EZZ

EVs aren't that hard to do. Toyota can catch up if it wants to. They just need to realize North America will have significant EV sales in the next decade.

Motorola

They are nothing alike whatsoever.

https://www.consumerreports.org/auto...lt-technology/

I think you're overgeneralizing a bit. Toyota has a long way to go, as do most other auto manufacturers who want to catch up to Tesla as far as things like battery efficiency and manufacturing. But Toyota at the moment isn't taking electrification as seriously as the other OEMs.

Toys4RJill

I think the Toyota Hybrid Synergy Drive system is superior. A Toyota hybrid is up to 600volts which is 12 times as powerful than a 48volt

Here is Toyota's take:

https://www.toyota.ie/world-of-toyot...ld-Hybrid.json

EZZ

I never said they could catch Tesla quickly but they can do an EV to try and catch VW at least. Inefficient EVs aren't that hard to do. If Lexus made an EV, it will be probably be less efficient with less performance but I bet it will be super reliable and that would be enough for its audience.

Motorola

Why are you comparing them? A mild hybrid system is not a substitute for a full hybrid, it's a more robust electrical system that aids in smoother start-stop and replaces the belt-driven accessories with an electrical one. The cars it's outfitted on are not hybrids. Essentially, it's the next transition in traditional gasoline vehicles akin to electric steering systems and shift-by-wire.

Toyota has nothing like it.

Toys4RJill

I don't think Toyota needs a 48v, most consumer either wants as cheap a Toyota as possible, or they move to the slightly more pricey hybrid option.

Motorola

You sure enjoy moving goalposts don't you.

It's not a matter of if Toyota needs it or if their customers need it (to which you are not in a position to decide), but it's the fact that they do not have it despite everyone else trying to make it a standard. Nobody "needs" an electric steering rack over a hydraulic one, but there's no question that it's a superior system to the old one. Same goes for the 48V system, which adds little to the cost of existing vehicles and makes them mechanically simpler, while aiding with MPG's.

Toys4RJill

Not everyone believes electric power steering is superior.

The new Toyota dynamic force engines are outstanding, not sure if they need it. And adding a 48V set up is going to add costs compared to a regular gas engine.

Motorola

I'd like to think that Toyota would be above making a mediocre uncompetitive product just because they can lean on their reliability reputation (which we can't guarantee since they don't have an existing vehicle to even base it off of). But if they keep idling by as they are now, they'll meet the same fate as Blackberry during the Smartphone revolution. Time is of the essence.

Motorola

Electric steering is superior mechanically. It removes the complexities associated with a hydraulic system. The tradeoff is less steering feel, but that has little relevance to most consumers outside of driving enthusiasts, and "steering feel" itself can be calibrated electrically. There is no question that it is better, which is why all manufacturers have moved onto it.

And yes, we know you believe Toyota is infallibale and nothing needs improvement. But they are lagging behind the rest of the industry by not implementing or even working on a mild hybrid system across their product line. As I mentioned before, adding a 48V system not only improves fuel economy but removes the complexity of a mechanical accessory belt driven system. This is not up for debate. And the price increase is negligible, especially compared to full hybrid systems.

Toys4RJill

I actually agree with you We have two with hydraulic and two with electric power steering. The electric power steering is much more cost-effective and there are no fluids. My 4Runner actually had a leak.

Over a traditional gas engine, how much more expensive would a 48V engine be?

Motorola

From the CR article I linked a few posts above:

The main additional cost will be that of a larger battery.

Toys4RJill

Your last few posts, you have certainly made a case for 48-volt architecture, I don't doubt that. I just don't see Toyota doing it as Toyota wants to push its Hybrid Synergy Drive, I think a mild hybrid option to go along with a full hybrid not to mention a plug-in option (Rav 4 Prime) would just add confusion and take away customers who would be willing to pay for a full hybrid Toyota. The Toyota hybrid setups work for the Toyota brand, why add confusion with a mild hybrid set up.

Motorola

I don't think so. Like I said before, mild hybrid systems are no substitute for actual hybrids. Even calling them "mild hybrids" is a bit misleading since they are a more beefed up stop-start system with better electronics, and not really hybrids. They can't drive themselves on electric power alone. And all vehicles that have mild hybrid systems don't really advertise it as a selling point. I would bet that most consumers who buy modern Audis are unaware that they even have a mild hybrid system in their vehicles.

Given Toyota's history of pioneering hybrid vehicles, I'm surprised that they weren't among the first to implement 48V systems. Though I guess the same could be said about EV's. Instead they're focusing on hydrogen vehicles, which I don't think are a worthwhile endeavor (but the Japanese government pushing hydrogen so heavily is likely why Toyota is putting so much R&D into it).

Toys4RJill

Toyota was the very first carmaker to offer a 42V system as far back as 2001 for the JDM market. I know GM, and Dodge had them too after Toyota as well as MB. As for 48V systems for Toyota, I think they make no sense (for Toyota) as there are cheap gas Toyotas or more efficient hybrids that they really want to push. Do I agree with Toyota’s set up, I’m not sure with their hybrids sometimes as I read the repair costs are very high and if the battery fails some of the hybrids are rendered useless, but their hybrids are a growth segment for them, they seem to be doing well with their hybrids.