« EPA Grants Certification for First Time to E85 Conversion Kit | Main | Companies to Build 10M Gallon Biodiesel Plant Featuring Solid Catalyst »
Toyota to Show Plug-in Flex-Fuel Hybrid Concept with Double the Fuel Efficiency of the Prius
10 October 2007
 |
| Sketch of the Toyota 1/X plug-in hybrid. |
Toyota Motor Corporation (TMC) will exhibit eight concept and 13 other vehicles at the upcoming 40th Tokyo Motor Show. Among the concepts is the 1/X, (pronounced “one-Xth”), a vehicle that maintains an interior space on par with that of the Prius, with a targeted fuel efficiency that is double that of the Prius and a weight reduced to 420 kilograms (about one third the weight of the Prius).
The 1/X features a 500cc flex-fuel engine and a plug-in hybrid powertrain. Built of carbon fiber reinforced plastic (CFRP) throughout the body frame to ensure superior collision safety, it sports narrower pillars for a better field of vision.
Other hybrid concepts that Toyota will feature at the show are:
Hi-CT. The Hi-CT also is a plug-in hybrid concept, with a AC100V accessory socket that enables stored electricity to be used for a variety of applications.
Crown Hybrid Concept. The Crown hybrid concept implements THS II with a two-stage motor speed reduction device that helps achieve higher fuel efficiency, lower CO2 and reductions in other exhaust emissions.
FT-HS. A next-generation hybrid sports car, the FT-HS features a hybrid system with a 3.5-liter V6 gasoline engine.
LF-Xh. A specialty Lexus SUV, this concept applies the Lexus Hybrid Drive with a V6 engine in an all-wheel drive powertrain.
October 10, 2007 in Hybrids, Plug-ins | Permalink | Comments (73) | TrackBack (0)
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/22062/22321450
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Toyota to Show Plug-in Flex-Fuel Hybrid Concept with Double the Fuel Efficiency of the Prius:
Comments
Toyota needs to improve its Prius as the image of the Prius as the market leading low emissions vehcile is starting to be embarrasses by even better and chaper non-hybrid vehicles like the Mini cooper D 104g CO2/km. and the VW polo bluemotion 99g CO2/km.
The lightweighting is definitely a good step in the right direction as excess weight is the major cause of high emissions(as emissions are directly linked to fuel consumption)
However, i find it extremely unlikely that the carbon fibre 'body frame' will make it into production. Carbon fibre composiites are a very labour intensive and costly process compared to pressed steel or aluminium panels and not suited to mass production at all.- hence why carbon fibre is only used to save weight on low volume high end supercars and racing cars.
Posted by: daniel billinton | Oct 10, 2007 3:07:55 AM
what happened to Toyota's in-wheel motor in earlier concept cars?
If carbon fibre body frame is difficult for mass-production, that does not mean it is impossible. The level of automation is high in car manufacturing, so the labour intense production of such cars might be automated.
Which aspect doubles the efficiency of the the new concept cars with respect to the Prius? The weight reduction? Or the "plug-in" power-train?
Posted by: koen | Oct 10, 2007 3:46:20 AM
what happened to Toyota's in-wheel motor in earlier concept cars?
If carbon fibre body frame is difficult for mass-production, that does not mean it is impossible. The level of automation is high in car manufacturing, so the labour intense production of such cars might be automated.
Which aspect doubles the efficiency of the the new concept cars with respect to the Prius? The weight reduction? Or the "plug-in" power-train?
Posted by: koen | Oct 10, 2007 3:47:03 AM
i take your point about the automation of car manufacture though if you compare a steel/alloy panel that is pressed out in under a second compared to waiting for a carbon fibre laminate to cure taking several minutes you can quickly see why carbon fibre is only really applicable to low volume applications.
The 'doubling' of efficiecny seems to be a combination of the reduced weight, the downsizing of the engine to just 500cc (the prius is 1.5 litres) meaning that the electric motor take a bigger share of the load and also the plug in hybrid mode - though the latter aspect is clearly dependant on how much carbon is produced by the electricty generation at the power station.
Posted by: daniel billinton | Oct 10, 2007 4:20:06 AM
@ Daniel Billinton -
carbon fiber has indeed only been used in high-end applications so far. However, advances in the automation of composite production may make them feasible for small runs of specialty vehicles featuring extreme fuel economy.
Whether such vehicles are preferable to modest improvements across the board is highly questionable. However, the marketing departments of a number of car makers have decided to compete for the bragging rights of the most fuel-efficient car.
http://www.fiberforge.com/
Note that VW CEO Martin Winterkorn confirmed just yesterday - at a steel industry conference, no less - that the 1L-concept developed before F. Piech retired as CEO to join the Board will be revived. Apparently, the original manufacturing cost of EUR 35000 can now be brought down very substantially. He did also say that he doesn't expect high sales volume. The upside is the opportunity to gain experience and, to put pressure on the steel industry to accelerate its innovation in high-strength alloys and ways to connect them to body parts made of other alloys.
http://www.motorauthority.com/cars/volkswagen/vw-boss-confirms-1-liter-car-for-2010/
Posted by: | Oct 10, 2007 6:00:35 AM
Toyota recently announced that carbon fibre wouldn't be used in vehicles to reduce overall CO2 emissions, as the energy required (and CO2 released) to manufacture carbon fibre parts was greatly more than that required to manufacture steel parts. In short, fuel savings from carbon fibre did not repay the extra energy gone into making it (according to their calculations).
They did say that aluminium has a future, though, as the fuel savings for that did offset the extra energy of manufacture.
Posted by: clett | Oct 10, 2007 6:58:10 AM
Save those aluminum cans, y'all, Alcoa will rise agin!
Posted by: jcwinnie | Oct 10, 2007 7:20:55 AM
I agree that carbon fibre is unrealistic for a mass produced vehicle.
furthmore, manufacturers have to make their cars recycleable as they have to pay for the costs of their disposal - and a thermosetting plastic like carbon fibre is completely unrecycleable as it cannot be melted down.
Aluminium may require a lot of energy in the process of electrolysis to purify it from bauxite(aluminium oxide) but like steel and iron oxide, once it is in the metal state it can be recycled indefinitely.
carbon fibre is a great material for super light structures - (I myself have built a carbon fibre vehcile that achieves 4,500mpg) but it isn't practical for mass produced cars where issues of manufacturing speed, recyclablity and also impact resistance are issues
steel and aluminium tend to fold and buckle during a crash which is great at absorbing the kinetic energy - and away from the occupants. By contrast carbon fibre has a 'catastrophic mode of failure' which means that when it faisl it completly fails and disintegrates i. completly inappropriate for man carrying vehicles that have to pass strict safety tests.
Posted by: daniel billinton | Oct 10, 2007 7:53:28 AM
What about recycled plastic composites, for example? Isn't it too soon to write off composites entirely?
Posted by: Chad Snyder | Oct 10, 2007 8:04:12 AM
No one has the bottom line on carbon fiber composites. Certainly, they have their drawbacks in the current state of the technology. But, the technology will develop, and the car of the future will probably be a combination of lightweight steel (or aluminium), plastic, carbon fiber composites and other materials.
As far as JC's comment about carbon fiber's 'catastrophic mode of failure,' a practical part can be built to withstand for more impact than a similar energy absorbing steel part. If the carbon fiber part fails catastrophically, it will be at an impact - no matter what the material - that no human body would survive.
Safety is a matter of design and engineering, as well as materials. Let's keep our options and our minds, open.
Posted by: Kelly O'Brien | Oct 10, 2007 8:36:10 AM
The Trabant should have taught us not to make vehicles out of non-recyclable, non-degradable materials. At least Trabant bodies can be eaten by pigs, which is not true for carbon fiber.
Carbon fiber has very high strength, but no give, and fails catastrophically without warning. Steel has the advantage of crushing, allowing for the dissipation of crash loads.
The auto industry is essentially a steel stamping/forging iron/aluminum casting operation. So far, composites have played a small role in auto manufacture because of that.
Toyota, however, is on the right path: size and weight reduction. But the car has to be recyclable, or our landfills will be overloaded. Automobiles are presently the most recycled objects we manufacture.
Posted by: fred schumacher | Oct 10, 2007 8:52:00 AM
One third the weight + one third the engine power = 50% fuel consumption reduction or about 100 mpg.
Could better drive train + better batteries + reduced drag have driven fuel consumption to one third or about 150 mpg?
Aluminium is plentiful and since it can be recycled over and over again it is a very sustainable an appropriate product for car parts.
Posted by: Harvey D | Oct 10, 2007 9:31:35 AM
We all laugh at Trabi for its terrible performance and durability, but hey, maybe the East Germans had it right with a car that rots to pieces and safely returns to the earth. The environmental record of the Soviets is not so good overall, however.
Posted by: Ben Kaun | Oct 10, 2007 9:33:54 AM
All the talk about Carbon Fiber composites being difficult to produce are partly correct. The material to be used in the 1/X is Carbon Fiber Reinforced Plastic, if on re-reads the article. Thus simplifying production. Some of the difficulties in carbon fiber production is the shape of the product. This 1/X frame will basically (I said BASICALLY) be plastic with Carbon Fiber rods running through it. These "rods" will come in only a few sizes and be simple round or slightly egg shaped straight "rods". Easy to mass produce, especially after the typical "new process" learning curve (which is currently under way).
Posted by: Mike | Oct 10, 2007 11:16:21 AM
I need to add one more comment regarding the 'catastrophic mode of failure' from the gentleman who built the "4500 mpg vehicle". Again I do believe everyone missed the fact that this is "Carbon Fiber Reinforced Plastic" (CFRP), not JUST Carbon Fiber. The plastic greatly increases the durability/strength of the Carbon Fiber and the Carbon Fiber greatly increases the strength of the plastic. The end result is a material that is extremely resilient, high impact absorption and great resistance to "breaking/cracking/bending". Excellent properties for a car frame!
Posted by: Mike | Oct 10, 2007 11:34:51 AM
The argument seems to have devolved into the equivelent of the discussion in the construction industry of:
plywood vs. oriented strand board
Plywood in general is strong and looks good.
Oriented strand board is fairly strong, doesn't look good, and is very very cheap.
By the way, in recent years, carbon fiber has both gotten much cheaper, and much stronger. This innovation has primary been financed due to the need for carbon fiber in wind blade turbines.
Posted by: Michael McMillan | Oct 10, 2007 11:35:52 AM
Anybody heard whether the folks at Loremo.com have made progress on their plastic car? They take some radical approaches to get the weight down and try to make it safe. While I can believe it flexes well, I'm not sure it dissipates energy well.
I continue to expect that a car with a predominantly carbon fiber and thermoplastic frame will have shock absorbers and high strength steel in the crumple zones to dissipate maximum energy for front and rear collisions. I'm less clear on what can be done for side impacts. There, perhaps the stiffness of carbon fiber would be all goodness for the passengers, because there's not much crumple zone anyway.
The Loremo is perhaps too quirky for the mass market, but if it is cheap enough, there will probably be some demand in Europe. They are estimating 15,000 Euros for a tiny 4-seat vehicle that gets 157 mpg.
Posted by: HealthyBreeze | Oct 10, 2007 12:42:36 PM
Is the "carbon fiber reinforced plastic" (CFRP) a thermoplastic or is it a thermoset plastic? There is a huge difference. Thermoplastic is recyclable, thermoset is not.
Standard terminology for fiberglass is to call it FRP (fiber reinforced plastic). Fiberglass is a thermoset composite. Are you sure that the carbon fiber is being placed in a thermoplastic? Every use I've seen so far for carbon fiber is in a thermoset composite.
Posted by: fred schumacher | Oct 10, 2007 1:52:20 PM
I'm amazed that all of you Earth firsters, would not be up in arms about building non-recyclable cars. What kind of concept vehicle is that?
Now I would expect such a Delphic pronouncement from the the knot heads at the RMI, which don't let reality intrude.
But I expect better of the knowledgeable people that post here.
Carbon fiber is NOT RECYCLABLE, today.
Say it again.
Carbon fiber is NOT RECYCLABLE, today.
You can't even burn it is a coal power plant or cement kiln. The toxins generated are just too severe.
What do you want to do with millions of scrap Carbon fiber car-bodies?
Posted by: Stan Peterson | Oct 10, 2007 2:20:17 PM
Hi All,
The Fiberforge process uses a Thermoplastic matrix. So the resin is recyclable. Just melt the thermoplastic out in a nitrogen gas enviorment. The problem then is the fiber itself. Fiberforge is using Victrex PEEK (PolyEtherEtherKetone). Which is a tough plastic. Machinists in the company I work for try to avoid it. Adding the fiber makes the part tough and strong.
The parts are formed with simple vacuum die tools while the Thermoplastic is in a plastic state. The Carbon Fiber is embedded into plastic by being squeezed inbetween sheets of thermoplastic.
They say the process is cheaper than steel bodies up to several tens of thousands of units. Because it avoids the needs for large steel stamping equipment and the very expensive, hard to make, machined hardened steel stamping dies.
The question has to be asked WOULD we have millions of scrap Cabon Fiber car bodies? If the stuff does not rust, maybe one would come in to a dealarship and just have the running gear and drive train replaced. The thermoplastics being used are quite durable, compared to what was available only 30 years ago. Keeping the paint intact (to avoid UV damage) would be much more important with such a car body, however.
What I do not like about this Toyota design is all the clear panels. Is this not all about Green House effect? That design is a rolling hot-house! Put a insulated roof on it!
Posted by: donee | Oct 10, 2007 4:14:57 PM
Considering how Toyota is highly critical of other carmakers for making pie-in-the-sky hybrid concepts, they don't seem too concerned about doing the same thing themselves.
Posted by: AES | Oct 10, 2007 5:04:05 PM
If the carbon fiber reinforcement within a thermoplastic matrix is pure carbon fiber without thermoset resins or fillers, then it could be possible to look at recycling the carbon fiber from a different perspective. (The thermoplastic component is no problem.)
If structural members could be standardized within the industry, reuse (after inspection) of structural carbon fiber into new product could be possible. This would require a paradigm shift in how we design and manufacture.
Carbon fiber is very fatigue resistant. It has the lowest loss of strength through millions of flexing cycles of any common structural material. Ironically, the next best material for fatigue resistance is wood. However, when it fails, there's no warning. There would have to be sensors built in to give warning of micro-cracks.
Yeah, all that glass is a problem. That long, low-sloped window is also unnecessary. The Daimler bionic boxfish project has shown that a coefficient of drag of 0.19 can be achieved with a blunt front and boxy shape. It's the rear of the car that is most critical for reducing drag.
Posted by: fred schumacher | Oct 10, 2007 5:56:50 PM
The plug in version will burn the emissions at the plant too, what about clean energy, renovable energy. Every day more people are interested in enviromental issues (global warming).
Posted by: san rodriguez | Oct 10, 2007 6:03:27 PM
If the carbon fiber and thermoplastics were being produced from biomass feedstocks, would recyclability really be a problem?
At worst, you pyrolize the old bodies and turn them into liquid fuel...
McLaren/Mercedes seems to have worked out a workable solution for front crash structure, their SLR is made from CF, "Mercedes-Benz exploits these qualities by incorporating two 620-millimetre longitudinal members made from carbon fibre in the front structure of the new SLR. These absorb the entire energy of the crash in a defined head-on collision, leaving the passenger cell largely undamaged." - http://www.seriouswheels.com/cars/top-Mercedes-SLR-McLaren.htm
In addition, World Rally Championship cars use carbon-fiber door plates for occupant side-impact protection. They seem to work pretty well.
Posted by: rob | Oct 10, 2007 6:11:14 PM
Stan's worried about carbon fiber waste but not nuclear waste.
Lunar.
Posted by: jack | Oct 10, 2007 7:54:46 PM
And, no surprise, he's totally wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphite-reinforced_plastic#Recycling
Posted by: jack | Oct 10, 2007 7:56:30 PM
there does seem to be some confusion here between 'carbon fibre' and Carbon fibre reinforced plastics. i think the confusion stems from the fact that 'carbon fibre' as it is generally known is the main form of CFRP
When i say 'carbon fibre' i mean the normal type of carbon fibre weave embedded in an epoxy or polyester resin matrix and then cured under heat/pressure or with a catalyst - and that is a carbon fibre reinforced plastic. - and due to those thermosetting plastics used it is not recyclable.
Embedding strands or rods of carbon fibre within a thermoplastic (i.e.one that can be re-melted and therefore recycled) is certainly possible (like glass reinforced nylon for example) though to my knowledge is not as strong or as rigid as a thermosetting polyester/epoxy resin.
the weight claims for the vehicle of 420kg also seem somewhat questionable given that the main reason a Prius weighs around 1,300kg is due to the battery packs - and this PHEV has a downsized engine with more batteries - are they using advanced lithium ion batteries to save weight. evene so, even the Loremo car is 450kg and that has no batteries or hybrid powertrain, so i think the 420kg is somewhat unrealistic - especially given increasing crash protection regulations.
Posted by: daniel billinton | Oct 11, 2007 3:52:23 AM
...the coming Boeing 787 is made in Carbon as well. Mass produced helmets like the US "Fritz" are made in Carbon (plus Kevlar/Aramid) too.
But IMO, cars sould be made in wood again. As for safty, a speed limit should be intrioduced do deal with it. Btw, as Ford F150 demonstrates, heavy steel cars are not save. In this case, F150s should be limitet to a max. speed of 5mph, just to protect there drivers and co-drivers.
Posted by: Michel | Oct 11, 2007 6:22:37 AM
Here we are:
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2007/10/10/toray-to-become-first-carbon-fiber-auto-part-maker/
Posted by: Michel | Oct 11, 2007 7:06:34 AM
Daniel, you wrote:
Toyota needs to improve its Prius as the image of the Prius as the market leading low emissions vehcile is starting to be embarrasses by even better and chaper non-hybrid vehicles like the Mini cooper D 104g CO2/km. and the VW polo bluemotion 99g CO2/km.
But consider this: the Toyota Prius is a VASTLY roomier car than both the Mini Cooper D and VW Polo Bluemotion. In fact, the interior space of the Prius is more comparable to a Ford Mondeo or VW Passat! Given that achievement the Prius is still an amazing achievement, a vehicle that comfortably seats four easily but gets excellent fuel economy.
Posted by: Raymond | Oct 11, 2007 7:23:48 AM
i don't deny that the Prius is a great achievment and has become iconic as the first well known hybrid vehicle to be accepted amongst the public.
i think it's somewhat overstating it to say it is vastl; bigger. The polo and mini cooper are perfectly capabl;e of seating 4 people comfortably.
My point is that the Prius was state of the art a few years ago but has now been overtaken by non-hybrid technology in the Polo and mini cooper -direct injection engines, low rolling resistance tyres, intellgient alternators etc.- and because they are not hybrids they are considerably cheaper.(around £3,000)
Compared to an average 160g CO2/km £10,000 car the £17,765 Prius will take around 20 years before you even break even with fuel costs, let alone gain. Batteries and hybrid drivetrains are too expensive and heavy for low to mid sector cars where margins can be as low as 300 euros per car.
Posted by: daniel billinton | Oct 11, 2007 8:42:07 AM
Entry level Prius is $23,223.00 US. There are still tax credits for low emission technology
Posted by: gr | Oct 11, 2007 10:28:48 AM
Careful Daniel. While a Mini or Polo might fit four Brits comfortably, four Americans will likely be cramped in a Prius...
Posted by: rob | Oct 11, 2007 3:20:09 PM
rob,
Actually, the Mini Cooper D and the VW Polo BlueMotion are pretty cramped cars that can barely seat four passengers, while the Prius has the type of interior space you associate with the European Ford Mondeo--they're not even the same class of vehicles in terms of interior space. And the Prius doesn't have issues with elevated NOx output and removing diesel particulates, either.
It will be interesting to see what Honda pulls off when their new small hybrid family car (which will use the Honda Fit/Jazz platform) arrives in 2009. Because it will be much lighter than the Prius I expect fuel efficiency to be very high indeed.
Posted by: Raymond | Oct 11, 2007 4:04:18 PM
This is super good news, and an "ultra-light" Prius with well-over 100 mpg fuel efficiency should cause all greencar enthusiasts to start drooling!
This reminds me of the GM's 100-mpg carbon fiber ultralight concept car featured over 15 years ago. GM's greencar technology was pretty advanced back then...perhaps only having to yield to GM stockholders who own more stocks in Big Oil than Big Auto!
420 kg curb wt. to carry a payload wt of ~380 kg is quite doable using carbon fiber, since the GM ultralight car also featured the same spec's over 15 years ago, and light airplanes made from carbon fiber composite are routinely capable of carrying a load comparable to its empty weight, and airplanes travel much faster, requiring much more powerful engine and subject to much higher level of vibration and physical stress that a car will never have to face, hence even much more structural demand on the airframe!
Carbon fiber is recyclable via high-temp pyrolysis or gasification, but since the frame is so durable and does not rust and having infinite fatigue limit, the frame can simply be recycled by removing all mechanical components and replaced with new engines, transmission, fabrics, seats, brakes, lines, hoses, etc, and with a new coat of paint, the car will become new again.
Posted by: Roger Pham | Oct 11, 2007 7:51:33 PM
ok, if you want to accurately compare like with like, the Prius in terms of weight, size and performance actually equates to an entry level Ford focus.
1300kg weight, 2.7m wheelbase and similar 0-60mph and top speed.
Except that the focus cost UK £13,500 and the Prius UK £17,700. the Prius emits 104g CO2/km and the Focus emits 159g CO2/km. Therefore the it will take Prius over 10 years to recoup it's higher inital cost.
That is the premium you pay for low emissions technology and most consumers are simply not persuaded and rightly so as hybrid technology is a very expensive way of reducing emissions. Within the industry the Prius is regarded as a triumph of marketing over common sense.
Lower-tech lower cost solutions such as the Loremo car with a small downsized turbo diesle engine in a lightweight aluminium body shell are lower cost and much more likely to be the future in low to mid market cars where margins are far too slim at 3-4 % to emply hybrid technology which can add 20 to 30% to a cars price.
Posted by: daniel billinton | Oct 12, 2007 2:27:08 AM
daniel says:
"Except that the focus cost UK £13,500 and the Prius UK £17,700. the Prius emits 104g CO2/km and the Focus emits 159g CO2/km. Therefore the it will take Prius over 10 years to recoup it's higher inital cost."
How can you put an arbitrary price on carbon. You can work the numbers for petrol use since that has a known cost. What you've done is pay for a 30% reduction in CO2 emissions. How can you put a price on that?
I'm all for lighter cars, but lets face it, there's a limit to what you can do down that route before you hit a dead end as long as you're using an ICE engine. Hybrid technology is a step towards PHEV and BEV (from clean electricity) that have real potential for reducing tail pipe emissions to nil. Anyone that says hybrid technology is a triumph of marketing over common sense is missing the big picture.
Posted by: HenryP | Oct 12, 2007 6:44:18 AM
Daniel wrote: "That is the premium you pay for low emissions technology and most consumers are simply not persuaded and rightly so as hybrid technology is a very expensive way of reducing emissions. Within the industry the Prius is regarded as a triumph of marketing over common sense."
Hey Daniel, have you driven a Prius, lately?
It's more than just an abstract notion of emission-reduction. It's a totally new and exciting experience, like no engine idling, complete quietness at any traffic stop, AC with electric compressor gives you gentle and automatically-controlled cooling, rear-view camera backup, keyless automatic entry, low tire pressure warning system...much-reduced routine maintenance...and the list goes on...Can you get any of these features with the Ford Focus?
Oh, by the way, I'll be paying a lot less for the gasoline (petrol) so that after some years, all these exciting features and technologies will be FREE, PAID FOR BY THE SAVING IN FUEL COST ALONE!
Normally, people would have to pay a steep price to experience a new technology, like the iPhone, Razor phone, iPod, Lexus, MB, latest Pentium chips, etc. Only uniquely in the Prius that you get these for FREE, paid for by saving in operating cost of the car.
Posted by: Roger Pham | Oct 12, 2007 7:17:15 AM
The Prius is starting to be embarrassed? You need to get your facts straight Daniel. The Polo Bluemotion achieves that level of C02 only thanks to some sacrifices, like no air conditioning. Besides, both the Cooper and Polo are smaller than the Prius.
With the Prius, you're not making any sacrifices. You have all the modern conveniences, luxuries, and options of a regular gasoline car, and you have enough interior room to sit 4 people comfortably as well as put some luggage in the back, and with all that the Prius still manages such great fuel economy and low C02 emissions.
Besides, the Polo Bluemotion and Mini Cooper D are brand new vehicles, while the current Prius has been on the market for almost 5 years now. The next-generation Prius is coming out soon, and that will improve upon the current Prius in many ways.
Posted by: toyo | Oct 12, 2007 8:58:44 AM
Not to dwell, but I think Daniel has a good point. You walk into a Toyota showroom and they offer you a top spec Yaris TR D-4D that does an astonishing 64mpg combined with space for 4 or 5, has 150Nm of Torque from almost idle, pumps out 119g CO2/km at 9,995 pounds. The Auris (Corolla) is a little bit more money but you have to take his point that it is significantly less than the 17 grand for the prius.
Yes i know the boot is smaller in both the Yaris and Corolla, but I take his point at the same CO2 output level.
Posted by: Q | Oct 12, 2007 10:03:31 AM
Except that the focus cost UK £13,500 and the Prius UK £17,700. the Prius emits 104g CO2/km and the Focus emits 159g CO2/km. Therefore the it will take Prius over 10 years to recoup it's higher inital cost.
Look - someone's playing a favorite game around here -- Apples and Oranges.
If you're going to make an equal comparison, you need to use a Focus version which is a 5 door hatchback with an automatic transmission with similar performance. The Prius goes 0-100 kmh in 10.9 seconds, so one would need a 145PS 2.0 liter Focus with a 4-speed automatic to hit near that number (10.7 seconds). That vehicle costs £17,795, compared to £18,127 for the Prius. The fuel cost difference between those two vehicles will pay back in about 6,000 miles.
The Focus model you mention goes 0-60 in 13.6 seconds and has a manual transmission. Even choosing that for comparison, the payback from fuel savings is under 60,000 miles.
The Focus also puts out 2-6 times the pollutants.
Posted by: jack | Oct 12, 2007 11:13:20 AM
420 kg and 500 cc engine, thats unbelievable. Then the cost should be only around 10K.
But they should extend the glass further forward.
Posted by: Max Reid | Oct 12, 2007 1:18:31 PM
"420 kg and 500 cc engine, thats unbelievable. Then the cost should be only around 10K."
Believe it, Max, since the Prius 2 is 1300 kg with 1500-cc engine. The ratio is the same. No doubt, the new 500-cc engine will have higher specific hp per displacement, as smaller engines always do in comparison to bigger engines. It's just the law of physics. Smaller engine will turn higher rpm's and can develop more hp for the same piston linear speed.
Posted by: Roger Pham | Oct 12, 2007 3:33:09 PM
Daniel Billinton, you said in your comments:
"However, i find it extremely unlikely that the carbon fibre 'body frame' will make it into production. Carbon fibre composiites are a very labour intensive and costly process compared to pressed steel or aluminium panels and not suited to mass production at all.- hence why carbon fibre is only used to save weight on low volume high end supercars and racing cars."
True, but sooner or later, economies of scale eventually would figure into this and lower the price.
Posted by: Gerald Shields | Oct 13, 2007 2:01:46 PM
Nice try Jack. Did you even read the paragraph on "Recycling" of carbon fiber composites that you referenced.
You reference under the headline Recycling says you can shred carbon fiber structural things like Laptop cases. And try to find find a secondary used for the shreds, like what? Especially when we are talking prodigious quantities like 16 million or more car bodies each of several hundred kilograms, scrapped per year in the USA alone. What use for "shreds" can you envision exactly in the quantities you propose?
If it burns it emits dioxins, which are active cancer causing matériels, last time I Looked. That course of action is not a good green viewpoint, Jack...
Your recycling article turns out to be the same type of re-use that Southeast Asia peasants do for a few scrap tires by cutting the tire tread up to make sandals. Somehow their sandal re-use is dwarfed by the number of scrap tires available. That is not recycling anyways. Technically its called "Tertiary Reuse" in the sustainability Green community.
Instead of melting some 16 million metal car bodies annually for recycling; we are going to make shreds filler for what possible purpose then? To bury in a land fill?
That shred filler isn't very useful as filler for very many uses such as concrete aggregate even; as it adds little strength and adds flammability and poison issues to the resultant concrete.
That also means wunderkinden, that every new carbon fiber car body is an unsustainable one-time-only use of energy and materials.
What kind of sustainable Greens are you anyways? Don't you want to save the World?
.
Posted by: | Oct 13, 2007 8:03:59 PM
Stupid baiting no name trollboy...
Posted by: jack | Oct 13, 2007 9:06:44 PM
Takes one to know one, jack :)
Posted by: AES | Oct 14, 2007 12:27:52 AM
Back on topic -
As far as carbon fiber is concerned, I honestly think that in the long term, it is going to be used for bodywork and only a few structurally crucial parts of the car. Even in the most advanced supercars - Ferrari Enzo, for example - the carbon fiber is used in addition to an aluminium honeycomb which forms the foundation for the rest of the chassis.
If carbon fiber becomes more affordable, it would be good to use it for roofs, floors, driveshafts, etc. For slightly less critical stuff like hoods/bonnets, boot/trunk lids, high strength Lexan would be much cheaper, and still offer great weight savings.
Posted by: AES | Oct 14, 2007 12:38:13 AM
Takes one to know one, jack :)
Oh hey - it's Mr. I Make Numbers Up Then Call People Names. Stalking me from thread to thread now that your arguments in one thread have been shown to have no factual basis?
Posted by: jack | Oct 14, 2007 9:57:49 AM
Jack,
"People who live in glass houses..."
I have asked several times, very courteously, for you to simply desist from trolling, and you won't be trolled.
In another post I thanked you personally for a referenced article that you supplied.
Posted by: | Oct 14, 2007 10:45:40 AM
I have asked several times, very courteously, for you to simply desist from trolling, and you won't be trolled.
Hey trollboy, newsflash for you - no name, no care. You demean your own sorry self by behaving this way.
Posted by: jack | Oct 14, 2007 11:22:50 AM
I do have my facts straight. For a living i study the auto industry technologies and it is well accepetd within the car industry that the prius is a triumph of marketing over common sense since hybrid technology is very expensive to implemnet adding typically 20 to 30% to a vehciles cost.
For those that believe that you will make fuel savings using a prius over the lifetime of the vehicle you are deluding yourselves.
If consumers could recoup their reduced petrol costs so quickly and make such savings why don't toyota boast this in their adverts for the prius ? it is because the figures don't add up. the reality would be pay more now and the second owner of the vehcile in ten years time will make the fuel savings.
I have shown that an equivalent non-hybrid vehicle to the prius is considerably cheaper and therefore to recoup fuel costs will take around 10 years - and that's at euoopean fuel prices - at average world prices the cost/benefit is even more of a nonsense.
To those that claim that carbon fibre manufacture will become cheaper with 'economies of scale' i have to laugh. They clearly don't understand how cars are actually made and how unsuitable a slow process like moulding carbon fibre or carbon fibre reinforced plastic is compared to a pressed metal panel that can be stamped in under a second. Speed is everything when manufacturing a car when tens of thousands are made a day.
Posted by: daniel billinton | Oct 15, 2007 2:03:14 AM
further support for my view about hybrids is this report from Automotive news from September 18th 2007
"If pure logic had been the only determinant, not a single hybrid vehicle would have been on display at the Frankfurt auto show this year - not even from Toyota.
The reason: Combining a gasoline engine and an electric motor to power a vehicle is the most ineffective and most expensive method of cutting carbon dioxide emissions.
It costs the buyer of a hybrid vehicle in Europe 1,000 euros (about $1,425) to block the emission of one ton of CO2. But just $710 will achieve the same savings by using an advanced diesel or gasoline direct-injection engine.
i.e. half the cost
I rest my case.
Posted by: daniel billinton | Oct 15, 2007 2:24:53 AM
I think the importance of the prius2 is not his fuel efficiency . There Audi has shown Toyota eight years ago with the aboutequalsize Audi A2 1.2 that you can do it much better without hybrid . ( toyota 104 g CO2 audi 81 G ( with all add ons 86 ) )
The importance of the prius2 is that he has opened the window to the electric car which you can drive even if there is no gasoline anymore avaiable for private drivers .
Posted by: C. Spangenberg | Oct 15, 2007 8:37:51 AM
The future is not downsizing ordinary cars but upsizing HPVs with a lightweight electric motor / battery as lightweight as an ordinary bicycle .
Posted by: C. Spangenberg | Oct 15, 2007 8:45:17 AM
I agree about the A2 being way ahead of it's time with 94mpg and even now it puts the prius in the shade.
I agree also about upsizing HPV's. VW is already thinking along these lines and is planning to produce the '1 litre car' by 2010 a small 2 seater vehicle, with passenger behind the driver and powered by a single cyclinder 8.4bhp, 300 cc diesel engine with fuel consumption of 1 litre/100km (which equates to 280mpg and 25g CO2/km
Makes you wonder why motorcycle fuel consumption figures are rarely better than most cars ( CD factor of 1 versus 0.3 to 0.4 for a car is the main answer)
Posted by: daniel billinton | Oct 15, 2007 8:57:17 AM
daniel,
You are right, but still not getting it.
The people buying a Prius are not stupid for letting Toyota talk them into paying a premium for economic reasons. Most of them are more than capable of doing the math themselves. They pay the extra price to reduce their impact on the climate, while still driving a spacious, safe and luxurious car.
I challenge you to find a car that that emits less CO2/km than the Prius and:
- has an automatic transmission
- has climate control
- does 0-100 km/u (0-60 mph) in less than 11 seconds
- has the same interior space as the Prius
Although this model was introduced 4 years ago, you will fail to do so.
Posted by: Anne | Oct 15, 2007 9:01:08 AM
When GM said that Toyota was losing money on every Prius in the beginning, they were probably right. But Toyota stuck with it and got economies of scale and now have sold more than 1 million hybrids worldwide. This is leadership. Something GM should learn about.
Posted by: sjc | Oct 15, 2007 9:03:47 AM
For those that believe that you will make fuel savings using a prius over the lifetime of the vehicle you are deluding yourselves.
Math not your strong suit?
Posted by: jack | Oct 15, 2007 9:05:59 AM
Daniel, you STILL don't get it. Even *if* you won't recoup the fuel savings over the life of a Prius that is NOT the sole reason of why people buy the Prius.
Apart from the fuel savings like I said is the environmental efficiency and low CO2 output. No other car in the same size or class as a Prius can match such low CO2 output. And please don't mention Mini Cooper D or Polo Bluemotion again, because they are not in same size/class as a Prius.
There is also the refinement of a hybrid that you simply cannot get with a diesel or gasoline engine.
Posted by: toyo | Oct 15, 2007 11:20:10 AM
Daniel, you STILL don't get it.
Some people don't want to get it.
Posted by: jack | Oct 15, 2007 11:35:47 AM
"you are right but still not getting it" ??
i think that just about sums up how i have won the argument about hybrids being a nonsense but you try and then change the terms of the argument by saying they are somehow 'nicer'
Automotive News have concluded that there should not have been a single hybrid on show at frankfurt this year - are you saying they 'don't get it' ??
Every anaylsis i have studied, and done myself has concluded the same thing : Hybrids do not make ANY economic sense and are deceit on the public.
Detailed research I have seen indicates that they cost at least twice as much as any other co2 reduction technology - therefore why do people get sucked in by them ?
The answer is marketing not sensible judgement.
People are sold the notion that hybrids are somehow 'environemnatlly fiiendly' and if you drive a hybrid you can drive somehwo guilt free - a diesel or direct injection engine doesn't have the same kudos, even if it has the same or better emissions.
It is a symptom of our age - hype and superfifical appearances over actual factual reality.
What none of you 'just don't get' is that the world price for carbon is around $50 i.e. $14 /ton of CO2
Any measure costing more than $14/ton Co2 are uneconomic as it would be easier to plant more tress and carbon offset the emissions
The hybridisation of a car costs around $2,300/ton to save a ton of Co2 i.e 165 times as much. that is a complete no brainer.
And you've got the nerve to question my maths skills ?
Posted by: daniel billinton | Oct 16, 2007 7:32:43 AM
Every anaylsis i have studied, and done myself has concluded the same thing : Hybrids do not make ANY economic sense and are deceit on the public. Detailed research I have seen indicates that they cost at least twice as much as any other co2 reduction technology - therefore why do people get sucked in by them ?
You clearly don't know what you're talking about. First off, automobiles are expenses, not investments, and every component on the vehicle loses value, quite rapidly in fact. So the very notion of "economic sense" somehow only needing to be applied to hybrids is farcical.
That said, a consumer weighs many factors when buying a vehicle, not just some generic economics. Unlike you, I trust most people to understand their own myriad needs and wants better than you or I can know them, and clearly they are making decisions to buy hybrids in droves, despite your empty protestations about them.
As for the economic calculus itself, it is a trivial task to demonstrate that the premium for the vehicle will easily be recouped in terms of gasoline savings.
These red herring CO2 metrics are ridiculous and have next to nothing to do with consumer preferences for the vast majority of people.
Posted by: jack | Oct 16, 2007 11:12:53 AM
Daniel wrote: "Every anaylsis i have studied, and done myself has concluded the same thing : Hybrids do not make ANY economic sense and are deceit on the public."
Daniel, every early adopters of a new technology paid 5-10 times the eventual cost of the item so that the mass of people later can enjoy the technology for much less. For example: the PC, Digital camera, Flat-panel TV, DLP TV, DVD players...
This makes a lot of economic sense, because without the early adopters willing to pay a hefty premium price, no company can recoup the development cost of a new technology, hence no technological advanacement, and life will be quite boring, indeed!
Hybrid technology is vital for the car industry and for the future motorists in the days of peak-oil and energy scarcity.
Toyota and Honda predict that eventually, the extra cost of a HEV will be brought down on par with conventional non-hybrid drive train. The cost premium of hybrid option kept getting lower.
But, without early adopters or enthusiasts knowingly and willingly putting out extra money to support new advancement, it will never happen. Without the egg, there will never be chicken.
With the Prius, the extra money spent to acquire it will be made up for with lower fuel cost and lower maintenance cost after some years, and hence the new technology acquisition cost premium is actually FREE! London and Vancouver and other cities are using the Prius as taxis by the hundreds, due to the low operating cost of the vehicle. These taxis are racking up 300,000-500,000 kms easily without major problem.
Posted by: Roger Pham | Oct 16, 2007 8:03:28 PM
Did you see the photos yesterday of Vladimir Putin shaking Ahmadinejad's hand? The world's oil supply is mostly controlled by very illiberal, anti-democratic regimes. And hybrid technology can save a lot of oil.
If you compare the Prius to truly comparable vehicles it looks pretty good. Besides, when people buy a BMW for $40-90K the only payback they get is emotional. Driving past gas stations is another form of emotional payback.
Posted by: JamesEE | Oct 17, 2007 9:43:58 AM
500cc? Sounds kind of underpowered. How long is a 500cc
engine going to last pulling that big thing around?
I do see that MIT is working on efficient mini-engines,
but I think that's years & years away from reality.
500cc might be OK in Europe or Japan, but it's not
going to take the stress & strain of American driving.
We put some miles on. The car has to last.
Posted by: swen | Oct 22, 2007 10:59:11 AM
Swen,
1500 cc for 1300 kg Prius II vs. 500 cc for 420 kg ultra-light Prius. Ratio is the same.
Posted by: Roger Pham | Oct 22, 2007 1:37:11 PM
Fred Schumacher says: "One third the weight + one third the engine power = 50% fuel consumption reduction or about 100 mpg. Could better drive train + better batteries + reduced drag have driven fuel consumption to one third or about 150 mpg?"
There are diminishing returns to increasing fuel efficiency. For example, assuming 15,000 miles driven per year, if the owner of a 12.5 mpg large pickup truck or SUV switched to a 25 mpg passenger sedan, the annual fuel savings would amount to 600 gallons (15,000 miles / 12.5 mpg = 1,200 gallons. 15,000 / 25 mpg = 600 gallons).
If the driver of a 25 mpg passenger sedan switched to a Prius, the annual fuel savings would be 300 gallons (600 gallons per year for the 25 mpg passenger sedan vs. 300 gallons per year for the 50 mpg Prius.
If the driver of a Prius switched to a 100 mpg PHEV, the annual fuel savings would be 150 gallons. (300 gallons per year for the Prius vs. 150 gallons per year for the PHEV).
If the owner of a PHEV switched to an ultra-efficient, ultra-costly 200 mpg Super PHEV, the annual fuel savings would be 75 gallons per year (150 gallons per year vs. 75 gallons per year for the ultra super PHEV).
To summarize, given 15,000 miles driven per year; the planet saves 600 gallons of gas per year by simply getting somebody out of a gas-guzzing SUV and into a typical 25 mpg passenger sedan. Another 300 gallons per year is saved by getting a driver out of a 25 mpg passenger sedan and into a 50 mpg Prius. Only 150 gallons is saved by going from a 50 mpg Prius into a 100 mpg PHEV, and a miniscule 75 gallons is saved by advancing from a 100 mpg PHEV into a 200 mpg Super-PHEV.
At the same time that fuel savings dimishes with increasing mileage, the cost of increasing mileage increases with increasing mileage. Increasing costs combined with diminishing returns.
Moral to the story? Improving the efficiency of pickups and SUV's to 25 mpg will save far more fuel, at a far lower price, than spending huge amounts of money to develop and buy ultra low-mileage science experiments like PHEV's.
Posted by: Greener | Oct 26, 2007 11:39:24 PM
Great point, Greener.
One way to get people off these SUV's is to make them less exciting to drive. EPA could maker regulation to restrict maximum acceleration time 0-60 mph to increase in proportion to the weight of the vehicle. Thus, by new law, heavier vehicles must accelerate slower than lighter vehicles when you floor the gas pedal, by engine downsizing. Those would true needs to use these vehicle for commercial purposes will still have them around at reasonable price, while those who would use them for vanity reason would be turned off by slower acceleration performance.
Engine downsizing, when matched with a 5-6 speed transmission with tall gear ratio and quick downshift capability, will increase fuel efficiency by 50%. (consumes 33% less fuel than before!), without any cost nor weight increase associated with hybrid drive train, or other complicated schemes. The weight saved with a smaller and lighter engine will result in even more fuel saved.
Posted by: Roger Pham | Oct 27, 2007 12:42:56 PM
Or, rather than mandating average mileage for cars (while leaving light-duty trucks out of the equation), you mandate a MINIMUM mpg standard of 25 mpg for all light duty vehicles.
Posted by: Greener | Oct 27, 2007 3:43:05 PM
With new laws and incentives, do you see any chance that a flex fuel car in the US (or California) will be priced the same as a gasoline car any time soon?
What's the price difference now (5%, 10%, 20%)?
Posted by: Chai | Nov 23, 2007 10:18:32 AM
Overdrives are a vastly underutilized and cheap method of improving highway MPG, and cot little. Quick shifting DSG style trannys are not cheap, and don't do much for city driving. Diesels and hybrids improve city MPG.
And the 1/X is a great concept. Now they just have to make it affordable.
Posted by: GdB | Feb 7, 2008 10:17:48 AM
Carbon fiber composites too difficult to mass produce? Nonsense! Just saw an add for a golf driver with graphite shaft AND a Titanium head on Amazon for less than $ll.00. Just take some lessons from the sports manufacturers. It shows you what a strong market and high volumes can do to process and costs. Or, why not just make the car frame out of shafts from the golf industry and leverage their mass market?
Posted by: Kikdike | Sep 4, 2008 5:31:59 PM
