Toyota and Subaru Agree to Jointly Develop BEV-dedicated Platform and BEV SUV

My Nissan Leaf Forum

Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

cwerdna

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,674
Location
SF Bay Area, CA
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/1-toyota-subaru-team-develop-053920291.html
https://global.toyota/en/newsroom/corporate/28377766.html
 
Great. Two companies who have dragged their feet on BEV development (especially batteries) will now work together on a BEV. I can already hear all of the "You first - we insist" meetings...
 
Toyota hasn't dragged their feet on batteries, they've put enormous resources into developing solid-state batteries, which they feel have the necessary characteristics to make mass-market BEVs mainstream without gov't subsidies and mandates. I tend to agree.

As for Subaru, they aren't big enough to do this on their own, and their previous collaboration with Toyota on the BRZ/FR-S worked out pretty well for both companies. I consider the Crosstrek PHEV less successful owing to its limited AER, but that's due more to Subaru's choice to keep their existing mechanical AWD set-up which, it should be noted, makes the car much better in low traction conditions than Toyota's part-time electric AWD system. Trade-offs, trade-offs. Given Subaru's customer demographic (which is to say, people with needs like mine*), a BEV from them makes no sense unless until both the car's range/charging speed and the necessary infrastructure to allow access to remote areas are in place - only a PHEV rather than a BEV makes any sense until those issues are resolved, and they're only starting to be now.


*This is from 2010, but much the same comments apply today:
Subaru's secret is that it understands the customers who drive its cars and has gotten smarter and more aggressive about reaching out to new ones who would feel at home as part of that clan. The company has the type of customer base that's particularly attractive to carmakers. The average household income of a Subaru owner is $88,000, the same as Honda Motor and $10,000 more than Toyota, says Alexander Edwards, president of market researcher Strategic Vision. Plus, Subaru buyers are three years younger than the industry average and a quarter more likely to have a college degree.

They are a thrifty lot, traditionally buying less car than they can afford. Some 36 percent pay cash. Subaru has played to that frugal bent by cutting roughly $1,200 from the $26,342 average price of its cars in 2007. Those cuts haven't killed profit margins because the lower prices allowed Subaru to reduce sales incentives and rebates on its cars substantially. Currently, the company gives about $1,333 per vehicle in incentives — the lowest level of any major car brand, says Thomas Doll, chief operating officer. That's almost half the $2,310 in incentives Toyota currently gives its buyers.

Much of the automaker's marketing focuses on cementing its connection to customers. Subaru's research shows them to be an eco-friendly bunch who value the freedom to go where they want, when they want. Unlike luxury car buyers, Subaruers are "customers who are not buying things, but experiences," says Chief Marketing Officer Tim Mahoney. That meshes nicely with Subaru's all-four-wheel-drive lineup, showcased by TV ads that star one of its cars caked with road grit, being applauded by admiring spectators on a suburban Main Street.
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/37274797/...ubaru-barrels-through-recession/#.XPnCCVF97IU
 
FWIW, for the US market, Toyota has done some compliance EVs like the gen 1 Rav4 EV, the (Tesla-powered gen 2) Rav4 EV and eQ. I physically saw at least one of https://www.toyota-body.co.jp/english/products/ev.html parked in some short-term rental spot in Japan. Will see if I can find the pics later.

I've test driven the gen 2 Rav4 EV at least once or twice. The first time was at Alt Car Expo 2012, within a few weeks after it went on sale.
 
Woopie, excuse me while I yawn. I wont hold my breath for these 2 losers to built an EV. They problly forget to add quickcharging like the rav4 ev. 2 companies who consistently trash talk EV's and say lithium batteries are not ready for prime time are now collaberating. It's about time these loser companies except the future is electric. This goes along nicely with the articles today stating that the hydrogen shortage is making Toyota Mirai drivers in norcal miserable.

Toyota has absolutely been dragging their feet on EV's. The gen 2 rav4 ev systems including the motor, inverters, ev control systems and traction batteries were built by Tesla not Toyota. Tesla and Toyota made 2500 of rav4 EVs from 2012-2015 and proclaimed hydrogen was the future and gave up on EVs. Maybe Toyota is realizing hydrogen cars suck compated to EVs and they are uggly looking to boot.
 
LeftieBiker said:
Unless Toyota has a solid state battery ready to go, then they are essentially foot-dragging, as with hydrogen.
Toyota's only building BEVs using current batteries because they have to owing to government mandates (particularly in China, the world's largest auto market), not because they think they are suitable for the mass market now. And how can they be foot-dragging with H2 when they've got one of only three production FCEVs on the market, with plans to considerably expand their production? Toyota doesn't work on the "5 years is an eternity" timescale of U.S. auto companies, which is why we have large numbers of HEVs around the world now.

As to another poster's statement that Toyota and Subaru are loser companies, if consistently being either 1st or 2nd in sales worldwide (Toyota) or having increased sales every year for the last decade or so (Subaru) including the recession while being consistently profitable makes them loser companies, then I'd suggest that a recalibration of "loser" is in order. We can only hope that a BEV-only company will someday become that kind of loser.

Now, it may be that solid-state batteries never develop to commercialization, but some kind of battery that offers similar advantages (higher energy density, better cycle life, faster recharging, greater safety) will likely be necessary to completely replace ICEs for all types of trips. ISTM the current ZEV full replacement alternative to ICEs is PHFCEVs, assuming that both fuel cells and H2 costs can be brought down to competitive levels. That way, you get the benefit of a battery pack's higher efficiency for routine local use, while not having to deal with its disadvantages of high weight and slow recharging (or need it to provide heat in winter) for road trips. Something along the lines of the i3 REx, but with enough power from the stack to cruise at say 80 mph while handling hotel loads, enough H2 for at least two but preferably 4+ hours at that speed, and a battery pack with AERs ranging from say 20-50 or maybe 60 miles, although the latter is probably too costly/bulky/heavy to be worthwhile. Plus the necessary fueling and charging infrastructure, of course.
 
LeftieBiker said:
Great. Two companies who have dragged their feet on BEV development (especially batteries) will now work together on a BEV. I can already hear all of the "You first - we insist" meetings...
+1
 
And how can they be foot-dragging with H2 when they've got one of only three production FCEVs on the market, with plans to considerably expand their production?

I'm sure you know this, but for the new people in the crowd: companies like Toyota and Honda are using (subsidized) research into hydrogen fuel cell vehicles as a way to appear to be making progress toward a zero emission fleet, while actually just milking what was always known to be a dead end - at least for cars - for the publicity and government funding. GM has already proven that they can make a viable, long-lived lithium battery pack, but still Toyota, Subaru, et all insist that lithium batteries just aren't ready (unlike hydrogen fuel cells!) to power fleets of cars.
 
I'm interested in what Toyota and Subaru develop because I hold both companies' engineering in high regard. As for why now ? That is the Chinese market talking.
 
LeftieBiker said:
And how can they be foot-dragging with H2 when they've got one of only three production FCEVs on the market, with plans to considerably expand their production?

I'm sure you know this, but for the new people in the crowd: companies like Toyota and Honda are using (subsidized) research into hydrogen fuel cell vehicles as a way to appear to be making progress toward a zero emission fleet, while actually just milking what was always known to be a dead end - at least for cars - for the publicity and government funding. GM has already proven that they can make a viable, long-lived lithium battery pack, but still Toyota, Subaru, et all insist that lithium batteries just aren't ready (unlike hydrogen fuel cells!) to power fleets of cars.
BEVs have benefited from an even greater amount of government funding. And no, GM hasn't proven that they can make a long-lived battery pack, nor has anyone else, unless you ignore degradation. My 16 y.o. ICE has exactly the same range it had when new - can any BEV say the same, even if it sits unused for that entire time? The advantage of liquid and gaseous fuels for energy storage (aside from the speed of replenishment and the energy density) is that the durability of that storage isn't affected by how much or how little of that storage you use, something that can't be said for batteries. I can run my ICE or any FCEV's tank from full to empty as often as I want, with zero effect on the longevity of the engine or stack. Until batteries can do likewise for a similar length of time, they will lack comparable durability.

All they can do now is fake that by employing a brute force approach, oversizing the pack (with the attendant weight, space and cost penalty) and holding capacity in reserve to be gradually released as the battery degrades. Given both the current and likely future constraints on battery manufacturing and possibly raw materials, this doesn't strike me as sustainable, even if it were desirable, as it wipes out much of a BEV's efficiency advantage.

It's entirely likely that FCEVs will face the same constraints, which is why the option of combining the two techs and being able to trade one off against the other by varying the percentage of each used strikes me as being a desirable option. If we don't have to go down that road, great.
 
SageBrush said:
I'm interested in what Toyota and Subaru develop because I hold both companies' engineering in high regard. As for why now ? That is the Chinese market talking.
+1, and increasingly the EU as well, which is to say mass BEV adoption is still dependent on government mandates and subsidies.
 
GRA said:
SageBrush said:
I'm interested in what Toyota and Subaru develop because I hold both companies' engineering in high regard. As for why now ? That is the Chinese market talking.
+1, and increasingly the EU as well, which is to say mass BEV adoption is still dependent on government mandates and subsidies.
Which is to say that China and the EU have recognized the externalized costs of fossils.

From my POV the only worrisome part of Toyota's plans is to source batteries from BYD and CATL. For now those are poor quality batteries for car use. Perhaps quality will improve in time.
 
SageBrush said:
GRA said:
SageBrush said:
I'm interested in what Toyota and Subaru develop because I hold both companies' engineering in high regard. As for why now ? That is the Chinese market talking.
+1, and increasingly the EU as well, which is to say mass BEV adoption is still dependent on government mandates and subsidies.
Which is to say that China and the EU have recognized the externalized costs of fossil fuels.
Sure. I'd love to see us take all the money we spend every year on Centcom and charge it proportionately to the oil companies, while simultaneously eliminating all energy subsidies, tax breaks etc. for all energy sources (to include PV and wind, of course). Then the flying monkeys appear, and I wake up. :lol:

SageBrush said:
From my POV the only worrisome part of Toyota's plans is to source batteries from BYD and CATL. For now those are poor quality batteries for car use. Perhaps quality will improve in time.
Probably necessary to get the Chinese government to allow them in at all, in a tech that China intends to dominate. ISTR China was making it very difficult for them to sell the LEAF (and other cars) there.
 
GRA said:
Toyota hasn't dragged their feet on batteries, they've put enormous resources into developing solid-state batteries, which they feel have the necessary characteristics to make mass-market BEVs mainstream without gov't subsidies and mandates. I tend to agree.
The way you get to mass market BEV is by building a lot of them. Note that Tesla improved the EPA range of the refreshed model S by 10%. That is how costs come down for all of the components. Batteries are improving rapidly in cost and at least for Tesla retaining capacity longer. I know you don't believe this, but my six year old model S 85 kwh has almost 95% of its original capacity.
 
Stoaty said:
Note that Tesla improved the EPA range of the refreshed model S by 10%.
I'm under the impression that the improvement in the Model S range is due to a change in motor. I don't think the battery changed at all.
 
Stoaty said:
GRA said:
Toyota hasn't dragged their feet on batteries, they've put enormous resources into developing solid-state batteries, which they feel have the necessary characteristics to make mass-market BEVs mainstream without gov't subsidies and mandates. I tend to agree.
The way you get to mass market BEV is by building a lot of them. Note that Tesla improved the EPA range of the refreshed model S by 10%. That is how costs come down for all of the components. Batteries are improving rapidly in cost and at least for Tesla retaining capacity longer. I know you don't believe this, but my six year old model S 85 kwh has almost 95% of its original capacity.
You get to mass market by building and selling a lot of something; if the market isn't there, building them just leaves you with a lot of unsold inventory. Or, as is the case now, you rely on subsidies and mandates to bribe/coerce people into buying that product. Toyota believes that batteries aren't where they need to be for BEVs to stand on their own yet for universal service with the necessary durability, and I agree, although they have reached the point where they are well-suited (if still too expensive) for local use, and can handle shorter (weekend) road trips okay.

I have no problem believing your claims about the battery in your S85, but unless my conditions, usage and battery are identical to yours, it's purely anecdotal. Here's a graph showing scatter; note that this is from Europe, I believe mainly owners in the Netherlands, and their climate and terrain is hardly representative of the ones any BEV I'd have would experience, as I'm frequently climbing and descending thousands of feet at high speed in hot and cold temps, not to mention driving across extremely hot deserts, and any BEV battery I'd have would experience a low cycle life due to only occasional use, but long calendar life: https://images.app.goo.gl/cWr6PqyRQwLuBMoN9

As with previous degradation charts this is all self-reported, which adds its own biases. Only the company has access to all battery data, including pack replacements, repairs etc.

Here's another example, at an extreme of cycle life and used SoC range:
Here’s how a Tesla Model S holds up after 400,000 miles in 3 years
https://electrek.co/2018/07/17/tesla-model-s-holds-up-400000-miles-3-years/

Now, my BEV wouldn't see usage like that in such a short period of time: I'm more concerned with calendar life than cycle life, although being forced to limit my usable SoC range for longevity makes the car's real-world range far less than the EPA number, and of course the oldest Model S battery is just reaching the age of seven now. We don't know exactly what will happen by the time it reaches the same age (16) my ICE is now, but we know it will continue to degrade at some unknown rate: accelerated tests are better than nothing, but they don't replicate real-world calendar degradation en masse by the general public.
 
Back
Top