Filed under: Hybrids/Alternative, Toyota, Australia
Toyota beats Holden, Ford: Will build Camry Hybrid in Australia
Back when North American markets shunned RWD cars in the '80s and '90s, Australians couldn't get enough of them. That sentiment has been rapidly changing as the blokes down under are increasingly looking to integrate more efficient transportation into the Outback. The Australian government is in on the hybrid game, too, and has promised that any domestic automaker that produces a hybrid will be greeted with a fist-full of orders. Toyota is listening, and the Japanese automaker has green-lighted the production of 10,000 Camry hybrids per year at its Altona plant in Australia, making it the first automaker to build a production hybrid in the land of Oz. The announcement comes only a few days after an Aussie legislator singled out Ford of Australia and Holden, GM's Australian division, as companies that need to produce hybrids domestically so the government doesn't have to buy imported Toyotas and Honda hybrids. Looks like it's time for the Australian government to make with the checks. Its domestically built hybrid is on its way care of the Japanese.
[Source: Car Advice]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
jondre3000 3:38PM (6/10/2008)
Toyota, you sneaky automaker, you.
Reply
Jason 3:51PM (6/10/2008)
Glancing at the headline, I thought Ford was going to be building Camrys in Australia. Haha
Reply
tanooki2003 3:59PM (6/10/2008)
This is good for Toyota and I must say that I have to give them a hand for always being 2 steps ahead of everyone else. It's no wonder why Toyota is slowly dominating the market.
I also must say that this is sneaky in sort of a funny way, kind of like seeing-someone-caught-with-their-pants-down-in-public funny.
Reply
eb110americana 4:00PM (6/10/2008)
Nice one on the pic, Autoblog. That's good stuff.
Reply
Torrent 4:01PM (6/10/2008)
Good move.
Reply
jg 4:02PM (6/10/2008)
'Back when North American markets shunned RWD cars in the '80s and '90s'
We didn't shun them. We were told FWD is better by people who preferred to build FWD cars so they could do the global platform sharing misadventure. These are the same people who told us Americans don't care about the interior that way they could justify not spending any money on developing nice interiors and instead used the same interior on every car they made.
Reply
psarhjinian 4:58PM (6/10/2008)
We were more or less forced to FWD because it wasn't (and still isn't) possible to make a rear-drive car with the same mileage, power and interior space as a front-drive car of the same exterior dimensions. Aside from rear-engine applications, the driveline eats too much space and wastes too much power.
Front-drive is a better choice for something like 90% of what most people do. True, it makes a poor sports car or heavy-load hauler, but otherwise it beats rear- and all-/four-wheel drive in what matters to consumers.
mk 5:30PM (6/10/2008)
Sorry, but I don't agree.
RWD with heavy truck components saps more power. Cars aren't built that way anymore, unless your name is Ford.
RWD cars are being made heavier and bigger in general, and that does sap power and efficiency. Look at G8, CTS, and the LX/LY cars. All near or over 2 tons.
AWD does use a bit more power due to having more moving parts, but the benefits FAR outweigh the cost once the pavement is anything but dry.
My AWD car does not suffer for space any more than any FWD car with similar exterior dimensions. a slightly high tunnel in front of the center rear seat, but that is hardly a disqualifier.
But I don't think RWD cars like Infiniti G37, IS350, BMW 3-series, or the like have less efficiency or interior space due to drivetrain than similar size and power FWD cars.
FWD is easier to assemble in a factory, and that means lower cost. It is as easy as that. And you are right, it is fine for most.
But the technical advantages of FWD are not that significant, and are far outshadowed by the inherent drawbacks, like front-heavy, understeering, and hot-running vehicles, which also have torque steer, inferior emergency handling characteristics, and traction effects.
I mostly agree with JG, except that not everyone bought into that. I did buy a FWD car once, and have driven a few others. But I have ALWAYS been a RWD guy, and now I am a big proponent of the blizzard conquering AWD of my Subaru Legacy.
But I do think most of the market were sold the least common denominator, because they believed the people selling them.
jake 3:09AM (6/11/2008)
@mk
"But the technical advantages of FWD are not that significant, and are far outshadowed by the inherent drawbacks, like front-heavy, understeering, and hot-running vehicles, which also have torque steer, inferior emergency handling characteristics, and traction effects."
Almost none of those apply if you are talking about cars for MOST people, like psarhjinia is. Understeer is safer than oversteer (something you can argue is a "drawback" of RWD), primarily b/c it is easier to deal with for most drivers (w/ oversteer you can spin out). FWD doesn't necessarily mean inferior emergency handling characteristics, that's much more affected by the suspension, chassis, and if the car has traction control. Mostly it's just that FWD isn't good for making a sporty car (front-heavy, understeer, doesn't really matter in most normal cars). There may be some benefit in terms of fuel efficiency too, probably not that much though. I wouldn't know though, I don't think there are many cars in the same segment as "Infiniti G37, IS350, BMW 3-series" w/ FWD to compare (are there even any?) and none of them are selling primarily for their fuel efficiency, so it's not like fuel efficiency matters that much in that segment anyways. But for most of the smaller or family cars, I would think it matters, even if FWD provides only a small boost in fuel efficiency.
Biggest advantage of FWD has to be cost and I don't think the disadvantages overshadow that advantage at all for most cars b/c most people drive FWD today & I don't think they really miss RWD that much. The people that mind the most are people who like sports cars (like most of us on Autoblog). So for sports cars, I agree the advantages of FWD "are far outshadowed by the inherent drawbacks", but for everyday commuter cars that most people are driving? Not so much.
DKB_SATX 6:24PM (6/10/2008)
Not that I'd trade my Legacy for another torque-steering front driver, but I think the hot engine compartment issue is more one of aerodynamics than front drive. Reducing the frontal openings and putting covers over and under the engines to manage airflow also reduces airflow around the engine that would carry heat away. Is there some reason FWD cars are even worse about that than any other modern cars?
Mohawk58 11:05PM (6/10/2008)
This may be fine and true but has anybody heard about Holden coming to the US? I got this from a friend and posted it. holden-usa.com goes to the Holden site...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UoGuJMyQT4k
WTF?
Reply
hidden_hunter 10:06AM (6/11/2008)
Our government also pissed away $75 mil as a hand out to toyota who said that they were going to do it anyway, toyota retracted that comment later and said they were greatful for the money.
Personally as an Australian I couldn't give two #%@# about them making a camry here, i'd much prefer to see the falcon or commodore as a hybrid than a camry, at least that way the design and manufacturing is taking place locally employing far more people in the process. Perhaps Holden/Ford could make a hybrid that doesn't drive like an old matress.
Reply
Smeagle 3:30AM (6/12/2008)
Isn't the design and manufacture taking place locally with the Camry?
Smeagle 5:22AM (6/12/2008)
Where is elsewhere? I think you will find it is a bit of a global project and some of the design process takes place in Melbourne.
hidden_hunter 3:35AM (6/12/2008)
No, we just make the car it's designed elsewhere.