Microvast’s MV-C Gen 4 Li-ion battery packs to power REE’s P7 fully-flat commercial EV platforms
EIA: Proved reserves of US natural gas increased 32% during 2021

Toyota Motor Manufacturing Turkey to become TME’s first plant to produce plug-in-hybrid vehicles and batteries

The second-generation Toyota C-HR will be produced at Toyota Motor Manufacturing Turkey (TMMT) in Sakarya—about 150 km east of Istanbul. Available in hybrid and plug-in hybrid versions, the new Toyota C-HR will also be the first plug-in hybrid passenger car to be produced in Turkey. In addition, TMMT will be Toyota Motor Europe’s first plant to start producing plug-in hybrid vehicles, and the first to be equipped with a battery production line.


The 100% electrified powertrain line-up of the new Toyota C-HR reflects Toyota’s commitment to offer what it terms appropriate carbon reduction opportunities to the largest and most competitive market segment in Europe. In addition to the hybrid version, the new plug-in hybrid Toyota C-HR with locally assembled batteries will further expand Toyota’s multi-technology offer towards its target of 100% CO2 reduction in its vehicle line-up in Europe by 2035.

Alongside the vehicle production line, TMMT will build a new plug-in battery assembly line with a capacity of 75,000 units per year within its facility. Plug-in hybrid battery assembly will start in December 2023, creating around 60 new skilled jobs.

The creation of a battery assembly line in TMMT is a strategic milestone for Toyota’s electrification transformation and will also support other Toyota Europe plants in the future with capable manpower and know-how.

Total investment for this project will be around €317 million, bringing the overall cumulative investment in TMMT to around €2.3 billion. In scope of the new model investment, TMMT will improve and enhance its production line, while laying down the framework to meet the future requirements of production diversity and flexibility.

Toyota is committed to achieving full carbon neutrality in Europe by 2040, and is targeting carbon neutrality in all its manufacturing facilties by 2030. TMMT is progressing towards this goal by introducing technologies which minimize energy consumption while at the same time switching to renewable energy within the Sakyra Plant. These measures include the introduction of new paint shop technologies which minimize CO2 emissions and the use of solar energy which aims to make the plant self-sufficient in its energy use.

Toyota Motor Europe NV/SA (TME) oversees the wholesale sales and marketing of Toyota, GR (Gazoo Racing) and Lexus vehicles and parts and accessories, as well as Toyota’s European manufacturing and engineering operations. Its eight manufacturing plants are located in Portugal, the UK, France, Poland, Czech Republic and Turkey.

In 2021, TME sold 1,076,300 vehicles in Europe for a 6.4% market share.



Of course, many here feel that Toyota knows nothing about building cars.
It being for the third year running the largest car manufacturer on the planet, whilst the VW group with its batteries everywhere strategy has dropped out of the running is irrelevent to them, simply producing cars that people want to buy at an affordable price whilst methodically and systematically working to reduce GHG emissions throughout the production chain as well as in running the car is beside the point, they reckon.

Just promote bling for the elite, at poorer motorist's expense, is the way forward, and far, far cooler, they cry.


I think that Toyota did a reasonable job of building cars for late 20th century. Unfortunately they did keep up with the times and went down the hydrogen fuel cell trail. GM built the first fuel cell automotive vehicle in 1960 (Allis Chalmers built a fuel cell tractor in 1956). GM thought that the fuel cells looked promising for a while as it was somewhat possible to drive and fill up in a manner that consumers were used to. However, by the late 1990s, they built their first electric car which was first used lead acid batteries and later used nickle metal hydride batteries. It was reasonably well liked by those that drove it but it was not really practical until lithium-ion batters became available. Anyway, if Toyota does not figure out how to make battery electric cars at a reasonable price, they are going to lose a large share of their market. California is going require that 35% of new car sales be zero emissions by 2026 and ramp up to 100% by 2035. They will allow PHEVs vehicles to be in the mix but only if they have a real world electric range or at least 50 miles and then they must be not more than 20% of the mix. There are about 10 other states that will follow California's lead. This will represent about 50% of the US market. The other thing that Toyota needs to develop is a reasonable set of Corporate Ethics. They were the largest source of corporate election funding of the US congressional members that refused to certify the election of President Biden and then they tried to lobby congress to prevent California from making their ZEV rules. Anyway, GreenPeace recently rated the 10 largest car companies and had GM first, MB second, VW third, and Toyota dead last. See https://www.greenpeace.org/static/planet4-eastasia-stateless/2022/09/dd6f236f-auto-environmental-guide-2022.pdf I am not really a fan of GreenPeace as I think that they are part of the problem with their stance on nuclear power but I did find this interesting especially as a few years back GM was blamed for killing the electric car.

I could not find any information on the hybrid version of the Toyota C-HR and could not find anything on the 2023 version. However, Toyota had a interactive comparison tool that let me compare a US market non-hybrid 2022 Toyota C-HR with 2023 Chevy Bolt. The listed retail price Bolt is about $2000 higher but you might qualify for a $7500 tax incentive depending on you income level. Also the Bolt is only 290 lbs heavier. But, of course, the real difference is cost of operation. The electric cost for my Bolt is less than 3 cents a mile while assuming a gas cost of $3.50 a US gallon, the Toyota C-HR would cost about 12 cents a mile but you need to add about 2 cents a mile for oil changes (this is actually low as the Toyota C-HR will have other maintenance costs that the Bolt does not have). Anyway, the Toyota C-HR will have operating costs that at least 5 time higher than the Chevy Bolt. So if Toyota is going to stay in the US market, they better figure out how to build a reasonable cost BEV.



There are so many fiddles, mandates and compulsory cross subsidies going on in the car industry that the ostensible figures offer little insights.

At the expensive end of the car spectrum, then true costs are closer.
I tend to be more interested in transport for everyman, and woman, though, where the costs of the well offs electrification have been loaded on to them, so that for instance only Fiat of the major car manufacturers continue to offer a class A car, which is smaller and cheaper, so younger people tended to buy them.
They are also more economic in all sorts of resources, from manufacture to running, whilst non greenhouse pollutants from the tailpipe are now a minor problem compared to shredding tires, which Tesla are rather good at.

The cost of the battery pack is more than the sales price of the cheapest ICE cars, and battery prices are rising, not falling.

None of that means that at some stage electrification will not be practical and economic, but for now full electrification remains as Toyota put it, a beautiful flower on a high mountain, difficult for most to access.

The money pumped into luxury BEVs could have very easily covered the hybridisation of every car being built, with far more savings in just about everything.

It would not however have provided an excuse for subsidies and tax breaks for the well off, which is why it did not happen.

Both myself and Toyota are fully persuaded that full electrification can and should happen.

We are reluctant to achieve decarbonisation by the simple means of driving poorer motorists off the road though, to provide more space for the bling cars of the well off.



I'd also point out that at the heavy end of the spectrum, the SUVs which are fashionable, fuel cell cars are much more competitive.

This should not be taken as any kind of advocacy by me of SUVs, which are in my view the exact opposite of the direction we should be headed, which should be as small and light, and hopefully slow as possible.

But if you are going to build SUVs, then FCEVs or plug in FCEVs come into their own to a considerable extent.


Bling Car Pricing 2023 MSRP<.i>
IONIQ 5 Bev $41,450
Tesla Model Y Bev $52,990
Tesla Model 3 Bev $43,990
Hyundai NEXO FCEV SUV $60,135
Toyota Mirai FCEV $49,500
Toyota RAV4 Prime PHEV $42,340



Thanks for backing up my point that:

' At the expensive end of the car spectrum, then true costs are closer.
I tend to be more interested in transport for everyman, and woman, though, where the costs of the well offs electrification have been loaded on to them,'

For more data points, here are cheap cars to buy here in the UK, where costs are often higher, and include 20% VAT for starters:

' Dacia Sandero: £12,595
MG3: £13,295
Kia Picanto: £13,400
Hyundai i10: £13,430
Dacia Sandero Stepway: £13,795
Citroen C3: £13,995
Volkswagen up!: £14,070
Fiat Panda: £14,485
Fiat 500 hybrid - £14,990
Dacia Duster: £15,295'


You can't get a car with a worthwhile battery pack at anything remotely like that, unless someone else is paying.



The article was about the new plant for the Toyota C-HR. I could not find out much information about the hybrid version of the car but from Toyota's US website I was able to compare the Toyota C-HR with Chevy Bolt. The vehicles are roughly the same size with the Bolt being somewhat shorter but having more interior room. Even the relatively large battery, the weight of the Bolt is less than 300 lbs more. Not considering any of the potential tax incentives for the Bolt, the Toyota C-HR is about $2000 less expensive than the Bolt but even at the current lower price of gas, the Bolt will cost at least 10 to 12 cents less per mile to drive so after about 20,000 miles the Bolt will cheaper and if the cost of fuel goes back up, the economic of the Bolt will be even better.

The main reason why the price of Lithium-Ion batteries went up is that when the price of gas and diesel when up, more people tried to go battery electric and the demand for batteries when up faster than had been expected. However, GM has dropped the price of the Bolt at least twice and Ford just announced a price drop for the MustangE (see above). Two of my friends that own a mechanical contracting company recently ordered 2 Ford electric pickups because the electric trucks are just cheaper of own. Also, the lead article for today (01/31/22) is about GM investing in a domestic source for Lithium for their battery.

As far as lower cost vehicles being available for everyone, there are at least two BEVs available in China that cost approximately $5000 US, the Wuling Hongguang Mini EV and the Chery QQ Ice Cream (GM is the 44% owner of Wuling). Japan also has battery electric Kei cars but I did not find the cost of these vehicles. I believe that the Tata Mini EV is even less expensive. These vehicles will not meet US or European safety standards but it should be possible to make BEVs that are lower cost than equivalent IC cars.

I very much doubt that fuel cells will find a sizeable market in the US for light duty vehicles and they are extremely unlikely to be less expensive than BEVs as they start off with the disadvantage of using at least twice the energy.

I am not much of a fan of Elon Musk but I will give him credit for helping to make the market for BEVs and will wait to see if the price of the recently announced Model 2 is more reasonable. But, I really do not understand why you are so defensive about Toyota.



I dispute the meme that introducing cars with whacking great batteries has been a cost effective way of proceeding.

Has it reduced the cost of batteries by volume? Sure, but at what unneeded expence?

The notion that it was needed to reduce pollution ex GHG is false, as with modern engines almost all the pollution is from non exhaust causes, tires for instance.

Batteries in buses and delivery vehicles would have been a far more economic way of proceeding, with increasing hybridisation in cars as it becomes economic, just as Toyota have done.

But of course that would have the major disadvantage that it would not have provided an excuse for deeply regressive tax breaks etc for the well off, and would enable the hoi-polloi to drive more economically, instead of being driven off the road to make way for the important people.

And I also agree with Toyota, that the final pattern of car usage and how it is powered remains an open question.

For sure, batteries will pay a big part, but again those with easy access to recharge simply assume that it will be fine for everyone, when the vast majority of the world's motorists have not and won't have anywhere to plug in.

And since as battery enthusiasts note, most motorists only travel less than 30 miles a day, it surely may make sense for many to have a modest battery with a fuel cell for when you do want to go on a run.

Aside from potential initiatives like Kubas -1 manganese hydride, which would absolutely hammer the costs of putting in a big battery.

The world's greatest salesman has sold the meme that 'There is no alternative'

Oh yes there is, including reducing car use instead of subsidising the well off to drive thumping great speed machines.

I prefer Toyota's approach to Tesla's by far, leaving aside the deeply unpleasant sociopath running it.


The 100% electrified powertrain line-up of the new Toyota C-HR reflects Toyota’s commitment

Let’s hope so and see if the Toyota bZ1X (Toyota Aygo X Electric) low cost SUV is built at TMMT.


Hi Gryf:

TMC has been deeply committed to the electrification of transport since its foundation:

' In accordance with Sakichi's final wishes, Kiichiro Toyoda undertook research and development on secondary batteries.

In 1925, Sakichi Toyoda donated prize money to the Imperial Institute of Invention and Innovation for invention of a secondary battery, and in August 1935, the Institute conducted the Third Secondary Battery Invention Contest based on the Ideal Battery Million Yen Contest proposed by Sakichi. The title of the prize was "invention of a non-lead-acid battery with low mass per 1 kilowatt capacity and collision durability". The deadline for submissions was November 4, 1936, and the first prize was 5,000 yen. The first and second contests resulted in considerable progress in lead-acid batteries, and as a result, the third contest sought entries of non-lead-acid batteries.1'


And they remain one of the 4 biggest investors in battery development, with their partner Panasonic being another of the 4.

What they won't do is turn out cars in the hope that 'it will all work out' as for instance in Tesla's utterly lethal fake autodrive, which assumes that a driver can instantlly grab the wheel and resume full control when not paying much attention, something which repeated testing by umpteen organisations has shown is outside of the envelope of human capacity.

A Toyota car will remain a Toyota car, and they will strive to make them reliable and safe, with economics not dependent on huge subsidies and extorting poorer motorists, although to be sure they can and have screwed up on occasion even then.

As soon as batteries can actually do the job they are touted for, economically and safely with good longevity, they will be in Toyota cars, BEVs etc

Mind you, I drive a Peugeot myself, as I find Toyota a bit boring and my car has a sunroof! ;-)


Toyota's chief scientist has weighed in:

' With some solid facts and figures at hand, the carmaker’s Chief Scientist Gill Pratt says that the best approach for a sustainable future is a multipronged one, blending EVs with hybrids and other green technologies, and not a full-on commitment to battery-powered cars only.'


' So Toyota isn’t anti-EV, but it believes in a diversified approach and it’s predicting a global shortage of lithium, which is the most important material used in today’s lithium-ion batteries found in pure EVs, hybrids, and plug-in hybrids.

Gill Pratt and his team concluded that to lower carbon emissions as much as possible, it makes more sense to spread the limited supply of lithium among as many cars as possible, electrifying as many cars as possible.

He hypothesized a fleet of 100 internal combustion engine cars with average emissions of 250 grams of carbon dioxide per kilometer traveled. Now, assuming a limited supply of lithium, there’s only enough of it to make 100 kilowatt-hours of batteries. Toyota’s Chief Scientist says that if it were used for a single, big battery, the average emissions of the whole fleet would drop by just 1.5 g/km.'


Of course, any projected lithium shortage won't last forever, but the question is what should we be building right now, and for the next few years.

Cars with massive lithium batteries do very little to reduce emissions compared to more cars with smaller batteries.

The notion of all electric right now is dependent on conditions which just aren't there, including ever dropping battery prices, which ain't happening.

Good excuse for the well off to grab perks and subsidies though, which is what it has always been about.

The smug self satisfaction when acting so greedily is simply an added bonus.


The above is too harsh on my part for those trying to help the environment by buying BEV cars, and most certainly it has helped reduce the cost of batteries.

The whole story has been way, way oversold though, and it has been a very inefficient use of resources, and deeply regressive.

Toyota's multi pronged and more measured approach is in my view the correct one, certainly if we want to reduce GHG whilst still keeping folk mobile, instead of simply driving those of more limited means off the roads, which would have a similar effect in GHG reduction, but is not the sort of society I advocate, and indeed I vehemently oppose.

Who is causing the vast majority of emissions?
The well off of course, so subidising them to keep them somewhat in check, let alone reduce them, is a nonsense.

Zero fuel tax on aeroplanes, including private jets, tells us all we need to know about who is driving and controlling the alledged ' emissions reductions' and for whose benefit.

The comments to this entry are closed.