Autoblog

It's a horrible business plan. There's no future in hybrids, they're just a fad.

Now, entirely electric vehicles maybe, but the hybrids on the road are an entirely different monster altogether.

↓↑report

There's certainly a future in:
* Abstracting the power generator from the drivetrain (as the Prius does)
* Reclaiming wasted energy (regen braking, idle-stop)
* Actively managing the powertrain so that the most efficient source is used at the apropriate time (electric at the get-go, gas/electric for full power, gas-only, cylinder deactivation, etc).

Hybrids don't have to mean gasoline/electric like the Prius. You could do diesel/electric. You could do hydrogen/electric, or fuel cell/ultracapacitor You could do diesel/propane/electric. You could, heck, do gasoline/diesel if you were insane. The idea of a hybrid is to reduce the net energy used to operate the car by more efficiently allocating the energy used.

Its a collection of technologies and implementations. The Synergy Drive in the Prius is a very good implementation; so is the GM Two-Mode. The GM BAS system is a particularly weak (one might say "lame") hybrid implementation, but even it's worth having if for no other reason than idle-stop and low-speed cruise that can cut urban emissions.

The problem with hybrid adoption is twofold: cost (which is easy to overcome) and luddite syndrome (which is harder). It helps if you can think of hybrid technologies in the same fashion as other energy-maximization or emissions-reduction techniques (CVTs, direct-injection, variable valve timing, fuel injection, engine management controllers, overdrive transmissions, unibody construction). Every one of the had it's detractors from the backyard mechanic set--they were all going to doom the industry, cars were going to be slow, unreliable and impossible to fix--and yet here we are today and cars are faster, cleaner and more fuel efficient than anything of the same size and power output of a decade or more ago.

I remember the hew and cry about fuel injection. Yes, there were some spectacularly bad implementations (thanks, GM!), but it really seems rather distance. I look back on exactly how crappy a carbuerated car was (really, they did suck about as much a FI car did, if not more) and I can barely remember what the fuss was about.

Think about it. You can get a Honda Accord with 240hp and can make 0-60 in nearly six seconds while meeting Tier 2 Bin 5 easily. A car of 25 years ago that could do -60 in six couldn't get T2b5 while _parked_. A car that could do it 40 years ago produced enough emissions to kill you in minutes. A Prius couldn't kill you if you turned it on and slept in the garage for a week.

Hybrids are here to stay. Maybe not in quite the way people expect, though.

↓↑report

/agree

↓↑report

Well, then, don't buy one. Toyota makes transport appliances and does very well by it.

Toyota makes the cars that people, by and large, want to buy. They made cars with "soul" (the MR2, Supra, IS300 and Corolla AE86) and they didn't sell. Heck, they even made sporty mainstreamers like the 2G RAV4 (easily the best handling compact SUV). You could even make an argument for the last-generation Celica (nice, light and tossable). And, to a T, every one of these cars failed to sell in North America, while the vanillamobile Camry sold nearly half a million per year.

Toyota can do without the "soul" dollars.

I think Toyota goes where the money leads. Chasing niches is all well and good if you're a small vendor and you can make money on it (Mazda, for example) but a company like Toyota cannot survive without mass-market sales.

Now, that being said, who else makes a mainstream car with "soul". Other than Ford (Fusion, which isn't selling) and the Focus (which they softened up) and Mazda, I can't see anyone doing it unless you stretch the definition of "soul" to include the Honda Accord. Everything else (Camry, Malibu, Aura, Sebring, Altima, etc) is a transportation appliance. Some may have bigger engines (Impala SS) or slightly racier lines (Altima), but lets be serious, other than Mazda's offerings, soulless pretty much defines 85% of the consumer market.

You want soul? That's ok, but I don't see why people complain about Toyota's products not having any. People don't want a soulful fridge or toaster, by and large, and those who do will pay through the nose for one that does (yes, a soulful toaster!). By the same token, people buy the cheapest car that meets their needs, which usually consist of "economical", "safe", "versatile" and "comfortable". Fun to drive is usually way, way down the list.

If Toyota wants to sell ten million cars per year, or wants to have an 80% hybrid fleet by 2012, I don't see why this should consitute a problem for people who wouldn't have bought one anyway.

↓↑report

No offense but I just roll my eyes whenever someone uses the word 'soulless' to describe an automobile. *rolls eyes*

↓↑report

They already announced that they planned on expanding the "Prius" brand into multiple cars to at least three. In which case its perfectly feasible; they did it with the Corolla.

Certainly not realistic with the only the current version, but they plan on having a much cheaper smaller version (to produce volume), as well as a larger Prius for families.

↓↑report

Ford and GM could compete in this area if they wanted to - witness Ford reflex and Chevy Volt. All they have to do is offer these products to the public insted of just making great concept cars.

↓↑report

Yeah, problem is; Toyota WILL sell more cars than GM. Not a matter of if, but when!

Michaelangelo is quoted to have said "it's better to set your goals too high and miss them than to set your goals low and hit them"

I wish the Detroit guys would get a little of that!

↓↑report