys comments to the contrary. I don't think you understand the dynamics of business. I don't think Toyota thought for a minute the Prius would be this popular in the US. If they had they would have been ready when they put them on the market. In fact the original Prius in the US was not a fast seller like the 2004 is. My dealer sat on his 2 demo models for months without selling any. He did not think it would go over in the US. If they cannot keep up with production on one car because of poor suppliers, how are they going to keep up with more models. They don't want to cut their own throats on existing high profit models. I think your time frame for the HSD is totally unrealistic. If it turns out to be a long lived trouble free technology Toyota will expand and others will get into the market. Ford has already made it clear they are not expanding the production of the hybrid Escape past original plans. It is not a money maker as simple as that. It is an image builder.

mirth · July 2004

Mike, you're arguing with a brick wall on this forum. Rabid environmentalists won't be happy until everyone is driving the hybrid equivalent of a Geo Metro. And maybe that's optimistic - we should all be biking to work. ;-)

mfullmer · July 2004

Yeah right. Try riding a bike 15 miles with a suit on in the Atlanta humidity/thunderstorms (not to mention the awful, pot-holed, streets!). I guess that would help with the overpopulation though. :-)

On the other hand, I won't be happy until all of those old 15+ year old clunkers get off the roads and stop spewing their tailpipe exhaust.

john1701a · July 2004

> If the success of the Prius is any indicator of the success they would have with other HSD vehicles

Even Ford is now stating battery availability is setting back hybrid production.

And why in the world is there a need to rush? It is a very, very well proven fact that order delays of a new product has an overwhelming positive effect on long-term success. Study automotive history. There's lots of examples.

> As the interview with him clearly shows he is NOT planning to build

That totally, completely contradictd the statement made just a few weeks ago. I don't believe your source. No wait... you never provided one.

Just step back and look at the big picture. Production for the 2005 is planned to be 250,000... WORLDWIDE! The "United States Only" blinders are impairing the ability to see that. We'll end up getting a local facility to build a slew of HSD systems. That will allow the other countries to gain delivery quantity while at the same time eliminating the import tariff and boat shipping costs. It's an excellent long-term strategy.

Remember, the Japan economic practices emphasize long-term gain. Only here do we base success solely on quarterly profits.

JOHN

gagrice · July 2004

But Cho said Toyota has no immediate plans to boost Prius output beyond the current level by, for example, building the car in a second plant.

I can understand you forgetting it was 25 posts back on this thread. I will post again. For you and all that think that Toyota is selling cars to help the environment. Wrong they only sell cars to make money. They build a very few environmentally great cars to boost their tarnished image.
To:mfullmer
15 year old cars that are well maintained are virtually the same as the current counterparts. My wife's 1990 LS400 is rated as clean as the 2004 LS430. Toyota has done very little in the last 15 years but sell cars. Oh and dribble a few hybrids over to us.

http://www.autoweek.com/cat_content.mv?port_code=autoweek&cat- _code=carnews&loc_code=index&content_code=07170640

Hybrids in the News

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles