> I'm told that many agile techniques also had their genesis in his work
The “kanban” interfaces definitely originate from Toyota. Scrum was influenced by Toyota’s management techniques, among others. I believe other familiar concepts, e.g. “kaizen” or continuous improvement, also originate from Toyota.
Toyota learned it from western consultants, but made it work like a charm. I think they are the real champions of the lean philosophy, kanban, kaizen, 5s, etc.
But it was them learning a lot from working on looms, and other stuff at textile mills taught them how to max productivity.
Textiles making was already a very competitive industry in late 19th century, and the only way to push forward in productivity after looms were optimized to the max was to cut slack in between machines — management techniques.
There the manufacturers were stealing each other's ideas "within months" as Japan had no enforceable Western style patent system yet.
The electric andon was for example copied from Suzuki looms, where it prevented looms from dethreading when the machine runs out of thread, and requiring hours to manually rethread it again.
Stopping the entire mill for a few minutes to recharge a loom begins to make much more sense when you understand that the alternative is to stop it for hours.
>There the manufacturers were stealing each other's ideas "within months" as Japan had no enforceable Western style patent system yet.
The electric andon was for example copied from Suzuki looms, where it prevented looms from dethreading when the machine runs out of thread, and requiring hours to manually rethread it again.
How horrible! I’m glad the patent system saved us from this backwardness!
There are many books on the Toyota system, so that they have stolen the show. I have always suspected that other Japanese factories might have also had interesting production systems but only found one book about Honda. How did you know this detail about the electric andon originating at Suzuki? Can you suggest books on this topic?
My father worked for a defense manufacturer making airplanes and other stuff. One of his first projects was scheduling parts for manufacturing in the late 80s.
They joked at the time they used JIC (just in case) because they had so many random parts with no method to the madness. The scheduler worked out and they were able to move it off some high performance IBM (or similar) computer onto a PC that didn’t require a specialized IBM tech or support contract, written in C.
I work at Toyota, and they credit him on day one of training on the Toyota philosophy. Toyota's success is just a function of them listening to western consultants after the war when western companies would not.
There are also some broader macroeconomic reasons that these philosophies took root in post-war Japan. The combination of a weakened currency and strong New Deal style labor laws (that were proposed but thwarted by Detroit) was unique. Labor was cheap but politically dominant and materials were in short supply (I believe Shoichiro took power in the wake of a nearly catastrophic strike that gave him very few options beyond innovating on process).
Or maybe it is the result of filling hollow, generic advice with some meaning. I'd really love to hear the original advice given by western consultants.
Deming had some genuinely counterintuitive stuff to say. The focus on reducing variance was obvious in retrospect, once you do the math, but important at the time.
Now you imagine, how good do your ideas have to be an American coming to Japan just after World War II, and all the industry leaders of somewhere that was famously insular go "yeah, actually, this is good, this is what we should do, let's get this guy to meet everyone"?
Japan already did that in the 19th century when they were shopping around for foreign experts in industry and the military for their modernization. Not a stretch to do it again considering people involved in that process were still alive.
A strange variant of this is Japan's reaction to getting anti-Semitic propaganda from Europe was that these people secretly controlling the world sounded pretty cool and competent, so they tried getting them to immigrate. Though, it didn't really work out.
Japan’s destruction was extremely total; even if you did not get hit by the nukes, your city was most likely firebombed to the ground. The economy was in shambles, everyone who was still alive was struggling to eat as the logistics chain had totally broken down, etc.
In that context it is not really surprising that Japan rejected many of its old institutions and ways.
He probably had an influence but I find it curious that he always gets brought up around these topics, as if he's the primary explanatory variable for Japanese manufacturing success.
Fwiw, I hear about Deming so often that my bias is that he’s over represented! Then again, my dad was in the field so he was practically revered in my childhood.
The general storyline is that the US automakers mostly ignored Deming and he took his work to Japan. One always strongly suspects a degree of myth in such stories but certainly the Deming Japanese manufacturing story was standard fare for a lot of early-on DevOps presentations.
I am curious how many people are rethinking how aggressively to set up a JIT system in the wake of COVID and the supply chain issues, given it clearly cost many companies an astronomical amount of money in the end. Obviously you shouldn't build your entire company around rare, worst case scenarios, but there should probably be some consideration budgeted in for them IMO and it seems few companies were ready for rainy days.
A very very tiny (maybe not even applicable) example is how I always keep a camera or two when I buy new ones and don't sell them all off. You never know when your workhorse is going to breakdown. Just something I'm mulling over I guess!
The rainy days were more like months for a lot of companies though. Imagine storing enough fuel in case you couldn’t get fuel for 5 months… it’s just unreasonable. It costs too much. At some point you just have to accept that you depend on a functioning world
JIT also works really well when all your major manufacturing centers are an average 3-4 hour drive from each other. 6-8 at the furthest maybe.
JIT breaks down over global distances because “in time” and “instant” mean very different things even when moving nearly at the speed of sound. Even if no one embargoed anyone, you can’t beat the laws of physics.
>
JIT made sense for Toyota and they took steps to ensure their suppliers were beholden to them (that is they shipped whenever Toyota needed it).
Did that still hold true during the pandemic? I mean if you can't get stuff on the ships (huge part of the chain) they can't go out. It's not always a choice for suppliers as we saw.
Toyota had identified the strategic risk of chip supply some years earlier, and made sure they had access to large buffers of them, reducing the impact.
I remember a chap I know, who married a Russian, and he said the Iron-Curtain Soviet ethos was, to make two of everything, so that, when one inevitably borks, the other one can be used, or cannibalized for parts.
It was , as all big achievements, a team effort. And apparently Ohno is getting not that much of coverage in internal Toyota documents and history. He also did seem to EDIT: not EDIT be the nicest of persons. He absolutely was one of the drivers during the early days of TPS.
1. I owned a 1987 Corolla FX GTS coupe hatchback. Manual transmission, brilliant red, with fantastic sporty design and handling. Will never love a car like I did that one.
2. The JIT revolution that Toyota did so well in the 70s took a long time to spread to the US. I worked on a GM project in 2002-03 where I saw some crazy problems. The same part would be called different names in different countries, so while the South African plant was awash in some obscure part, the NJ factory had a shortage and was buying it at super expensive rates from a Japanese manufacturer. Their supply chain was an absolute shit show. More than 400k SKUs with duplicates, and in many cases, their cars were using different parts when they could have standardized to a common part. They had a poster in one of their meeting rooms saying "What would Toyota do?"
That era's Corolla is legendary even now (though people tend to focus on the JDM version that had 2HP more). The GT86 was meant to be a tribute to it, although how well it succeeds is up for discussion.
While this is the same "generation" as the legendary AE86, it's worth noting that the FX Corolla's are on the AE80/EE80 chassis, featuring a FWD drivetrain or F/F layout.
What made the AE86 such a legendary car was the F/R (RWD) layout and a 16valve 4A-GE engine. These were made alongside the FWD Corollas of the same years, and were quite substantially different.
Taking a small local car manufacturer and turning it into the one of the worlds biggest car makers, , overtaking all the US giants and creating the JIT process to revolutionise manufacturing is remarkable.
Toyota isn't just "one of the worlds biggest car makers" it is THE biggest car maker on the planet.
They sell 25% more cars than the Volkswagen group (second biggest car maker on the planet) which includes Volkswagen, SEAT, Skoda, Porsche, Bentley and Audi and 50% more than Stellantins (which includes Fiat, Citroen, Peaugeot, Jeep, Ram, Alfa Romeo, Chrysler, Opel and another 6 manufacturers).
It's just impressive how many cars Toyota sells.
Toyota and Lexus also generally turn buyers into recurrent customers as few brands on this planet do.
If "no one got fired for buying Intel", I think it's fair to say that "no one got it wrong by buying a Toyota/Lexus". I just can't think any car manufacturer that gives you as much as Toyota for the price you pay.
> They sell 25% more cars than the Volkswagen group (second biggest car maker on the planet)
No. Volkswagen and Toyota are pretty even. They swap positions as the biggest car maker. Volkswagen became the biggest in 2017 but Toyota became the biggest again in 2021:
It's even better than that: I am not a recurrent customer since my 2004 Corolla is still rolling along after all these years. Who knows maybe I'll buy another one someday, but it hasn't been an urgent priority.
It really is amazing. Another way to visualize this success is to consider how physically close you are to one of Toyota’s products right now, sort of a K-nearest neighbors idea. And how many of those were manufactured in Japan, and considered notable within their category (ex: 4Runner, RAV4 Prime).
Their ’90s sedans were the pinnacle of cars, so perfect that The Onion wrote their first non-satire piece on why a ‘93 Camry will outlive you and your bloodline.
My uncle still has a '93 Camry, to boot. I sent him that article like five years ago. He still has it. When it dies he will switch full-time to his backup vehicle, a 2005 Camry.
I've seen this news of Toyoda's passing posted across various social media channels and it's incredible to see how many Toyota owners have thanked him posthumously. I remember that when Steve Jobs died. This seems similar in a sense.
They exist in very similar segments portions of their respective industries serving very similar customer demographics (in North America). Naturally there is going to be quite a bit of evolutionary convergence.
I disagree. The main reason I buy Apple laptops is the physical reliability... they absolutely make low end (feature wise) models that still have top notch physical quality and longevity, including historically making super bare bones school/education targeted models. I know it's a premium model, but my 2010 Macbook Pro is still going strong with zero repairs other than two battery replacements that took about 5 minutes each, after over a decade of regular hard travel use. I think I'd be lucky to get 6 months from the average PC laptop with use like that.
I'd argue that my iPhone SE2 is also a product that is very much a low end non-luxury phone, but with unparalleled physical build quality. I purchased it from a budget box store as part of a cheap prepaid cell phone plan- total ownership cost will be far less than the cheapest Android phones targeted at the 3rd world, if you consider how much longer it will likely last.
> I know it's a premium model, but my 2010 Macbook Pro is still going strong with zero repairs other than two battery replacements that took about 5 minutes each, after over a decade of regular hard travel use. I think I'd be lucky to get 6 months from the average PC laptop with use like that.
Tip: don't bother with consumer grade PC laptops if you are after longevity. Only buy "business grade" machines like Lenovo ThinkPads, Dell Latitudes, HP EliteBook/ZBooks.
> The main reason I buy Apple laptops is the physical reliability...
My impression is that they've had several years of poor quality and bad design decisions with their laptops. Some models were banned from flights due to battery fire issues [1]. They had keyboard problems for many years [2]. And they've had a lot of recalls [3].
Fortunately the quality seems to have improved with the M1/M2 macbooks.
Yeah, they go quite a bit back when it comes to full iOS updates, and even further back when it comes to security updates.[0]
The oldest iPhone that supports the most recent full iOS version update (iOS 16) is iPhone 8, which was released in 2017. And they released a security update for iOS 12 in August of 2022 that supports iPhone 5s (released in 2013).
That would make it 5 years for full OS updates and 9 years for security updates.
Lexus entering Japan started the slow decline of Toyota-badged luxury sedans. The Alphard is still an upper-middle class status symbol, but the people who saw Toyota as a luxury brand bought their last Crown ten years ago and are fast approaching 80. I suspect that is also the reason for the unification of Toyota badges and the Hail Mary design of the new Crown.
That's highly dependent upon which country you're in. In the United States, Toyota has a separate brand for their luxury offerings (Lexus), and so what you say is true. But in other countries, those nice Lexus cars are sold as Toyotas.
Yes, I came to say that if I were to buy a luxury car, it would be a fancy Toyota AKA Lexus. I wonder if most people aren't aware of that? And Cadillac is just GM? It's hardly unusual in the American market - I believe it's been called badge engineering for at least as long as I've been alive.
Apple doesn't prioritize reliability because that's not what their subset of upper middle class consumers want in a phone. Toyota doesn't prioritize cost or feature/performance parity because that's not what their subset of upper middle class consumers want in a vehicle.
They both make products that are about as high as you can go in their respective market segments without getting into pure luxury and conspicuous consumption type purchases and refuse to go down-market lest they sully their brand image. In both cases they lather it up with a pretext so buyers don't feel like they're indulging in a luxury purchase. In apple's case they tightly integrate the hardware and software to assure a homogeneous user experience. In Toyota's case they try and dominate the 3rd party rankings on reliability. Of course, when you compare to the "next best" think in their class, like a Google or Samsung flagship phone or a Honda Accord you'll find that the actual difference is razor thin and that not having any "value priced garbage products" is really what's doing the reputational heavy lifting. Not wading into value priced territory is also very useful to the great many of each brand's respective customers who are willing to pay a huge premium to not have to think about it. A Toyota product may be overpriced for it's features/performance but if you just want an A to B appliance in a particular form factor it will do so with minimal maintenance expense. You won't have to waste your precious brainpower thinking about an expensive 100k service or fiddling with some gimmick feature. And on the apple side of things their tight control over the hardware-software combo results in a pretty strong guarantee of a high minimum user experience. If you just want a "nice phone" and don't wanna think about software versions, various flavors of android OS and stuff like that you can simply buy whatever iphone is in your budget? Is it the nicest phone in your budget, no. But you didn't have to waste precious brain-power comparing all the various Android options.
Basically they both charge a premium for products that "just work" and they refuse to get into market niches where they can't do that, much to the benefit of their brand image.
The above applies to North America only. Toyota makes a more diverse set of stuff globally and Apple doesn't dominate the same buyer demographics globally.
I don't know if Apple prioritizes reliability in their phones, but that seems to be an outcome of whatever they do prioritize.
My family's four iPhones are: 2 iPhone X (Nov 2017), 1 XS Max (Sept 2018), and 1 13 (Sept 2021, only bought in order to hand-down one of the X to our kid). Those phones are 5, 5, 4.5, and 1.5 years old. Each of the 3 older phones was bought used when the next phone generation was released. Across our ownership, I've replaced two screens and three batteries (two were needed and one was "while I'm replacing the screen, it's easy and would be needed soon"), all DIY.
I doubt we'll replace any of these phones in the next 2 years. The iPhone 8 is still getting software updates to iOS 16, so I expect the X will keep getting updates for several more years.
I had a Toyota. It was a great car, and a real testament to the engineering prowess Toyoda established.
I see very clear, very interesting Innovator's Dilemma vibes, though, in how widely they've missed the boat on EVs. I wouldn't be surprised if we see Toyota lose its dominance in the coming decade. It's sad, since the Prius was such a gamechanger.
Maybe the passing of the torch here will let them start to catch up.
Toyota does not - and as far as I can tell, has never - led the world in cutting-edge technology. They are a very conservative company. This does not mean they have missed the boat. Even their hybrids were not first-to-market. Toyota did not invent the hybrid ICE/electric car; they simply implemented it better than their competitors.
Around 10 years ago, direct injection was the new thing for ICE vehicles. It improved engine efficiency at the cost of extra complexity. Toyota initially refused to add direct injection to their engines. Automotive writers at the time believed Toyota was falling behind with its outdated engine technology. They believed other automakers would surpass Toyota's efficiency.
What actually happened was a line of bad engines for VW, GM, and Kia/Hyundai. They lost a considerable amount of money and reputation due to engine failures caused by carbon buildup in their direct injected engines. Meanwhile, Toyota eventually launched their own implementation of direct injection. It was a combination of both high-pressure direct injection and port injection. The engine ran in different modes depending on the load and operating temperature. This gave them the same efficiency gains (though several years later than their competition) while avoiding the common failure modes of other companies' engines.
Don't write off the sleeping giant. Maybe Toyota will lose its dominance, or maybe they'll show up late to the party having learned from everyone else's mistakes.
The 1AZ-FSE was their first GDI engine, it was fitted to the T220 Avensis back in the early noughts.
Incidentally, the implementation you describe is the 'D-4S' system, Toyota D-4 engines are purely direct injection with the same carbon buildup issues as all the others...which isn't the end of the world as the inlet valves and manifold can be walnut blasted to remove the deposits but it's not the easiest job to do.
I'm still in the camp that they did not in fact miss the boat on EVs. We, globally, are still very far off until EV adoption and probably better off focusing on more important things versus directly on EVs. Also Toyota was pioneer in EVs and I think you've discounted that if you're really looked at it on a bigger view of things
I agree. I have a 2013 Prius C that cost me $20K brand new and gets 50mpg without even trying. My fuel expenses are negligible. The new 2023 Prius gets even better milage and has TWICE the horsepower (99 vs 196).
Before the Prius I had a 2000 Lexus ES with 200HP and I got about 17MPG. The advancement in ~20 years is incredible. Gas savings alone covered more than half of my loan payments each month.
You could be correct, but if I had to guess they would need to make a sea-change in their attitude towards full electrification of their product lines, and we haven't really seen that externally.
It could also be the case that electric/battery tech ushers in new modes of transport that aren't "car", "motorcycle" or "bicycle" thus upending the status quo.
It's possible, yes. Empires rise. Empires fall. Toyota will adapt and 'missed the boat' implies that that's it; they're done. They're absolutely not done. They were also miles ahead of others when they introduced the Prius in the 90s. It's not as if they haven't been engineering and mass-producing electric powertrains for a long time. One strong reason they have not missed the boat? No one yet producing an EV right now even comes within arms-reach of Toyota's quality. People forget that it is, in fact, Toyota's legendary quality+reliability+value that makes it a brand people adore and come back to again, and again, and again. When they make an EV (and they will, eventually) that it is as good as the quality Toyota has built its foundation on, they will absolutely CRUSH it.
A lot of people who own plug-in hybrids don't really ever plug them in which makes them worse than gasoline cars or non-plugin hybrids because of added weight.
I believe this stems from a paper that came out about how some large percentage of PHEVs never plugged in. The large caveat was that a large amount of that data was from company vehicles for employees. Which those employees have very little incentive to actually plug in since typically the company pays for fuel costs.
In plenty of countries those plug-in hybrids were sold with lots of up front subsidies and reduced running costs due to lower taxation for the first five years.
My wife had a plug-in Ford C-Max Energi for a few years. We always plugged it in but it only did ~20 miles on pure EV so long term our mileage was around 40MPG. My Prius easily beats that and I'm not paying an extra $20 a month on my electric bill.
You're right though, when we bought it according the the computer the previous owner had never charged it. The charge cable wasn't even out of it's plastic. When we sold it to Car Max the new owner never setup their Ford Sync so we kept getting reports by email and they never charged it once.
There's a sweet spot that Ford missed with the C-Max.
I have a 2nd gen Volt. 50-60 miles on all electric when it's warm, 30-40 when it's cold. That, by the way, will bite a lot of people in the ass as they try EVs.
Anyways, 62,000 miles on the Volt, lifetime MPG is in the 170s.
I think the key is the Volt was designed to be a great plug in hybrid from the start. The C-Max had an ICE only, standard hybrid, and plug-in hybrid version. Our plug-in literally had two separate high voltage batteries. Half the cargo bay was just a carpeted box full of batteries.
It was also terribly engineered. Plugging the car into the wall didn't top off the 12V battery and whatever mechanism it used to do so was inadequate so you'd go out in the morning to a stone dead car quite often. The number of recalls was insane, though we got a lot of free oil changes out of that as the dealer usually threw them in free during recall services.
Do we actually have proof for this or is just FUD, to be frank?
I heard the same thing but then after talking to some owners, sure, the ones that couldn't easily charge them did that, but everyone that could charge them, did, and liked it.
The electric motor is zippy, the car is silent, the range is enough for the average commute.
They generally like it and what you're saying sounds more like a early days myth.
This was true several years ago but if you look now there are hundreds of GWh of cell plants coming online over the next 3 years. Toyota is very late here and won’t be able to produce dedicated BEVs at scale until 2026+. Competitors will already be on their 2nd or 3rd generation BEV platforms by then.
I'm happy to bet it's not happening. Japan is far too busy fighting amongst themselves and/or catering to themselves first and foremost.
South Korea, Taiwan, and China slayed Japan because they played for keeps and pulled no punches. Japan simply does not have the correct mindset to deliberately (re)conquer and succeed.
If this sounds brutal and/or flippant, allow me to say that I'm saying this as a Japanese-American. I will happily use my blood to shit talk my heritage, because honestly it's a fucking shame and it's even more shameful that Japan can't (read: won't) dig themselves out.
But don’t Toyota and Honda still own the sedan market in the US (Corolla/Prius/Camry/Civic/Accord)? I’m pretty sure they’re stronger than the Koreans in the compact/midsize SUV market too (CRV, RAV4). Koreans might be stronger elsewhere, not sure.
Cars are one of the few industries Japan still holds the crown of, but if past track records in other industries are anything to go by I expect that a changing of the crown is only a matter of time.
Anyone who is familiar with computing history should know of Japan's practically disasterous fall from grace in nearly everything related to the computer industry. I've also seen that exact cycle of falling play out countless times in their other industries.
I'm sick and tired of Japan continuing to lose and eat dirt, I would be ecstatic to be proven wrong. But Japan just doesn't have the mindset to (re)win customers in the 21st century.
My Ioniq is a great EV (though dated) and it’s not even a pure EV platform (also available as PHEV and ICE). Toyota only need to throw the ICE out of a PHEV and increase battery size, and they‘ll have an EV that’s probably better build quality than 90% of the market.
They delivered a well-liked pure EV in the 90s that had a queue of people who wanted one. Chevron bought up a company with key battery patents, sued the RAV4 out of existence, wrote licensing arrangements such that no vehicle battery could be more than a couple of kWh in capacity, and went to court to have the results of their legal action kept quiet.
Toyota's hybrids have had the maximum battery allowed by that Chevron lawsuit. I am not surprised that they would be reluctant to get involved in being on any kind of electric leading edge again given that the evidence is that their entire product line could be destroyed on a whim.
Why would they lose their dominance? Are other manufacturers quality standards coming close to Toyota? I think not...
EVs don't work for me and my use case. I plan on keeping my Land Cruiser forever. My kids are starting to drive now, with one starting these past few months. In a Toyota, of course. As will the next two.
Toyota is probably the only brand loyalty I have and yah, I’ll happily keep buying either gas or hybrids from them.
I’m in no rush for electric, but when Toyota makes an EV Corolla that’ll be a sign to me EVs are actually ready for normal people. They’ve rightfully gained my trust and their seal of approval on car tech does matter to me.
I actually quite like them but I refuse to pay for than 40kCAD for a car with the typical GM quality issues. Interior wise they're barely better than the cheapest Chev you can buy and if I'm spending that much it needs to at least be comfy.
I remember being shocked in the 90s at finding out the Toyota Corolla had the highest value retention of any car according to the Kelly Blue Book. And then there was the NUMMI joint-venture of Toyota and GM and the same exact cars that would come out of that factory would have different value retention. Obviously the GM car would depreciate more in value. Brand reputation clearly matters.
Better reputation -> charge more money -> poorer people who are gonna use your product at 11/10ths and try and skate by with the bare minimum of proactive maintenance buy it less -> the average example on the road is in better condition for its age -> high end consumers go "hey those things are lasting well I'll buy one" -> your average customer is richer so you don't have to cheap out in as many places on your product -> GoTo(step 2).
Of course the process needs to be kick started with a couple actual good products but once it takes off you're basically home free if you don't f it up.
The whole "the same GM car deprecated more" makes for great online virtue points from fanboys but it's not exactly illustrative of anything that isn't well known to be from other factors. The versions of otherwise identical cars that are preferred by higher end consumers will hold value better because they get treated better and kept nicer resulting in higher value at any given age/mileage. You can see this trend in action if you cross shop badge engineered cars that are old enough that purchase price no longer has any bearing on price.
Yep. The opposite feedback loop is “big Altima energy”. The $1000 cheaper new cars become the preferred cars of those who don’t care or can’t really afford it, which end up being the cheapest and most abused used cars. Which end up on buy-here-pay-here lots. And repeat.
I have to wonder if maybe it was the way GM and their dealers marketed these vehicles. The Prizm wasn't sold in my market so I don't truly know, but I think brand loyalty on the dealers' side saw them push customers to the more true-blue options like the cavalier. One doesn't have to spend long at your average street corner to see how that turned out for the customer.
Lots of people saying Toyota missed the boat on EVs. I'm not convinced the technology, infrastructure or battery supply is ready for true mass production of EVs. Toyota makes 10 million cars a year, they'll be selling good EVs soon enough to put Tesla to shame.
As an owner of BEV (Skoda Enyaq) I agree with this sentiment. My experience is that BEVs are expensive to purchase and expensive to use. This is a niche car for rich people, not Toyota Prius for common folk. I am currently getting rid of the car and going back to ICE because my whole experience was a painful joke.
Toyota is getting ridiculed today, but they will be last one who will be laughing, when prices for BEV and for batteries are currently going up [0]
I've had a Nissan LEAF for 8.5 years. It was more expensive to buy than the alternative I was considering (a used ICE), but wasn't that much more expensive than a comparable new car (ignoring incentives, which made the LEAF cheaper). Plenty of people were spending ~$30K on new 4-door sedans in 2014.
The running costs have been noticeably lower, driven by lower (almost non-existent) maintenance costs. I'm about to buy two tires for it, but other than that, my #1 maintenance expense has been wiper blades and #2 expense washer fluid.
Gasoline and Diesel is also very pricey. If you charge at home, electric cars are a (small) fraction of the price to ‘fill up’, even in Europe; if not, likely not worth it.
AND!!! compared to a similar sized car with an anemic little 4 cylinder, the leaf is much better to drive, IMO. (I have a 2020 model). Its not a mercedes, but the torque off the line is so much better.
However the whole EU market can't return to ICEs because of fleet emission limits, which are now 95g CO2/km and from 2025 will be 15% lower, with other changes too. So my guess is, people who can afford it (including charging infra) will have EVs which will get better and more expensive and the rest will not buy new cars. Maybe the market will shift to smaller forms of mobility, we'll see.
> The European Union’s CO2 emissions are on course to decline this year despite an increase in coal emissions. The rise in European coal use is expected to be temporary, with a strong pipeline of new renewable projects forecast to add around 50 gigawatts of capacity in 2023. These additions would generate more electricity than the expected increase in coal-fired power generation in the EU in 2022.
There seems to be some sort of exceptional geopolitical event involving Russia and Ukraine. You may have heard of it. It's affecting the global energy market.
I am coming from an Eastern Block. It was quite common during communism to drive 20-30 years old cars. I think that Eastern Europe will teach the western part how to properly stagnate.
It was not. Cars of that era didn't last, as a matter of fact, they would last much less (and require far more maintenance) than the cars of today.
It is true that certain cars (Trabi comes to mind) could be fixed roadside with a screwdriver and a hammer usually, but >100k kilometers life was still rare - people simply used their cars less and for shorter trips those days.
It was quite common.
You are right the cars didn't last long and required more maintenance. But also they were much simpler, with lower tolerance parts, so it was easier for lower-skilled mechanics to repair them. Many people around me did that.
Another thing is most people used cars much less as you correctly write, so the lower endurance and reliability mattered less.
This is not a sentimental view of good old times, the cars were really bad, killed many people etc, but the fact is because people didn't have a choice they hanged on to them as long as they could. Once modern cars became available, everyone ditched the old ones as fast as they could afford it.
What is currently happenning with cars is not that they last shorter, but after the first life mostly in western/central Europe they are sold to the east and south where they continue to work for many more years, but out of our sight.
Charging - Expensive and epic waste of time. Ionity leading the way with 0.79EUR/kWh and still you are there for 40 minutes and that's charger which can give me 150kW on start of charging. Slower chargers, like stupid 50kW? Yeah, 2 hours charging and they are wide and far. 20kW and weaker chargers? You are playing lottery with compatibility buddy. Yes it is there, yes it is on, but it does not like your car. What's the point of CCS when there are different incompatible software stacks in power delivery protocol?
Car almost left me stranded in middle of France north of Troyes, when it lead me to charge to Freshmile, which was not compatible at all (car navigation was thinking otherwise). I needed to charge at local Citroen dealership to get 30km so I can get to Ionity in Troyes.
Applications - Frustrating chapter for itself. New charger, new app to be installed, account created in etc.... And new problems to be solved, like their pay gate does not like your Visa card. Huh? Or they will happily take your money as a credit for charging and then you will figure out that your car is not compatible with the charger. Money back? F You!
This could have been resolved by installing normal debit card terminals, like are in stores. Just let me use my NFC card / phone to pay what I have charged. Like on an automated gas pump or when I am buying groceries. IT COULD BE THAT SIMPLE.
Driving - 2 hours going 130km/h on highway, then you need to charge for cca 1 hour. So your average traveling speed can't exceed 90km/h. That's an epic waste of time.
Charging at home - I moved to another country, where I can't charge at a driveway, because now I am living in the apartment. So I am forced to charge 2km away on a 20kW charger. Completely uncomfortable.
And then seeing ban on ICE cars 12 years away and there is 50% of people in EU living in apartments... yeah after my experience, I am confident that this will get postponed.
I think your experience reflects more your choise of car than EVs as technology. I have been driving Tesla happily for 3.5 years. I regularly make long distance trips to remote areas of Finland. No problems whatsoever. I pay 25 snt/kWh for on-the-road charging with Elli membership, about 12 snt at home.
> The moment when you will get off the supercharger network with your tesla
There are 21 Tesla charging sites in Finland and 14 of them are now open to all EVs. So you could be making use of two thirds of Tesla's Finnish charging sites with your Skoda Enyaq right now.
Lol on 14 open superchargers. Tried Tesla app. It told me to insert VIN of my car, to tell me that this is not Tesla VIN. Well no shit Sherlock. So even if I would like to charge (and pay) on superchargers, I can't.
Or, hear me out, there could be NFC payment terminal instead of registering on ANOTHER STUPID APPLICATION
Even public transportation trams and buses in Eastern Europe have NFC terminals on board to buy tickets. Why is it so hard for a damn charger in Western Europe to have one?
If you’ve owned any EV besides a Tesla you know this is sadly the cold hard truth. I’m not sure why EV owners rush in to try and refute the problems with charging but as a Bolt EV owner it was a terrible experience.
Imagine if every time you tried to use a gas station you needed to install a buggy, crashing phone App that required you to type in your credit card and other personal information. Imagine if 50% of gas stations simply didn’t work and you get stranded somewhere far from home having to sleep in your car. This is the reality of owning a non-Tesla EV. After a year of this and owning a rapidly depreciating car I said screw it and went back to gas.
I don't need a "practical" application of local gas network to buy gas.
I don't need a "practical" application of local supermarket chain to buy grocieries.
Why should I tolerate buggy applications to charge an electric car on incompatible chargers? Why there isn't an NFC terminal which I can find almost in any store in EU and today even on vending machines? The chargers already have internet connection, so where is the problem? I am not a masochist and I am refusing to live in this customer hell. This is one of the reasons why I am selling this joke of a car and going back to ICE.
Oh, so 12 years from now only BEVs will be available, what will be your recommendation to people who will have same issues like I do? Tell them that they are masochists, who don't understand the car and they should not have bought it at a first place, despite the fact, that their choices are artificially limited?
I bought the car using my own money to get the experience with BEV and I found out, that it sucks big time. I was expecting that it might be a little bit inconvenient, but I was not expecting to be such a massive bag of problems with BEV proponents like you trying to gaslight me that user is the problem.
> what will be your recommendation to people who will have same issues like I do?
They won't have the same issues like you do. You're doing a lot of this to yourself.
> BEV proponents like you trying to gaslight me that user is the problem.
No one's gaslighting you. You're refusing to use the tools that will make it easier for you.
Are you using A Better Routeplanner yet? Configure it to prioritise your preferred charging networks so you don't end up trying to charge on Freshmile again.
Not the parent you're replying to, but this comment is very indicative of the problem being addressed. With an ICE car, or even a hybrid, this is just not a consideration. I don't need to plan my route around fuel stops unless I'm going somewhere well away from 'civilization'.
The issues described are not insolvable, but dismissing that they aren't currently solved is a little bit like sticking your head in the sand. Suggesting a better route planner just seems a little naive in that context.
What a bizarre thing to say. EV charging infrastructure is still being built out. It's still the case that there aren't EV chargers absolutely everywhere.
Until there are many more EV chargers in more locations such that you don't have to think about it, you use a route planner to easily find the charger locations that exist now.
I retort that I find it bizarre that you somehow think that for most people, offering them a solution that strictly requires more effort on their part is preferable.
> Until there are many more EV chargers in more locations such that you don't have to think about it, you use a route planner to easily find the charger locations that exist now.
Or I use an ICE car and not have to deal with this, like at all.
> offering them a solution that strictly requires more effort on their part is preferable
The whole point of suggesting a route planner is to reduce the effort on their part.
Any change of vehicle is a tradeoff - maybe it's faster but has worse fuel economy. Maybe it's got more passenger space but the navigation is worse. Ways to mitigate the downsides are a good thing.
> Or I use an ICE car and not have to deal with this, like at all.
Sure, but there are significant downsides to ICE. The tradeoffs may be worth it or they may not. Would you call it naive to talk about e.g. catalytic converters on ICEs to reduce their emissions (which then end up getting stolen - whereas I can use an electric car and not have to deal with that, like at all)
> The whole point of suggesting a route planner is to reduce the effort on their part.
How would having to use a route planner be less effort than not having to use one at all? With my ICE car, I very rarely have to concern myself with being able to find a gas station in range. I also very rarely would need to use any sort of route planning software to find a gas station in range.
> Ways to mitigate the downsides are a good thing.
Yes, but the problem arises when you're mitigating downsides you added yourself. For a _lot_ of people, EVs have many downsides that they currently do not need to suffer from with ICE or hybrid cars. Yes, route planning software might mitigate the issue; I can imagine having a mode in Google or Apple maps that lets you route plan around charging stations could work quite well. But you're still stacking having to do that on top of the other downsides EVs currently have. Gas stations on the other hand are widely available, and on longer routes (in the US at least) often marked on roadside signage that makes them very accessible. If you're planning around charging stations you may also not have opportunities to take more interesting or faster routes, which could be a downside depending on the purpose of your trip.
> Sure, but there are significant downsides to ICE.
No disagreement from me there. But these downsides are largely well known, and either very diffuse or tend to have well-known mitigations at this point. When you change that set of downsides, there will be an adjustment period.
> Would you call it naive [...]
No, absolutely not. Those are real problems too. What I was referring to was the way you seemed to offer a dismissive solution to the problem that the GP described. A lot of EV proponents I've found are very dismissive of the real-world issues of EVs that currently exist, and the additional challenges many people would face if they were to switch to an EV right now. Dismissing these things makes it harder to address and improve them.
To be clear, a century ago we might have been having the same discussion about ICE cars, and how the infrastructure is not ready yet; In a way, this reminds me of refactoring core components of a large intertwined codebase. Often you can't just flip a switch and just change everything, it has to be gradual, building up it's own support over time and effort -- but many an inexperienced (and dare I say naive) engineer would still try to change it all at once.
If you're too scared to own an EV, if the EV chargers frighten you, if you find the leading edge too edgy, if the adoption is too early for you, then the solution in your case is simple: don't buy an EV.
In the meantime, EV owners can use A Better Routeplanner and configure it to prioritise their preferred charging networks (via Settings -> Charging Networks -> Network Preferences) to find charging sites from charging providers they like to use.
So, in TheLoafOfBread's case, if he prefers to use let's say Ionity, Tesla, BP, and FastNed with his Skoda Enyaq he can add them to the network preferences in ABRP.
Then when TheLoafOfBread plans his next road trip, A Better Routeplanner will plan a route which uses those charging sites in preference to other charging sites. TheLoafOfBread will find that most of the time he'll be charging at one of his preferred charging providers and he'll be much happier.
> If you're too scared to own an EV, if the EV chargers frighten you, if you find the leading edge too edgy, if the adoption is too early for you, then the solution in your case is simple: don't buy an EV.
Which is exactly what I have done. Driving an EV is great, owning one in my situation would introduce more problems than it solves. Many of the factors that affect this decision for me are very common and likely apply to a large fraction of the population.
> So, in TheLoafOfBread's case, if he prefers to use let's say Ionity, Tesla, BP, and FastNed with his Skoda Enyaq he can add them to the network preferences in ABRP.
I understood the complaint to be partially that they would prefer to not have to deal with any of that at all, or at least that it could and should be far far simpler.
Uh, what about all the other issues they raised? About cost? About charging time? About charger compatibility? About the inability to effectively charge at home? The clunky app-based payment methods?
TheLoafOfBread will have a better time using better charging networks, the ones he will set up as his preferred charging providers in A Better Routeplanner.
Instead of talking in circles, just try A Better Routeplanner.
This thread is getting a little deep, but to close it out, I decided to indulge you and plan a somewhat typical commute for me from a while back. The total trip time including charging ends up being 3 hours. The same trip sans charging times is under 2 hours. That's 5 hours a week extra that I would be losing out. The trips are also short enough that I also don't need a break that sitting around waiting for charging would provide. The total distance would also use up almost a full charge, so if I start the morning with a full charge, I would still end up needing a long stop somewhere to charge up at the end of the night. I would also be unable to reliably charge at any of my destinations because of either lack of availability of facilities where I could park and leave my car for multiple hours to charge, or because the available facilities are meager (Here's a 120v 15A outlet, have fun charging much at those speeds). So yes, I will agree, ABRP does simplify things. I couldn't imagine having to deal with finding the charging stations and planning out my route without a tool like that. But all of the problems it seems to me that it solves are ones that arise from having an EV.
Here's my idea of simple: No apps needed, I pull up to the charger, any charger, I get out of the car, tap my credit card on the payment terminal, plug the charging cable into my car, stand around for 2-3 minutes while my car recharges to 100%, unplug, grab my receipt and drive off. If I'm on a long trip and starting to get low on charge, I look for the next charge station sign I see. Basically, exactly like a gas station is right now. My understand of TheLoafOfBread's comment was that they were thinking along the same lines as me.
ABRP does very little to move the needle towards this version of simple. It can't make charging times shorter than what is physically possible, it can't offer you charging stations that are as ubiquitous as gas stations, it can't enforce having the same easy to use connector at every charge station. It has a role to play, a small one, and frankly not terribly interesting one.
We are talking in circles, so perhaps it's time to finish the conversation.
> The total trip time including charging ends up being 3 hours. The same trip sans charging times is under 2 hours.
Hey, super. Show the trip and the car. Let's see it.
> So yes, I will agree, ABRP does simplify things. I couldn't imagine having to deal with finding the charging stations and planning out my route without a tool like that.
Good. So there was nothing for you to argue about from the beginning.
> How would having to use a route planner be less effort than not having to use one at all?
It's not, it's less effort than whatever they were doing to find charging stations before.
> What I was referring to was the way you seemed to offer a dismissive solution to the problem that the GP described.
I didn't offer it, but I don't see anything dismissive about it. It looked like a genuine effort to help someone mitigate one of the downsides of an EV (which was clearly something that had some upsides for them, otherwise why would they have bought one in the first place).
> It's not, it's less effort than whatever they were doing to find charging stations before.
I understood the GP's comment to also be a commentary on the difference between what they had to deal with when driving an EV and how that was different than their previous experiences with ICE/Hybrids.
If you don't charge at home at least 90% of the time, the EV loses most of the benefits. This will slowly change as more EVs are sold and the charging infrastructure improves.
> This will slowly change as more EVs are sold and the charging infrastructure improves.
Yeah.. no.
Especially not in old big towns around Europe where hundreds of thousands (even millions) of people live without underground garage and there's literally no place to install street side chargers on every corner.
I'm living in the center of Munich, and they've built out a lot of curb-side chargers over the last years here.
My personal hope is that advances in technology and grid upgrades will eventually lead to every single lamp post being a charge socket - a lot of the cars here belong to residents and stay parked for days, so they can get away with 3.6 kW charging just fine.
In the end, however, the solution likely will be a massive expansion of public transport, to a point where almost no one but people with disabilities and tradespeople will have their own cars.
I don't think that last thing will ever happen. Even in Denmark, where cycling culture predates the car and there used to be (or is - I'm not up to date), among other disincentives, a hefty 180% registration tax people still drive.
All in all it's a useful tool if used in moderation.
240VAC, maybe if you have 4-6 hours for your car to charge.
You need a minimum 3 phase 480v electrical source to charge even a small battery in under an hour. We are talking 150-200Kw, or the equivalent energy to run around 170 American sized households to fast charge a single car. You think that’s happening in Europe, pretty much ever?
Cars are parked for approximately 100% of the time they're not being driven. For typical vehicle owners (insomniac driving fanatics and corporate "fleet vehicles" excepted), that's much more than 4-6 hours per day. So no: we do not need 200kW HVDC chargers on every city street.
What we do need is ubiquitous Level 2 (240V AC) charging present at the locations where most drivers store their cars. For drivers who store their cars on public city streets, that means installing new cable runs and charging poles. Obviously this infrastructure isn't going to be "free", but it's not some kind of intractable technical challenge. Moreover it will eventually pay for itself through a modest surcharge on the electricity consumers use for charging.
"You need a minimum 3 phase 480v electrical source to charge even a small battery in under an hour. We are talking 150-200Kw?"
The Tesla 3 Long Range AWD has a 76 kWh battery with a range of 358 miles (576 km). The average European car drives 18,000 km/year, or 72 km/day or 10 kWh/day with Tesla's efficiency.
If everyone has giant EV pickups with 200kWh batteries driving 500 miles every day, yeah you have a problem. But that's the tiny minority.
And of course, electricity will come out of unicorn's farts straight into your car. You literally need to rework complete infrastructure to support EV cars. It also motivates car culture even further, while we should be working other way around
The thing is that if Toyota wants to be a leader in this space, they should not wait for this to happen but be making it happen. The reality is that they have not been doing that. And others have.
If they wanted to be a leader in this space, five years ago would have been late to start putting in place the strategy, infrastructure, supply chains, etc. you need to build EVs. They did not do much five years ago other than insisting that they did not need to. And really, ten years ago would have been better, that's when Tesla started looking like a serious company and making concrete plans for scaling their business.
I don't see Toyota shipping EVs in volume any time soon. The new CEO is likely to have been tasked to actually start making this happen. But it's not going to happen overnight because they haven't built any factories yet, they haven't secured any battery supplies yet. They've built a few proof of concept / compliance cars that they are struggling to build in meaningful numbers and that they've had to withdraw from the market because of construction issues repeatedly. When they do start doing this, they'll have a little learning curve to master.
So, the new CEO has his work cut out.
As for being convinced about scale, the market volume is now millions of cars per year. Soon tens of millions. Tesla is a market leader with a target of getting to 2 million cars per year this year (up from 1 this year). And their cars are now the #1 best selling cars in many markets. They have really juicy margins on their products. It's a proven market with high margins and high volume at this point. Tesla is not alone in this market and there are quite a few other manufacturers also starting to move some serious volume. Any of those have what Toyota does not have: volume, scale, and proven products being sold as fast as they can be produced.
The technology is there. The infrastructure is there and rapidly expanding to keep up with supply and demand. New battery factories are being announced and opened all the time. We'll soon be measuring the collective output of these factories in twh per year rather than the hundreds of gwh per year it is right now.
Toyota if it wants in has a lot of catching up to do.
Going all in on EV's is also a very big gamble. Sure, there is probably a profitable segment in the market, but with so many other car companies going all-in, Toyota could be in a good position by having a wider line-up of products. There is something very strange about the herd mentality around EV's. As if we are going to fix the environment if only everybody gets an EV for ALL use cases.
I think the misguided gamble at this point is hoping/expecting the EV market to implode and stop rapidly overtaking and outgrowing everything else. That clearly is not happening or going to happen.
This is not about herd mentality but about not ignoring very real and tangible trends in the market that are starting to affect Toyota's core business in very real ways. Mumbling about hydrogen and vaguely asserting there might be some EVs in the distant future is no longer good enough as a plan. And as a stop gap solution, hybrids are not growing as fast as EVs and mostly at the cost of ICE vehicles. Which means an overall decline for Toyota. Hybrids are no longer good enough and might be banned from key markets entirely along with ICE vehicles on a time line that is getting uncomfortably close for Toyota.
That's the reason for the change of leadership at Toyota. This stuff is starting to make share holders very nervous.
Toyota does produces EVs. But just because the EV market share is growing does not mean it is going to completely displace everything else. In a competitive marketplace, consumer choice forces the improvement of EVs in such a way that they are not a merely substandard alternatives. We do not know where research is heading or what the true limits are to battery improvements. It takes the consumer marketplace to serve as an adequate test bed for a quality product.
EV's are still inferior products for many users. EV Advocates like to point to fast acceleration as somehow proof they are superior. But what they leave out is that every time you accelerate you see the charge capacity noticeably drop to significant degree. On extended trips, EV drivers will be making conscious efforts to engage in slower more moderate driving. Some people are fine with it, but the fact that many choose to go back to ICE vehicles should not be ignored.
Why is it a gamble when almost 100% percentage of the largest auto makers have gone all in? They will do all they can to make sure EVs do not fail, infrastructure availability does not fail, laws are made, etc because it is now in their best financial interest to do so, together.
Because some people do not WANT it and prefer ICE or hybrid vehicles. It's a very big world with alot of different use cases. A smart business strategy diversifies.
Sure, but a good BEV is designed very differently than a PHEV and designing them properly has cost benefits and is an overall better product for customers as well (better range, more space inside, etc.). There are plenty of existing manufacturers who have gone down that path and are now shifting attention to getting rid of ICE/PHEV entirely. Also, you need access to battery supply.
I think Toyota's issues will just be supply chain around battery packs. They have already been designing and engineering hybrids for a decade or more. I don't think its a revolutionary change for them to remove combustion engine and accessories and go with all electric motors plus larger battery packs. If anything it might simplify internal designs. I'd rather they flow this through their internal typical processes and come out with a product that meets their historical standards rather than any "catch up" to the market.
Once they have a Corolla like EV platform I bet it will outsell most competitors and likely won't have gimmicky features.
Some analysts like Munro think legacies will take much longer to catch up to Tesla because they're evolving ICE designs/standards into their EVs and crippling them. Toyota is so huge they could have afforded a clean-sheet platform but waited too long so they'll fall into the same cycle.
They do have a clean sheet design: e-TNGA. The Toyota bZ4X and the Subaru Soltarra are both based on the design, along with the bZ3 and the upcoming Lexus RZ.
e-TNGA just appears to be an e- added to commonize with the TNGA gasoline architecture.
> Now Terashi’s group is considering whether to drop the three-year-old e-TNGA architecture, created by modifying a gasoline car platform, in favor of a dedicated EV platform, people with knowledge of that work have said.
Only if they can produce it cost effectively and in large volume. This is going to be a learning curve that will take them years.
Hybrid cars are not the same as an EV. Toyota needs to start worrying about their existing revenue not drying up before they can master the same learning curve that other manufacturers have been trying to master (with varying degrees of success).
Corolla like EV platforms already exist. Several Chinese manufacturers sell those in their domestic market for prices as low as a few thousand per car. And several of those manufacturers are ramping up their exports to the US, Europe, and Australia.
Volkswagen makes 10 million cars a year and they're pushing hard for EVs now.
The main difference between Volkswagen's and Toyota's situation is that Toyota is still in a good position to meet fleet emissions requirements globally because they've been selling hybrids for so long. But Volkswagen needs to pump out EVs now to meet their fleet emissions targets.
Fleet emissions fines are simply dead money. You're much better off putting that money into your EV development program.
Toyota has to sell EVs at scale eventually because new car ICE vehicle sales bans now and into the future mean that all car manufacturers have to.
Somewhat similar story in the US with California and New York pursuing 2035 sale bans - other states don't necessarily have to even follow, California has been the benchmark for US vehicle emissions standards for decades. The state has big car culture and a big population. Automakers often build things to the California standard and sell the CA-standard cars in the rest of the country. Its just not cost effective for them to make minor variations in the models.
> Volkswagen makes 10 million cars a year and they're pushing hard for EVs now.
That decision was made under duress[1]. Thanks, Dieselgate!
1. The money VW Group was fined for Dieselgate in the US was directed to fund the "Electrify America" charging network. It would have been braindead for VW to give competition a leg-up by not electrify after paying for the infrastructure: the punishment was very well thought-out.
Agreed. I'm hopeful to see if their research into synthetically created hydrogen fuel powered cars will get us fuel created by green energy that we can run in hydrogen fuel cell cars so we get the best of both cutting fuel emissions to net zero and still have the flexibility of cross-country drives and fast fuelings without having to have all our (agriculture, industrial, etc.) vehicles be BEVs.
So Hydrogen's perk would be quicker fueling but I don't know how many people are going to be willing to pay the fairly large additional cost for that convenience.
Toyota Mirai:
Tank Size: 5.6 kg of hydrogen
Cost per kg of hydrogen: $13.11
Miles of range: 402
Cost per mile: $0.18
Ioniq 5:
Battery Size: 77.4 kWh
Range: 302 miles
Miles per kWh: 3.5
Cost per kWh (Currently at my house): $0.27 per kWh
Cost per mile: $0.08
Ford Maverick Hybrid (My current vehicle):
Tank size: 13.6 Gallons
Range: ~500 miles
Average fuel economy: 38.5 mpg (my average currently)
Cost per gallon: $3.40 (last price I saw on the way into work)
Cost per mile: $0.088
To get an equivalent cost per mile electricity would have to $0.63 per kWh. Largely though that is currently with hydrogen made from natural gas, versus green hydrogen which will end up being intrinsically lin.18/ked to the cost of electricity. From what I have seen it is somewhere around 3 watts of electricity to get 1 W equivalent of hydrogen which might be able to get a 2 to 1 ratio in the future. I think certain sectors like aerospace will be okay with the additional cost due to other advantages but regular consumers it seems less likely.
BMW = "Bring My Wallet" because those multi-thousand $$$ shocks won't replace themselves for free after 4 years
In the US it seems like they're built to barely make it to the end of the leasing period and then implode. They're really going to town with the "snap-in" fittings for hoses in the engine because putting a metal hose clamp on seems to increase COGS I guess.
> They're really going to town with the "snap-in" fittings for hoses in the engine because putting a metal hose clamp on seems to increase COGS
It's a labor saving thing. It's cheaper to design a fancy snap-together plastic connector once, buy a few million from overseas and than it is to have expensive first world labor tighten hose clamps.
Their current offering is "meh" from the EV perspective. It doesn't look like their experience with small-battery low-voltage hybrids gave them skills and experience to execute a good BEV. ICE reliability is a different game than batteries, efficiency, and software game of BEVs.
I think there's a high chance that Toyota will be sidelined by EV-first automakers from Korea and China just like US automakers were sidelined by Japanese automakers in the 20th century.
i cant even imagine how hard it would be for an ICE manufacturer to pivot into EVs. Those decades of engine/transmission refinement expertise? out the window. Imagine trying to organize and pitch a new vehicle without including the powertrain people and, instead, a team with nothing on the road yet.
Nobody said it's easy, but if you don't live in the US, you should be aware that there are already loads of EVs out on the road and available, all from "legacy" car manufacturers.
I think Toyota is in much better shape in this regard than you might expect. Most/all of their hybrid vehicles use an eCVT transmission to drive the front wheels that's radically different from a traditional transmission. And their AWD hybrid models provide the AWD via an electric motor on the rear axle (no connection to the ICE engine) that's essentially identical to the setup in electric cars.
Assumption that hybrids are essentially EVs glosses over all the fine details that make a good EV. All ICE engines are "essentially identical" too, but there's a world of difference between ICE manufacturers. VW Beetle has an engine in the rear, but it doesn't make it a Lambo.
Plug-in hybrids all use AC charging or at best equally slow DC charging. OTOH BEVs compete on maximizing the charging curve, which is something that has never been a consideration in PHEVs. This requires dealing with much higher voltages and stress on the battery.
Hybrids don't need active temperature management for their batteries, because they never push the batteries that hard, and there's always an ICE engine to generate heat if needed. OTOH thermal management and battery conditioning, and efficient A/C is an important complex piece of BEVs.
Hybrids don't need to maximize their efficiency, since their electric range isn't as important, and even a just-okay electric motor is going to improve efficiency of an ICE engine. OTOH in BEVs every last bit of efficiency matters, since that's a factor in range, weight, and cost. Toyota's bz4x efficiency looks poor compared to BEVs from VW and Hyundai, and they're all noticeably worse than Tesla's.
Batteries in hybrids are relatively small, so they can get away with worse energy density. You can't put 10 PHEV batteries together to make a good BEV.
And legacy automakers still treat software as a nuisance to outsource, instead of a critical component of an EV. I don't mean self-driving publicity stunts, but basics like route planning that includes appropriate charging stops. Software from legacy automakers treats chargers like gas stations, often without real-time speed and availability data. They will send you to some random hotel charger that takes 11 hours to charge, is customer-only and already taken, instead of a rapid 20-minute charger that is just a bit further away.
If Toyota misses the boat there's not much coming back from that. Once things shake out and brands develop reputations for certain classes of product it takes an act of god to change them.
In the 1970s the US was really good at making fairly luxurious barges but then suddenly the consumers wanted smaller cars. The US automakers already made compacts and small cars but they were value-engineered to within an inch of their lives for people who couldn't afford better. Japanese automakers absolutely killed because they already made "nice cars for nice people" in the form factors people wanted. The US had plenty of nicer cars in production at the time but they weren't form factors anybody wanted. So when you look at the average car that actually got bought and put on the roads the Japanese cars were nicer all around (and priced accordingly). The reputations took off from there and the US automakers got left holding the bag of low end customers and the Japanese carmakers got the high end customers further cementing their place in the midsize and compact car market. Minivans and then SUV becoming the "new hotness" for those buyer demographics and some by all accounts spectacular midsize car platforms of the 80s and 90s (Taurus, Escort, W-body (e.g. Lumina), Neon) still didn't unseat the Japanese car-makers dominance of the higher priced and higher end portions of the midsize and compact car market.
I would not bet against something similar happening to Toyota (and a couple other brands) with the transition to EVs. The big three look poised to capture the pickup and large SUV market. The Koreans look pretty well positioned in the crossover and hatchback segments. Tesla is king of high end sedans right now. I think there's room for another player in the crossover market and some room in the midsize SUV market (Honda Pilot, Ford Explorer type stuff) and there's probably room in the sedan market for a boring non-flashy EV (something Toyota already has a reputation for in the ICE segment). Will Toyota develop an EV or several that's a big enough winner to cement their place beside the current players in those segments? If I knew the answer to that question I'd be buying stocks.
I guess I understand why Toyota hasn't gone full-hog into EVs. There's a lot of life left in their hybrid and ICE drivetrains.
What I don't understand is why whatever BEVs they have tried so far, have been pretty crappy. For instance, the bZ4X is a total joke in almost all aspects -- features, range, etc.
There are so many nuanced things that go into making a great EV: advanced software with OTA updates, highly efficient electric motors, material science breakthroughs in battery tech and other components. Toyota can get there in time but there’s so many things to do and they’re facing increasingly rough headwinds the longer they wait to properly electrify.
Millions of EVs are now sold per year. It's still a small percent of total car but increasing rapidly and while all other manufacturers are spending time and money building up expertise and infrastructure Toyota is ignoring it.
Switching from ICE to EV is not easy and takes years to do so and the later Toyota delays it the more painful it will be.
That was not my point. The consumer should be able to decide when/if that happens. Not some arbitrarily imposed timeline. Advances in technology should be tested in the consumer marketplace.
There's no "if". And the when is just a matter of time required to bring up mineral/battery supply chains.
EVs are already (in most cases) cheaper than equivalent ICE vehicles over the lifetime of a vehicle. Soon they will become cheaper upfront as well. ICE won't compete very well after that, except in the luxury/enthusiast market.
Consumers choose automobiles over horse and buggy. They are choosing EV over ICE too, in greater quantities every year.
There's a significant percentage of EV owners that regret their purchase. They either sell it and buy and ICE vehicle, or their next purchase is not an EV. (I have talked to such people. They are not hard to find.) Admittedly some are happy with it, but your statement ignores the fickle nature of consumer demand.
I doubt that any of the reasons had to do with it being an EV. I would bet money on that. The reasons are probably things along the lines of: 1) charging infrastructure is not great for many people. 2) EV cars (tesla in particular) have a reputation of poor build quality not on par with ICE cars at equivalent. 3) A small percentage of people need to drive many hundreds of miles every day and range is an issue.
An electric engine is pretty unanimously superior to ICE for all but ICE enthusiasts (akin to horse enthusiasts). EVs have superior performance characteristics, lack pollution (both carbon and noise), and are much cheaper to maintain. And for most people who have charging infrastructure where they live, and EV means never having to actively go charge/fuel your car.
People didn't believe in the automobile either, at first. Yet no one would say "car vs horse" is a consumer preference choice.
Interesting you take it upon yourself to speak for all people. Not only that, but actively denying the existence of people who do not like EV's. They do exist, regardless of what you say. I've spoken with such people.
You don't address any actual points or provide counter-evidence, only that "I know people who don't like EVs".
I know people that don't like cars, and still have them. It's not a very compelling point.
You know what would be compelling? Telling me why ICE cars are superior to EVs, beyond what I've already discussed. I suspect you don't have any evidence however.
I dont disagree - I think it's true of all of the large manufacturers.
They'll wait til the infrastructure develops a little bit closer to maturity, then go all in. I think the transition to electric cars will take about a generation, but I think overall it'll be a good thing.
The Toyota Production System was established during Shoichiro Toyoda's leadership. It is the company's "operating system" if you will, and has made an enormous impact, both in the auto industry and in other fields such as IT.
"Lean" manufacturing, a term from Womack & Jones, is based on their research into this.
If you want to dive in, here is my reading list for essential books on how Toyota came to build high quality cars at scale, and how it transfers to other disciplines.
W. Edwards Deming - the grand old man of the field, building on a strict statistical discipline. His book "Out of the Crisis" is a wonderful treatise on his thinking including his famous "14 Points for Management". This is definitely a must read that will change the way you think about management and quality. Deming provided the inspiration for the quality movement that powered post-war Japanese manufacturing.
Taiichi Ohno - one of the greatest industrial innovators of the 20th century, the father of the Toyota Production System. After spending his career relentlessly optimizing manufacturing at Toyota he wrote the book "Toyota Production System: Beyond Large-scale Production" that describes his work.
Womack & Jones - Their books are great and it is well worth to read them all to see a lot of the principles and case studies for lean thinking. Also, it is quite interesting to see that software development is now rediscovering some of the things that manufacturing learned much earlier - in the case of Toyota as early as in the 1950s and 1960s. Begin your studies with "The Machine That Changed the World", a five-year study of the global auto industry from MIT and go on with the "Lean Thinking" and "Lean Solutions". They give a fascinating perspective on manufacturing and plenty of examples of the lean principles and they applications. These are the books that brought lean to the mainstream.
Mary and Tom Poppendieck - with a background in manufacturing and software they were leading the effort to translate the concepts of lean to software development. They have written two great books, "Implementing Lean Software Development" and "Lean Software Development - an Agile Toolkit". Both books are well worth reading a present a both the principles and lot of cases in a friendly, colloquial manner. Highly recommended!
Matthew May - I really like his approach to elegance and simplicity. May has worked with Toyota and their corporate university and his book "The Elegant Solution" offers insight into their innovation process - the principles it is built on and the practices that make it work.
Jeffrey Liker - his "The Toyota Way" is a very good introduction to the application of lean methods at Toyota. This is one of the best lean books I have read. Definitely a favourite!
This list covers up to around 10 years ago. Please comment with recommendations for more recent books on the topic.
Tetsuo Sakiya - Honda Motor the men, the management, the machines
Tangential: there are many books on the Toyota system, so that they have stolen the show. I have always suspected that other Japanese factories might have also had interesting production systems but only found the above book about Honda. Honda apparently invested more in R&D and always took greater risks than Toyota. I believe some ideas from there can also be applied to IT.
The Honda Myth by Masaaki Sato is an excellent book about Soichiro Honda and Takeo Fujisawa and the captivating history of how they built Honda, from motorcycles to Formula 1 and how they disrupted the US auto industry on the way with the low-emission fuel-efficient CVCC engine (the later Tesla story shares some of the same elements of new tech playing to environmental regulation).
It was driven by the quest to create the best engines and fastest vehicles.
Soichiro Honda had a great love for building and tuning his engines, saying something like,
“It will be a sad day if engineers could go to lunch without needing to wash their hands”.
Great list. I would strongly suggest reading Ward's Lean Product and Process Developer, or if you have, adding it to the list. It focuses entirely on product development rather than manufacturing -- so easier to apply to software development!
Jeffrey Liker wrote a number of books on Toyota and his involvement(The Toyota Way for example).
What is so inspiring is seeing all the generations of Toyoda build upon each other's work creating something so respected in the industry and extends to many people's personal development based on their principles alone.
So many great things have come from their philosophy. What a titan.
My first manager was an ex-military crew-chief who was stationed in Japan for a bit.
In his words, "Whatever your job is, you take pride in it and try to do it the best you can every day. If you're a gas station attendant, you try to be the best gas station attendant you can be."
His description obviously stuck with me, as it's a nice summary of a fundamental social bargain: everyone is important and valued, and in exchange everyone will put in effort.
I know everything isn't peaches and roses in Japanese culture and society, but it makes a good point that excellence is pervasive throughout an organization... or not at all.
That's a very western lens still. Hierarchy doesn't mean you view those under you with contempt. The entire concept of a team, on a micro scale, is that it has a leader who is invested in the group's success and people who choose to follow them because they think the leader respects them and can provide the necessary coordination.
Toxic individualism doesn't get things done, nor does it encourage excellence. A hierarchy with mutual respect does, though it must be fair and tempered with reasonable mobility.
I think this was the needle Kant was trying to thread with the categorical imperative.
Hierarchies are efficient and necessary, but ethically dubious and subject to abuse. Ergo, a hierarchy where everyone acts as though their position in it may be randomly swapped at any time is the optimal configuration.
You see the same with Yamaha. Japanese manufactured Yamaha's are a notch above those produced elsewhere in quality. It doesn't really show in the first couple of years but later on the difference becomes more and more pronounced. The resale value of a Japanese made Yamaha piano is much better than the rest as well on account of this.
I've always been a die-hard Japanese auto fan, and I'd say cars were a huge influence to my interest in engineering. What he did for the industry at large alongside Honda is immeasurable. Always sad to see giants go.
A lot of the JIT stuff that is so common, these days, was revolutionary, when he introduced it.
I'm told that many agile techniques also had their genesis in his work.