Written November 16, 2006 by --Edward A. Sanchez

Whenever Toyota makes a move, the world takes notice. Japan’s #1 automaker (which looks poised to be the world’s largest) has been a leader on hybrid development, but has been a little behind the curve when it comes to diesel development. It especially lost face when archrival Honda boasted it would have clean diesel models on sale in the U.S. within 3 years. Toyota’s only response at the time was, “We’re working on it.”

Although Toyota owns Hino, a maker of medium and heavy-duty trucks, the company’s experience with smaller-displacement diesels is limited. So it figured its time (and money) might be best spent partnering with a company whose primary expertise is compression-ignition engines. Naturally, Toyota chose Isuzu, one of the oldest carmakers in Japan and with a history of developing and manufacturing diesel engines of more than 60 years.

Isuzu’s expertise with diesels is so renowned that, when General Motors was developing its next-generation ¾ and 1-ton diesel engine for its full-size pickups, it chose Isuzu to do the bulk of the research and development work. Today, we know that engine as the Duramax.

With the General spinning off its stake in Isuzu early this year, Toyota saw it as the perfect opportunity to purchase 5.6 percent of the company, as well as tap its deep well of expertise with diesel engines. Granted, it looks like the automaker got some ground to catch up on with diesel development compared to Honda, Volkswagen, and DaimlerChrysler, but with its seemingly bottomless financial resources and steely determination, don’t count Toyota out from bringing clean diesels to the U.S. market right behind everyone else. Perhaps even the first production passenger-car diesel hybrid? If a 100-mpg Prius seemed a little far-fetched about a year ago, with the addition of a possible turbodiesel, it’s a very likely reality.

--Edward A. Sanchez
source : thecarblog

We'll see how it goes, there was lots of (I'll admit, fanboy talk) talk on mbworld and bmw forums about how hybrids are nice, but they'd be phased out in favor of diesels. It'll be interesting if this comes true hybrid + diesel. :)

I want diesel SUV from toyota.

A turbodiesel would be nice on the new Tunda platform. You can't beat the durability and mpg of a diesel. : )

A turbodiesel would be nice on the new Tunda platform. You can't beat the durability and mpg of a diesel. : )

Or more importantly, the gobs of torque at low RPMs.

its unlikely that hybrids will phase out
i think it will just evolve into plug-in hybrids

hybrids' electric motors already provide an incredible amount of torque, a gasoline hybrid makes more sense to me than a diesel hybrid.

its unlikely that hybrids will phase out
i think it will just evolve into plug-in hybrids

They'll phase out when they start realizing that they have to find a way to dispose of all those hybrid batteries when they die.

They'll phase out when they start realizing that they have to find a way to dispose of all those hybrid batteries when they die.

its not too bad though, remember that battery technology is always advancing too and lithium ion will soon be cheap enuf to be economical in hybrid cars

then the lifetime will be even longer

but yeah battery disposal is still a big problem

anyways, diesel IMO is a short/mid term solution
the real long term solution Toyota should focus on are fuel cell cars

GM is quite active in the development of their fuel cell cars
so is Honda


I want diesel SUV from toyota.

too bad u guys in the states cant drive JDM cars
the Toyota Surf (4Runner) has diesel engine in Japan
from 2.4L Turbo diesel to like 3L

They'll phase out when they start realizing that they have to find a way to dispose of all those hybrid batteries when they die.

Toyota buys those batteries back from Toyota owners and recycles them.

Like earlier said, plug-in hybrids are the ultimate goal.

20-25% American and 40-50% Japanese electricity is from nuclear powerplants.

too bad u guys in the states cant drive JDM cars
the Toyota Surf (4Runner) has diesel engine in Japan
from 2.4L Turbo diesel to like 3L

I used to live in Asia country and actually had quite a lot of toyota JDM diesel SUVs.

I had 1KZ-TE 3.0L turbo diesel on my 98 Hilux Surf and I would take that car over my 2006 4Runner SE that I have right now anyday. Gasoline SUV isn't just right.

Turbo diesel hybrids should have been the norm from the beginning. Diesels can have over 50% thermal efficiency in applications like a hybrid. No gasoline engine can come close.

The really sad thing is, hybrids are a shell and pea game anyway. The most efficient vehicle in terms of energy useage from cradle to grave right now is the Scion xB. (http://www.cnwmr.com/nss-folder/automotiveenergy/) There are no hybrids in the high efficiency range because the energy cost of making and disposing of the batteries is huge. Sure the end user saves money on fuel, but by the time the vehicle reaches the end user, it's already used more energy than the vast majority of daily transportation cars. From CNW's study:
The Top 10 most energy efficient vehicles over their lifetime:

1. Scion xB ($0.48 per mile)
2. Ford Escort (0.57 per mile)
3. Jeep Wrangler ($0.60 per mile)
4. Chevrolet Tracker ($0.69 per mile)
5. Toyota Echo ($0.70 per mile)
6. Saturn Ion ($0.71 per mile)
7. Hyundai Elantra ($0.72 per mile)
8. Dodge Neon ($0.73 per mile)
9. Toyota Corolla ($0.73 per mile)
10. Scion xA ($0.74 per mile)

Hybrid energy efficiency over their lifetime:

1. Honda Insight ($2.94 per mile)
2. Ford Escape Hybrid ($3.18 per mile)
3. Honda Civic Hybrid ($3.24 per mile)
4. Toyota Prius ($3.25 per mile)
5. Honda Accord Hybrid ($3.30 per mile)

The 10 least energy efficient vehicles over their lifetime:

1. Mercedes Benz produced Maybach ($11.58 per mile)
2. Volkswagen Phaeton ($11.21 per mile)
3. Rolls-Royce (full line average: $10.66 per mile)
4. Bentley (full line average: $10.56 per mile)
5. Audi allroad Quattro ($5.59 per mile)
6. Audi A8 ($4.96 per mile)
7. Audi A6 ($4.96 per mile)
8. Lexus LS430 ($4.73 per mile)
9. Porsche Carrera GT ($4.53 per mile)
10. Acura NSX ($4.45 per mile)

All of the hybrids have a higher energy cost than a standard Honda Civic ($2.420/mile.) Just for reference, the Hummer H3 is only $1.949 per mile. Hybrids are not the wonder drug for an oil addicted world.


Unfortunately, all these technologies are completely dependent on cheap oil. Regardless of the source, electricity depends on petroleum for all the support technologies. While I don't necessarily agree with the peak oil pundits, I do get the message. The global economy stops when oil becomes too expensive in terms of Energy Return on Investment. It takes oil to refine the lithium for the batteries. It takes oil to build the nuclear powerplants (and BTW, there isn't enough nuclear material in the world to transition all electric generation done by oil and natural gas to atomic power even if the plants already existed). It takes oil to make and deliver just about everything in our modern world.

The fuel cell guys are still not getting the big picture. The primary source of hydrogen is still natural gas, not electrolyzed water. Until we figure out a free energy source to electrolyze water, we're still stuck.

We're going to see a lot more coal soon, and I suspect the transition might be a bit painful...

Turbo diesel hybrids should have been the norm from the beginning. Diesels can have over 50% thermal efficiency in applications like a hybrid. No gasoline engine can come close.

The really sad thing is, hybrids are a shell and pea game anyway. The most efficient vehicle in terms of energy useage from cradle to grave right now is the Scion xB. (http://www.cnwmr.com/nss-folder/automotiveenergy/) There are no hybrids in the high efficiency range because the energy cost of making and disposing of the batteries is huge. Sure the end user saves money on fuel, but by the time the vehicle reaches the end user, it's already used more energy than the vast majority of daily transportation cars. From CNW's study:

All of the hybrids have a higher energy cost than a standard Honda Civic ($2.420/mile.) Just for reference, the Hummer H3 is only $1.949 per mile. Hybrids are not the wonder drug for an oil addicted world.


Unfortunately, all these technologies are completely dependent on cheap oil. Regardless of the source, electricity depends on petroleum for all the support technologies. While I don't necessarily agree with the peak oil pundits, I do get the message. The global economy stops when oil becomes too expensive in terms of Energy Return on Investment. It takes oil to refine the lithium for the batteries. It takes oil to build the nuclear powerplants (and BTW, there isn't enough nuclear material in the world to transition all electric generation done by oil and natural gas to atomic power even if the plants already existed). It takes oil to make and deliver just about everything in our modern world.

The fuel cell guys are still not getting the big picture. The primary source of hydrogen is still natural gas, not electrolyzed water. Until we figure out a free energy source to electrolyze water, we're still stuck.

We're going to see a lot more coal soon, and I suspect the transition might be a bit painful...
That study has some flaws, such as vehicle trim and location of vehicle being built, a car built mainly in Japan will be more expensive than a car in US, and the xA and xB are identical except sheet metal, as they are both on the Echo platform, yet they are at different efficiency

Well, from what I see they will use Isuzu's manufacturing to make more diesel engines, and they will also develop some biofuel diesel engines with Isuzu...

Toyota small diesels are actually much more advanced than Isuzu's, and Toyota's DNRP filter is most advanced in the world.

I get p/o how ignorant those articles are - for god sakes, Toyota sells 100x more diesels than Honda, where in the world would you get that Honda diesels are more advanced?

New European Toyota's have more diesel options than petrol....

What Toyota doesnt have is large diesels beyond 4cly's...

That study has some flaws, such as vehicle trim and location of vehicle being built, a car built mainly in Japan will be more expensive than a car in US, and the xA and xB are identical except sheet metal, as they are both on the Echo platform, yet they are at different efficiency

Download the study. It's over 400 pages. It explains exactly how they arrived at their conclusions. Keep in mind, it's cradle to grave, so a different life expectancy would dramatically affect the numbers. It's also US-centric, so any car built overseas is going to cost more because it has to be shipped. While there may be flaws, I doubt they are serious. The range of data included in the calculations is pretty impressive.

Direct on topic - it's a shame this study doesn't include a significant diesel powered automobile population. Those numbers would be very interesting to compare.

Well, from what I see they will use Isuzu's manufacturing to make more diesel engines, and they will also develop some biofuel diesel engines with Isuzu...

Toyota small diesels are actually much more advanced than Isuzu's, and Toyota's DNRP filter is most advanced in the world.

I get p/o how ignorant those articles are - for god sakes, Toyota sells 100x more diesels than Honda, where in the world would you get that Honda diesels are more advanced?

New European Toyota's have more diesel options than petrol....

What Toyota doesnt have is large diesels beyond 4cly's...

If you exclude Hino, yes. Otherwise, Toyota has plently of 6 cyl diesel engines. And the new Land Cruiser is rumoured to have an optional all-new V8 diesel.

If you exclude Hino, yes. Otherwise, Toyota has plently of 6 cyl diesel engines. And the new Land Cruiser is rumoured to have an optional all-new V8 diesel.
It's been reported there will be a V8 turbo-diesel for the new Land Cruiser in Australia : http://sr1.clublexus.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2213515&postcount=49

It's been reported there will be a V8 turbo-diesel for the new Land Cruiser in Australia : http://sr1.clublexus.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2213515&postcount=49

Sounds like an engine they could put in the GS/LS for the european market to boost sales.

While there may be flaws, I doubt they are serious. The range of data included in the calculations is pretty impressive.


So there is more "energy" in building and disposing a car than actually driving it? You do realize car companies must pay for this "energy."

Reminds me of hybrid opponents (GM in particular) claiming Toyota was losing money on selling the Prius a few yrs back. Whatever happened to that moronic argument?

So there is more "energy" in building and disposing a car than actually driving it? You do realize car companies must pay for this "energy."

Reminds me of hybrid opponents (GM in particular) claiming Toyota was losing money on selling the Prius a few yrs back. Whatever happened to that moronic argument?

Maybe you're unfamiliar with the nuclear power industry? Fission operations were once considered the darlings of economy with about half the cost per kilowatt compared to any fossil-based technology. They forgot to include the cost of decommissioning the plants, and the cost of storing radioactive materials long enough to make them "safe" around humans again. This was back in the 60's when I was a kid and it was common knowledge another ice age was just around the corner because of the unprecedented thickening of the polar ice caps over the previous 50 years.

Yes, it very well could cost quite a bit more energy to recycle/dispose of the materials used in constructing a hybrid, particularly because the metals and reagents used for the batteries are highly toxic. But I'm not here to argue this. The study does a wonderful job of explaining the entire methodology. Choosing not to read how they arrived at their conclusions and commenting on the study is no better than the diligence you claim they failed to exercise.

Yes, it very well could cost quite a bit more energy to recycle/dispose of the materials used in constructing a hybrid, particularly because the metals and reagents used for the batteries are highly toxic. But I'm not here to argue this. The study does a wonderful job of explaining the entire methodology. Choosing not to read how they arrived at their conclusions and commenting on the study is no better than the diligence you claim they failed to exercise.

The thing is you never bothered providing a link to this so-called study.

2nd the article isn't a study. It wasn't written by a scientist or engineer. It wasn't published in a scientific journal. There is no scientic data to support any claims made. The "study" deals with $/mile, this is not a unit of energy.

Click here. Click the Scion xB link. (http://www.clublexus.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2245856&postcount=11) Download the study. Then criticize all you want.

Company Background

Founded in 1984, CNW Marketing/Research began as Coastal NW Publishing Company. Through the years, clients and subscribers have spread from the Great Northwest to include every state of the union (except Alabama), Australia, Europe, Asia and Canada. Clients include major automobile manufacturers, banks and lending institutions, Wall Street brokerage firms and consultants. Besides publishing LTR/8+ (America's most quoted source of leasing information), CNW publishes new and used vehicle industry reference guides and study summaries, a monthly Retail Automotive Summary of sales and trends, as well as our online research distribution center, CNW by WEB. CNW holds an annual conference in Los Angeles in connection with Time Inc. Mr. Spinella is available for Executive Sessions for a limited number of clients.

Download the study. It's over 400 pages. It explains exactly how they arrived at their conclusions. Keep in mind, it's cradle to grave, so a different life expectancy would dramatically affect the numbers. It's also US-centric, so any car built overseas is going to cost more because it has to be shipped. While there may be flaws, I doubt they are serious. The range of data included in the calculations is pretty impressive.

Direct on topic - it's a shame this study doesn't include a significant diesel powered automobile population. Those numbers would be very interesting to compare.
I wonder if it explains why is there an 40%-50% difference between xB and xA, which are pretty much the same cars (apsolutly the same mechanicals), engineered at same place, built in same factory and delivered with same boats to same dealers.

Fact that they overlooked that makes it quite hillarious.

Why do you refuse to read the study, but just criticize what you suspect to be its shortcomings? That makes no sense to me.