Toyota Far Surpasses GM When It Comes to EV 21 comments
an article to
-
Font Size:
-
Print
- TweetThis
Toyota (NYSE:TM) has been working on the electrification of mass produced cars through the use of hybrid power trains and the in-house development and manufacturing of batteries for at least fifteen years. Toyota adopted the nickel-metal hydride [NiMH] battery and the hybrid power train using it in the late 1990s after the NiMH battery had been in development for a decade by its original inventor, Energy Conversion Devices, Inc., and by nearly all of the Japanese battery makers, such as Panasonic (PC) and Sanyo (SANYY.PK).
Toyota entered into a joint venture with Panasonic to manufacture and continue the development of the NiMH battery as it, Toyota, began to manufacture the Prius NiMH using hybrid and let the market beta test the power train. The Prius was so successful that Toyota bought out Panasonic's interest in the JV and took it in-house to preserve competitive advantage. GM rejected the hybrid concept and watched as Toyota swept the field to become the "green' car maker.
Toyota does not want to make the switch-over for the simple reason that NiMH battery hybrid power trains work well, are reliable, long lived, durable under extremes of weather, and can bring fuel efficiency to more than 50 miles per gallon while capable of 100 mph top speeds and ranges of 500 miles and more.
Toyota has rightly seen that the market for a golf-cart like Chevrolet Volt with a 40 mile range on a charge and costing as much as a third to a half more than a Prius is tiny and limited ultimately to those few with high discretionary incomes wanting to make a "green" statement.
Toyota estimates that the market for a plug-in hybrid with the characteristics of a Chevrolet Volt may be no more than a few thousand a year, a rate at which the car could never repay the investment made to develop and produce it.
Lithium-ion batteries are too expensive and their long term characteristics are unknown, so that Toyota foresees the high probability of a large degree of customer dissatisfaction as battery performance degrades from the original mediocre to unacceptable.
The NiMH battery, on the other hand, has proven to be durable, safe, long lived, and able to maintain acceptable performance characteristics for up to a decade.
The economics of lithium-ion batteries in plug-in hybrids are only marginally better than those of NiMH batteries in full hybrids. It would be as foolish for Toyota to give up the NiMH battery based Prius hybrid power train as it is for GM to continue to develop the Chevrolet Volt.
The test of time will soon take place. I suspect that Toyota by the end of the second decade of the twenty-first century will be a very large profitable maker of a range of passenger carrying vehicles with a variety of power trains and that GM will no longer be in business in 2020.
Related Articles
|
-
The Seeking Alpha 100
See allThe top 100 stock
market authors
selected for publication
Seeking Alpha 100 » -
Fastest Climbers
Authors with the largestSee all
increase in followers
in the last 7 days
Fastest Climbers » -
Top Commenters
Top commenters,See all
as ranked by their peers
Top Commenters » -
Top Instabloggers
The 100 most active
Instabloggers.-
1
David Fry
-
2
TraderMark
-
3
Don Dion
-
4
Cliff Wachtel
-
5
Mike Havrilla
Top Instabloggers » -
1
-
Top StockTalkers
Top
StockTalkers.-
1
David Fry
-
2
Cliff Wachtel
-
3
Mike Havrilla
-
4
David White
-
5
Hedged In
Top StockTalkers » -
1
You seem to be misinformed about the so-called advantages of NiMH propulsion batteries. See my analysis at ecdfan.blogspot.com/20...
The truth is, Toyota (as well as every other automaker, including Honda) is already moving to li-ion. www.greencarcongress.c...
NiMH is fine as a souped-up replacement of lead-acid batteries, but if we are talking about batteries for true plug-ins and EVs, it is simply impractical vs li-ion.
the word IS out on priuses. they do break, and when they break, they get TOWED; and, unless you live in a dense urban area, they get towed a long way. people in my neck of the woods (well, desert) drive priuses around town and keep them off the interstate. priuses still have all the moving parts, plus all those computers that have to integrate perfectly; they are more complicated, and in the long run HEVs will be less reliable, not more, it is simple math
Although, we would like to point that Toyota is no angel when it comes to EVs, having quoted some of its top managers saying when they built the RAV4 EV, they built too well and couldn't make money off of them. Indeed, there was very little maintenance cost. What did Toyota do, instead of "developing" this great technology? It simply yanked out the vehicles, despite a very strong following.
In the end, we believe lead-acid and their derivatives are great for city dwellers and heavy equipment, NiMH is a good compromise for performance/range/price and when it comes to pure performance, lithium tops it, albeit at a price premium.
The Electricnick.com team.
I agree with your conclusions, and I would like to add that I never said nor would I ever say that a Fortune 1000 global corporation is an angel. My point is that they were and remain better at planning for the long term than GM, or, for that matter, most of their competitors.
There is no overall win, place, or show rating for the three storage battery systems you mention unless you also pick a market segment, as you have done. The problem with the shallow reporting of the mainstream media is that it always looks upon the electrification of private passenger carrying motor vehicles as a winner takes all competition. This isn't only wrong its just plain stupid.
You ask a very good question, and I think it deserves an answer, which i do not think you (or I) will like.
One of the key engineering issues with the design of a small car to maximize fuel efficiency is that its aerodynamic drag be minimized so as to avoid wasting fuel. The Prius, Insight, and Ford Fusion hybrids, as well as the Chevrolet Volt, are designed with this as a primary concern.
Even if the design were to include a retractable hardtop with all of the motors, energy required to operate them, and the dead space required to store the retracted top there would be the problem of what aerodynamics do we get with the top "down.?"
Unfortunately for you and for me and for our sympaticos the loss of fuel efficiency from the design limitations of a convertible is considered to be negative economically for the target market. For every carefree boy or girl who wants the wind to blow through their (where in my case there was once) hair there are literally hundreds of customers who want fuel efficiency more.
The stated reason from every car maker for no convertible EV is that the electric energy required to raise and lower the top is just too high to warrant the complexity of the design and the loss of overall perofrmance. The truer reason is that those who want a convertible do not add up to a large enough market segment to warrant the expense of the design and production.
A Camero convertible with its high price tag will bring you to the showroom to ooh and aah while you settle for the hardtop. This is the very definition of a halo car.
For your information it is no secret that with the initial limited production of the Chevrolet Volt it will be impossible for any dealer to "fairly" get more than one or two of them in the entire first year. GM is already telling its delaers: Use it as a halo car. Don't sell it. Just let customesr ooh and aah and put them into Malibus and Impalas.
If the Volt is a flop then you can expect to see a convertible model, because by then it will only be a halo car.
Since lithium is so much more efficient (needed for renewable energy storage), we need them to become longer lasting and much cheaper than NiMH. This is supposedly what the national energy dude is up to!
I fully endorse your two comments. I just wonder why Mr. Lifton decided not to respond.
On May 21 12:30 PM ECD Fan wrote:
> To Wisdom: Well, Tesla is saying $700/kWh. And they are not lying
> (it is easy to check prices for quality 18650 cells in bulk). Yes,
> EVs, plug-ins, and hybrids with current technology and gas prices
> in the US are too costly and do not pay off, overall. But the
> question is: if one has to choose between li-ion and NiMH for propulsion,
> which is the better choice? Mr. Lifton seems to imply that NiMH is
> the better choice. He appears to be mistaken, given the facts.<br/>
The only way the government can force higher mileage (without destroying the US economy) is to raise the cost of gasoline to at least $4/gal. This would also go a long way to curing the healthcare "crisis" 1700 people's lifes were saved and billions of dollars were saved with $4 gasoline..
On May 21 08:40 AM Freya wrote:
> Great Article.
>
> US automakers should have learned from the 70's, instead they reverted
> to "same old, same old".
>
Or in your case "harroommph" should suffice.
The US automakers produced LEMONS by the Millions in the late 70's. Every lousy year, 1 million recall of this or that. That's what sent people away.
Many thanks for your extensively detailed reply. I was afraid it would be something like that. So, now the Toyota Solara convertible is looking better and better, the all-gasoline power notwithstanding. By the time I buy to replace my Chrysler Sebring convertible, the mileage on the Solara should really be up there. By the way, I just saw the VW "tear-drop" single-seater, supposedly coming out next year for $600 in China and getting 100 mpg with top speed of 62 mph. Is this for real? Your comments would be most appreciated.
On May 21 04:49 PM Jack Lifton wrote:
> Grampa Jim,
>
> You ask a very good question, and I think it deserves an answer,
> which i do not think you (or I) will like.
>
> One of the key engineering issues with the design of a small car
> to maximize fuel efficiency is that its aerodynamic drag be minimized
> so as to avoid wasting fuel. The Prius, Insight, and Ford Fusion
> hybrids, as well as the Chevrolet Volt, are designed with this as
> a primary concern.
>
> Even if the design were to include a retractable hardtop with all
> of the motors, energy required to operate them, and the dead space
> required to store the retracted top there would be the problem of
> what aerodynamics do we get with the top "down.?"
>
> Unfortunately for you and for me and for our sympaticos the loss
> of fuel efficiency from the design limitations of a convertible is
> considered to be negative economically for the target market. For
> every carefree boy or girl who wants the wind to blow through their
> (where in my case there was once) hair there are literally hundreds
> of customers who want fuel efficiency more.
>
> The stated reason from every car maker for no convertible EV is that
> the electric energy required to raise and lower the top is just too
> high to warrant the complexity of the design and the loss of overall
> perofrmance. The truer reason is that those who want a convertible
> do not add up to a large enough market segment to warrant the expense
> of the design and production.
>
> A Camero convertible with its high price tag will bring you to the
> showroom to ooh and aah while you settle for the hardtop. This is
> the very definition of a halo car.
>
> For your information it is no secret that with the initial limited
> production of the Chevrolet Volt it will be impossible for any dealer
> to "fairly" get more than one or two of them in the entire first
> year. GM is already telling its delaers: Use it as a halo car. Don't
> sell it. Just let customesr ooh and aah and put them into Malibus
> and Impalas.
>
> If the Volt is a flop then you can expect to see a convertible model,
> because by then it will only be a halo car.
Second, Lithium is vastly superior to NiMH in both energy and power densitys and specific energy and power. Yes the cost is higher, but is this not the very problem you are complaining about in the first place? Is it not been publicized over and over that the shortsightedness of auto companies are what killed them? Saying that the NiMH suffices is falling back into that path of shortsightedness. Economies of scale will reduce prices and lifetimes will be learned for Lithium, but only if we start to implement them now!