Hydrogen-electric catfight at Zero Emission Vehicle Symposium?
It was "Who Killed the Electric Car" vs. "Hydrogen is not Ready for Prime Time" at the Zero Emissions Vehicle symposium. At least that's the way automotive journalist Lou Ann Hammond described the action from her ringside seat.
She felt the tension as automakers stated their positions and expressed their goals. The hydrogen proponents - BMW, DaimlerChrysler, Honda and GM - made their case. Then came Toyota with its efforts firmly behind hybrids and future plug-in hybrids. But Toyota started with an essay on the benefits of hydrogen and a wrapup of its fuel-cell fleets. When the subject turned to "economic sense," everyone hoped Toyota would officially announce a new plug-in electric hybrid (PHEV) was coming.
First there was a history lesson of the RAV4 plug-in hybrid that used nickel metal hydride batteries. After the excessive ad costs and discounts, the program just didn't suceed. For everyone who purchased a RAV4 PHEV, 15 purchased a Prius. In other words, no plug-in hybrid joy at this event. In a summation statement from Hammond: "Not all buyers value technoogy the same way."
[Source: carlist.com]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Ron Fischer 3:22PM (10/10/2006)
There was no PIHEV RAV4, however, there was an EV RAV4.
Reply
Ron Fischer 3:50PM (10/10/2006)
Oh boy. There is quite a bit to comment on in Mr. Hermance's presentation. First, it's wonderful that he is providing all this raw data. Second, remember that this information is quite old now. Third, he's comparing apples to oranges. A battery-electric vehicle like the RAV-4 EV is not equivalent to a PIHEV, especially regarding the stated consumer concern about range. Other items in there, that the RAV-4 EV would be "per unit" more profitable than the Prius also says Toyota overpriced it. Finally, I leased a GM EV-1, a Ford Th!nk City and looked at the RAV-4 EV. As a prospective buyer I was sent a huge pile of paperwork, which was incomprehensible regarding the final price of the vehicle. If I had known it was only going to be $29,000 I would have bought it! So watch out, the article is mixing up topics, has old info and doesn't recognize possible biases in Mr. Hermance's information. Good luck out there!
Reply
Lou Ann Hammond 5:16PM (10/10/2006)
Hey Ron,
Just a couple things for you. First, I put phev when it should have been EV. sorry. I've corrected the artcile. You probably knew it was a mistake, but all the same.
Hermance was trying to show that on an advertising basis the EV cost $10K per car and the Prius cost $500 - this was on each car sold. He did this to bring home the point of how comopanies look at car sales. However, I am convinced that if Toyota had seen sales climbing instead of sliding off after the first couple of weeks they would have continued. Everyone knows they lost money with the Prius battery, but they kept on because sales were climbing as well as their reputation for being green. Bob Lutz from GM said that they spent $3 billion on advertising and won't get anywhere near the kudos Toyota got for selling hybrids. And GM had the technology along time ago.
The information Hermance gave was accurate and interesting and gave us insight. It doesn't mean Toyota won't do another EV, it just means that Toyota will have to find a way to make those cars have longer driving range. Hermance has said that NiMH batteries are too expensive, and the logical winner will be lithium-ion. Li-ION batteries aren't ready for primetime, mass production.
But give the manufacturers 3-4 years and I think you will see EVs again.
I video'd Hermance but my hand was shakey, so I turned it into an audio. If you want to listen to his full speech go to http://www.carlist.com/video/dave_hermance/dave_hermance_audio_only.mp3
If I've missed anything let me know. I'll pass these remarks to Dave as well.
Lou Ann Hammond
CEO, www.carlist.com
We're a brilliant nation. We have the ability, the science and the technology to be self-sufficient.
Now we need the will
Reply
Ron Fischer 9:58PM (10/10/2006)
Howdy Lou Ann (don't know if that's hyphenated),
I agree that as a look back Mr. Hermance's comments are an invaluable post-mortem. It explains the way Toyota, and likely other automakers, approached EVs.
However, I tried to give the interested buyer's viewpoint. Purchasing the Prius vs. RAV 4 EV was a radically different experience. I know. I bought a Prius after digging through the reams of paperwork they sent for the RAV-4 EV. For the Prius, I just walked into the showroom, took a test drive, made a deposit and waited a loong time ;-)
I would claim this: if the EV looked as nice as the Prius, and the buying experience was similar, Toyota would have seen a much different response.
If you sense concern in my comment, it's that Hermance appears to "down" the PIHEV concept on the basis of (old) responses to the RAV-4 EV.
But, you're right, given a few years, who can tell what will happen?
Best regards,
Ron
PS - Toyota has stated they only lost money in the first few years of Prius production and that it is now profitable.
Reply
doug korthof 8:20PM (10/27/2006)
There was no comparison between the Prius and the RAV4-EV. Toyota managers admitted that they only had so many RAV4-EV, and after they were all sold, they had no plans to make any more -- unless somewhere between 50,000 and 100,000 people firmly demanded them for future delivery, a phantasm that had no reality. And they knew it, people buy cars they can drive home that day, in general.
For Hermance to say that the RAV4-EV only sold one for each 15 Prius sales obscures the fact that Toyota was never in a position, had no plans, to mass-market the RAV4-EV.
For the first 5 years, the RAV4-EV was not even available for individual lease or for purchase by anyone; when the fleet-lease program ended, Toyota opened up the last 328 for sale to individuals. They were all gone in six months, despite only being available at a few dealers, and despite documented instances of inquirers being told there was no such vehicle, and directed to a Prius. One such person, B.N., was told there was no such vehicle as the RAV4-EV, but she persisted, and after a few weeks of search was able to buy one despite the obstacles. That's not the only case; if Toyota had made an effort to market the RAV4-EV, or if Toyota had put a small engine-generator in it (making it into a serial plug-in hybrid), and a plug to plug in anywhere, they would have made a market in them, and developed an ongoing program; but Toyota never tried to do that. In fact, development on the RAV4-EV ended in 1996, it used the 1996-1999 RAV4 body, and after 2000 there was a design change, so they didn't have any more bodies and had no interest in improving the vehicle, just getting rid of it. We were happy to pay the money to take them, and they are still running fine on Toyota-Panasonic NiMH batteries, proving Hermance wrong when he says "plug-in hybrids are not ready". The batteries work fine, and have been for 5 years and up to 105,000 miles per Toyota RAV4-EV.
All it would take is for Toyota to make the car, and it would sell, especially if it had a small gas engine-generator (40 hp is enough) for long trips.
Reply