Toyota to introduce plug-in hybrid for 2010, hybrid versions of all cars by 2029
By Joshua Fruhlinger 
posted June 11th 2008 10:56PM
posted June 11th 2008 10:56PM
posted June 11th 2008 10:56PM
A look back on popular stories from today in a specific year.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
Wow. Hybrid versions of all their cars by 2029. Okay, what would impress me is committing to produce hybrids as the standard, and then offer fully electric versions of all their vehicles. And set the target date for 2015. It's sad that Toyota probably has the greenest road map for the near future, of all the major manufacturers.
i believe the oil production has already peaked, thus why we had the sudden increase in price. i think
that; and all that war, corruption, and collusion stuff
Actually, there are several reasons why gas prices have so dramatically increased, and most of them have nothing to do with the US.
First of all, look at pure supply and demand. The price increases simply couldn't be supported if there wasn't another factor also increasing. And with supply basically level at the moment, the only other factor is demand, and yes, it is increasing. You've got countries emerging from the "stone ages" and becoming serious oil-consuming countries, like India and China. The demand doesn't seem to be slowing down any time soon, so the price increases are easily supported by the global economy.
Also, you'll notice that in a country where our fuel prices are so closely tied to the price of crude on the open market (thanks to our low taxes and limited subsidies), these massive increases in prices have hardly impacted our demand. Over the past year, our demand for oil has dropped less than 2%. So our demand for oil in this country doesn't seem to be too closely tied to the price either.
Thus, prices continue to increase. And even if our demand here in the US slows down, it doesn't look like those prices will start dropping anytime soon.
also, 2029? wtf, that is way to far for just HYBRIDS, if they had full electric versions of all models buy 2015, that would be a satisfactory goal.
Last year our family bought a Prius. We correctly predicted gas prices would continue to increase. It's my belief that new sources of oil won't be able to keep pace with increasing global demand. As long as the world's population increases oil consumption will likely increase.
The replacement for the gas-guzzling cars of today is not going to come from the big automakers (Toyota included). Its going to come from someone like Telsa Motors who produces a car that people can afford using the battery technology that is already available and that gets enough range for people to use on their daily commute.
Even the Prius could be made a LOT better by replacing the drive train with a much simpler series system where each wheel has its own electric motor and the gasoline engine only exists to drive the generator when there is not enough juice in the battery to power the motors.
Send your C.V. to Toyota please...
I am going to bookmark this page so I can check it in 21 years time.
i don't think your going to be using the same browser/hard drive/ computer for that mater in 21 years.
You will forget about it when you upgrade your OS.
thats what websites like http://del.icio.us/ are for. store all your bookmarks online so you dont have to worry about it when you upgrade your computer.
see you in 21 years.
so... 20 years to get hybrid options of everything from the premier hybrid maker? yawn
What a joke. First the environuts CAUSE the energy crisis by choking off development in 1981, getting in a tizzy over nuclear power and now they won't let us drill or explore, so that Pelosi can keep driving the prices up.
Where do you think the resources to build these cars come from?
Have you seen the impact these have on landfils and the environment in general when recycled, or not, as the case may be?
Where do you think the energy used to recharge them comes from?
COAL, mostly!
Brilliant plan. Typically ill-considered.
And don't even start on biodiesel, which is MURDERING people every day by starving them to death.
But nobody will hold them accountable.
You contradict yourself multiple times in that post. Some of your points are valid and some are misinformed. First off, I don't think you can actually claim that "environuts" caused the energy crisis. The "environuts" didn't drive Chinese and Indian industrialization and exponential increase in energy needs. The "environuts" were not regulating the oil in the 70s. The "environuts" don't and actually never have had much say in policy action, prices, and so on. Fringe players don't get tangible results; macroeconomic conditions DO.
Also, energy production at power plants is FAR more efficient than energy production within an internal combustion engine so even if they ARE getting their electricity from coal, the net effect would still be cleaner than using an IC engine due to inefficiency inherent to that technology.
And with biodiesel/corn ethanol, I am worried about anything based on farm subsidies because it is simply unsustainable, and I agree with you completely here though our reasons may be slightly different. Just wanted to clarify your facts from your flak.
Pelosi is driving the prices up? Wow... typical ignorant Republican right here.
Wow, you *correctly* predicted that the cost of a limited resource, the major sources of which are located in contentious regions, and which is also in ever-increasing demand, would continue to increase in price?
Way to go Nostradamus.
Now, tell me, please, when is Duke Nukem Forever coming out?
CUDOS TO TOYTA...
"All models by 2029", although thats a little late in my books I've been striving for a company or government to enforce such a program.
"ALL" is the key word here. My next car will be a Toyta without a doubt.
Take that american car market..
Yes, yes, your next car should totally be a Toyota Sequoia. It's a Toyota so it must be fuel efficient right?!
Kudos to Toyota for making all their revenue on gas-guzzling SUVs and pick-ups while making people think they are a great, responsible company because they sell the prius which is about as environmentally friendly as the compact florescent light bulb (hint, in the very right usage condition it can work, but for every-day usage not really at all).
To Nolan:
E-85 produces LESS CO2 than gasoline. You totally forgot that since this is a bio-fuel the CO2 that is produced is almost entirely offset by the amount of CO2 the plant consumes as it is growing. E-85 from corn is practically a zero CO2 contributer. Oil on the other hand consumes no CO2, but produces a lot of it (Around 24 lbs when used in an automobile)
E-85 also does not have the extra carbon bond that gas does so when the alcohol in E-85 is burned the exhaust is virtually free of smog. E-85 is also a 105 octane fuel. You WILL notice an increase in engine performance when it is used.
There is also not the huge loss of mileage that you indicated. You are spreading FUD (Fear, Uncertainity and Doubt) around. I have a 1998 Toyota Camry (Non-Flex Fuel) car and I have burned E-85 in it for the last 7000 miles. My net reduction in gas efficiency? 11.8%. I normally get 28 MPG on straight gas and 25 MPG on E-85. I am paying $2.99 per gallon for E-85. Gas in Madison, WI is running $3.97 per gallon. That make E-85 almost 25% cheaper than regular gas. I don't know about you, but my car runs fine on it and I will happily take a fuel that costs 13% less than gas per gallon.
Almost all non-flex fuel vehicles will run on E-85 without any modifications. Why don't you actually run a whole tank and really see what your difference in mileage is?
As for electric cars, that technology was perfected by GM back in 1996. They were forced to make them by California's Air Resource Board that mandated zero emission vehicles be made or an auto manufacturer would not be allowed to sell cars in California. GM introduced the EV1. It got 100-140 miles on a single charge. It had a top speed of 85 miles per hour, went from 0-60 in 3.5 seconds (Faster than a Porche) and used ZERO gas.
Toyota made an all electric version of the RAV4. No gas at all. It got 100 miles on a single charge.
What did these companies do with their break through cars? They leased them and refused to sell one. They then fought the CARB in state and federal court. They finally got a cronie in charge of the CARB board who favored hydrogen fuel cells. This guy removed the ZEV requirement. Six months later he became the CEO of a company doing hydrogen fuel cell research. He was a corrupt individual who sold out all of us and killed off the sole reason car manufacturers were making electric vehicles.
GM repossessed all of the cars that were on lease and crushed them. They did NOT want this tech to come out. GM then sold the patent rights to the NiMH high capacity batteries to Texaco (An oil company) now known as Chevron. This is the same battery technology that is used in current hybrid vehicles. When you purchase a Prius you are sending a royalty payment on the battery technology to an oil company.
The reason you don't see plugin hybrids now is the contracts for the NiMH battery technology specifically state that the auto manufacturers can not include a plugin option. The car must guzzle gas all of the time.
That is the reason why Toyota is going towards lithium ion batteries, to get around this stupid restriction placed on it by an oil company.
Go to youtube and search for ev1. Watch this cars being displayed and driven by their previous owners. A few escaped the crusher and were sent to universities for students to stare at. The mandate from GM was that they could never be driven as a fully electric vehicle again. They had to be converted to a hybrid or face a lawsuit. What the hell does GM care where the car gets it's power to move? They are not an oil company. Why is it ok to convert them to a hybrid, but not use them as an electric vehicle.
Have you ever heard of a auto manufacturer crushing cars that worked perfectly and whose owners wanted to buy them? GM deserves to go out of business for killing a car that could have freed our country from relying on foreign oil. I will not buy another GM product. I tell all of my friends and family about this. They are shocked when they see the evidence. They ask "If they have this technology now why don't they use it?"
Toyota should be commended for all of it's fuel efficiency work. They were the only company that did not cruch their RAV4-EV's. People still own them. One just recently sold on e-bay for $69,000 used. That's more than it cost brand new. They could do better though. Give us a 100% electric drivetrain. That way we can add some additional battery upgrades aftermarket and get back to where we were with the ev1 and Rav4-EV a decade ago.
Check out this information:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UjKG5bVeCDs&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jgwrHXp73u4&watch_response
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_A98NOWmUw&feature=related
Note the last video. This is FROM GM. THEY HAD THE TECHNOLOGY IN 1990!!!!!!!!
I had heard most of this information before, but I didn't know that they were required to make hybrids in order to use their batteries. It makes sense now that you mention it, its just crazy though.
Umm....
We had fully electric cars in the past... when was it? 1930? Earlier?
In any case, all mayor car makers already have all those technologies, they can make hybrids and electric cars even now, but they, uh, don't want to. They think we don't need them.
Thank you, but I still believe that E-85 is not the way to go in the future. Running our cars on the same thing that we consume ourselves does not sound that economical to me especially with rising prices. There are plenty of other sources out there that we can use to power our cars we just need to find out how to use them.
What kind of crack are they smoking? 2029? How many people from Toyota will even be ALIVE in 2029? We will not be using gas in 2029, it will be too expensive to use and there will be alternative fuels by then. Toyota has 2 options, they can get these things out in the next 10 years or they can simply stop making cars, because nobody is going to be driving when gas is $20 a gallon or more. We will be using an alternative fuel or public transportation, we will not be using hybrid gas cars in 2029 since people cannot buy what they cant afford.
"Nolan @ Jun 11th 2008 11:22PM
At least Toyota hasn't taken the route of Flex-Fuel cars."
Oh really?
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=toyota+flex+fuel&btnG=Search
Finally!
Please view these two videos I made for CalCars.org explaining the benefits and need for these types of transitional Plugin Hybrid Electric Vehicles.
Here are the 2 videos:
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=21706F7EB5688D1B
Thanks
Chris Baldwin
Shoulder High Productions
www.shoulderhigh.com
thats a pretty fucking difficult prediction you made there chief.
Take that TATA!
Let's all take a stand and buy golf carts......or segways.
Ok, you pay and we buy :)
If everybody starts plugging in their cars are we not creating a new set of problems? A lot of electricity we use is generated through coal or oil so wouldn't we be creating a much larger carbon footprint? I think the most logical solution is hydrogen. It creates no emissions and is abundant.
I willing to bet if the government (US) were to offer an "X prize" type of award to any auto maker willing to bring a fully working, cost effective fuel cell vehicle to market within five to seven years; there would be a lot of takers.
BTW five years is highly reasonable, come on, we got to the moon in less than ten (if it really happened ;-), and that was a hell of a lot more complex than a fuel cell car. All this country needs is motivation.
Also what i mean by "X prize" is a wad of cash. We squander billions a year on congressional pork projects, why not use that money for something more important??
@ LJKelley:
"I can see the next 'global' potential catostrophe happening by all that radioactive waste seeping into our planet. Its no wonder the amount of Cancer caused by strange chemicals and radioactive technology."
Coal mining also exposes radioactive particles, aerosolizes them and sends them into the air. Sleeping next to someone also allows you the opportunity to absorb radioactive particles. Nuclear technology is actually a lot safer than most people think it is. What we need is a breakthrough in nuclear fusion power. Clean generation with virtually limitless fuel with no waste to speak of. "They" have been promising that fusion power is 20 years away...for the last fifty years.
"Hydrogen exists naturally in our air. That and mandating all new houses in certain regions have solar roofs..."
Actually, there is little to no free hydrogen in the atmosphere. It is less dense than air, and rises and escapes. It is also highly reactive, which means it gets swept up and locked into compounds very easily. In the depths of space, where collisions between atoms of different elements is very rare, free hydrogen is the most abundant element. Here on Earth, the hydrogen is locked up into compounds, the most abundant of which is water. To extract the hydrogen, you must decompose the water that holds it. This uses electricity, in a process called electrolytic decomposition. A rule of physics is that the amount of energy that it takes to electrolytically reduce hydrogen to its free state is equal to the energy it releases when it is recombined with oxygen (which is how hydrogen power would be done). Therefore, we need a method of generating the power needed to generate the hydrogen that is much less expensive than the technology used to extract that power from the hydrogen. Like using solar power to generate the electricity that decomposes the hydrogen, and then using the hydrogen. In that regard, the cars would be running indirectly off of solar power.
I bought a scooter to get me back and forth to work at 90 mpg. The only problem is that now I realize how bad drivers are here in my area. They are selfish, reckless and dangerous. It will limit my scooter use, because I really don't want to die.
Guys! The problem with nuclear plants is NOT with nuclear waste. The problem is in something else:
To produce electricity we heat water,
water turns into vapor,
vapor turns magnets,
magnets produce electricity.
The way we gain heat to turn water into vapor differs in different electricity plants (coal plant - we burn coal to produce heat, nuclear plant - we "nuke" atoms to produce massive heat) doesn't differ much.
Maybe its time to start thinking of alternative ways to produce electricity?
Solar plants? Super-expensive, need large spaces, those spaces can be used for something else, like growing food. Wind mills? Not very effective. But both produce electricity from alternative source.
Think alternative :)
Gajitfreak, perfectly stated. You speak the truth and I hope readers pay attention to the facts that you laid out here. There are kits CURRENTLY AVAILABLE that you can get for your houses that will convert solar energy to hydrogen, giving you a potentially unlimited fuel source for your vehicles. And, when stored in large tanks, you can run your house with it (when Solar isn't sufficient) and sell back the remaining hydrogen/electricity to the main grid and actually make a return on your investment!!!! Don't forget about government subsidies and grants that go to lead-from-the-top individuals who invest in these technologies.
The problem with hydrogen is that unless your vehicle ACTIVELY converts the water to hydrogen via electrolysis or other means, you will have to stop to fill up. If there are no filling stations, your vehicle is going to be good for only short trips (vacationing is out). Even with this drawback, I feel hydrogen/solar is the way to go.
But, as someone else pointed out, having choices is key moving away from oil. E85 may not be perfect, but it is viable. The problem with it is that farmers are cashing in right now, again, causing food prices to rise. Until we get smart about how to make Ethanol, this will be a problem. Ethanol can be made from all sorts of things, such as switchgrass. I think farmers would be reluctant to grow switchgrass because it's risky--what if no one buys their switchgrass; whereas, Corn is always going to be in demand, so it's less risky for the farmer to grow corn. Unfortunate, but true. However, once Ethanol (E85) takes a lead in market share and becomes the #1 sought-after fuel, I think you'll start to see farmers raising all kinds of interesting crops to make it and then Corn prices will stabilize. "The free market will fix itself", I believe someone once said. I believe this has a lot of truth to it. Like Hydrogen, Ethanol has potential.
Eve as these liquid fuels start emerging, I believe Electric cars are the way to go for most people. Sure, you you still have a carbon footprint with an all-electric car, but there are so many upsides:
1. Your electric car costs < 1$ to charge once and goes for 100-300 miles on a single charge.
2. Your electric car wastes no energy while stopped at stoplights, congestion like fuel-based engines do. Idling engines are wasteful.
Someone mentioned the need for electricity grows as more electric vehicles emerge. This is only a short-term problem if people start producing their own energy with solar-paneling, windmills, or buoy generators (people that live by water only). Even if the need for energy grows, it's still energy PRODUCED SOLELY IN YOUR COUNTRY, as opposed to somewhere that you are, say enemies with. Speaking from a USA standpoint, we have literally trillions of TONS of coal to help alleviate this concern. And, as several people have mentioned---NUCLEAR energy. This will also help solve the additional drain on the power grid from electric cars. If we can get more nuclear facilities up and running, i believe everyone will benefit, not just by having a cheap energy to run your vehicle, but cheap energy to run your house with. Say you have 15 cent per Kilowatt-Hour? How would 5 cent/kWh sound to you? It's possible.
2029? Color me unimpressed. If we aren't completely away from internal combustion by 2029 then we're all boned.
By 2060 the cars will be equipped with Mr. Fusion!
Predicting last year that gas prices would increase is like predicting that the sun will come up tomorrow morning. Not a real stretch of the ole noggin. :-)
I'm getting a horse.
Let's me guess... just cost a arm and leg.
:-(
Artie Lange........ fiyah!!
I paid 3.62 for gas yesterday
Hybrids are a marketing gimmick. Diesels have been getting 50mpg for years in Europe.
Ethanol was never meant to be a motor fuel but rather an additive (better than the poisonous MTBE), primarily as an oxygenator.
E-85 is not sustainable, whether or not the ethanol is made from cellulose.
And conspiracy theories are nonsense.
Almost all EV-1 cars were powered by lead-acid batteries, not NiMH.
Anyone who wished to pay the price and meet minimum order quantity could order NiMH batteries from Cobasys - GM has, but hobbyists can't order in quantities of 1 for a homebrew conversion, so the latter spread conspiracy theories.
I'd love to see a source for the claim "contracts for the NiMH battery technology specifically state that the auto manufacturers can not include a plugin option."
Panasonic had to settle when they chose to violate patents instead of licensing the technology - or is it OK for a foreign company to violate valid U.S.-issued patents?
2929? Wow. Way to take your time!
By that year, we may be onto different technologies.