Toyota to use new hybrid system in 2008, report says

Reuters / November 16, 2005

TOKYO -- Toyota Motor Corp. will begin using a cheaper and smaller hybrid system from 2008, more than doubling production of the fuel-sipping vehicles by then to 600,000 units a year, the Asahi newspaper reported on Wednesday.

Japan's top automaker is keen to spread the hybrid powertrain as the main fuel-efficient alternative to internal combustion engines to make up for initial spending on research and development and to lower high per-unit production costs.

Toyota is aiming to sell 1 million hybrid vehicles annually some time in the decade beginning in 2010.

Since rolling out the world's first gasoline-electric hybrid car in 1997, Toyota has improved the powertrain with a second-generation system it calls THS II, which powers the remodeled Prius and Lexus RX 400h SUV, among others.

But the hybrid system, which allows vehicles to run on an electric motor under certain driving conditions to save fuel, still costs manufacturers -- and consumers -- a premium of thousands of dollars over regular cars.

By making the system smaller, Toyota aims to slash the premium by half and expand its use to most of its mid-sized or larger cars, the newspaper said, without citing sources.

Toyota executives have said they aimed to eventually make the powertrain available across its entire product line-up.

Toyota has been pouring r&d resources into addressing the cost issue, but a spokeswoman said a target date for a third generation hybrid system had not been set.

"2008 is certainly a possibility, but we don't know that yet," she said.

Toyota expects to build and sell about 250,000 hybrid vehicles this year through its eight model offerings.

Next year, that will rise to between 350,000 and 400,000 units, boosted by the addition of the Camry hybrid to be built in Kentucky from the latter half of 2006, and the China-built Prius, production of which has been targeted to begin by this year.

The newspaper said Toyota would begin making key components for the hybrid systems in the United States -- the first time this manufacturing would be done outside Japan -- in line with the automaker's stated aim to eventually procure such parts locally.

Led by Toyota's aggressive push, sales of hybrid vehicles have risen sharply over the past few years, particularly in the United States and Europe, but automakers have yet to agree on a de facto powertrain for saving fuel.

Reply to
C. E. White
Loading thread data ...

Thank you.

My Avalon from Georgetown is an excellent and trouble-free car, so I'm comfortable with Toyota's building future hybrids here. I'm aware that others will disagree. I speak for myself.

I think I'll wait for testimonials before buying a future Prius built in China.

Brent

Reply to
Brent Secombe

The end of GM, if it doesn't die in the meantime.

Reply to
D.D. Pallmer

GM has a plan. Instead of improving their current models they will spend $10 billion on a new platform code name Zebra. Unfortunately the platform will sell well short of its goals because the first units had alternators which failed withing 200 miles.

Reply to
Art

Great news, Ford is upping its hydride production as well and so is GM. I hope more people switch to hybrids. If they do it will leave more gasoline available for those of us that prefer to drive sporty, larger, safer and more powerful V8 power vehicles. The only problem I see is OPEC will raise the price of crude to maintain their current profit levels ;)

mike hunt

Reply to
Mike Hunter

If demand is lowered, prices will fall.

Reply to
Dan J.S.

Not in and ever growing market where OPEC has the lowest basic production costs, that enables them to control world production minimums to create demand any time the price falls too low. You will never again see $15 a barrel crude.

mike hunt

Reply to
Mike Hunter

You wont see $15, I agree, but you will see $25 very soon.

Reply to
Dan J.S.

Careful, guys... I'm saving these.

Brent

Reply to
Brent Secombe

The reason I am confident it will be $25 is because at $30 shell oil (where billions of gallons of it are up in Canada mixed in with sand) becomes profitable. Just look what is happening with that industry.

Reply to
Dan J.S.

Damn spell checker... :)

Reply to
Dan J.S.

You can't just let the Spledding Chucker run automagically, you have to approve or reject all corrections. It will often reject correctly spelled proper names or odd terms - not because they're spelled wrong, they just aren't in the program's dictionary.

-->--

Reply to
Bruce L. Bergman

Tar sands in Canada aren't a given. They require a lot of investment; you have to heat up the dirt and drain the oil out. It's energy intensive and not easy. IT's also hell on the environment.

Oil "shale" is not really oil at all. It won't be profitable at any level. You have to put so much energy into it to get the tiny amount of energy out that it's pointless.

Gas to liquids technology will take stranded natural gas and convert it to high grade oil. But this too requires investment and is no quick fix for rapidly depleting oil fields in the West.

Reply to
st-bum

Of course not but the oil 'held' in the shale is.

Bullpoopie...why do you suppose they're sinking billions of dollars into it?

This is a completely misleading statement...just look at Alberta Canada...apparently the Gov't there is making a gift of some amount to every citizen living there this year because of their profits from their 'tar sands'...pointless?, I don't think so...

Reply to
Gord Beaman

The oil in Canada isn't oil shale, it's tar sands. There is a big difference. Tar sands are an especially viscous type of oil. I don't know of anyone anywhere getting oil out of "oil shale".

Maybe Alberta is getting profits from conventional wells. From what I've read the tar sands haven't produced that much yet.

Reply to
st-bum

You're likely right but whatever they're doing they're making jack...

Reply to
Gord Beaman

No at all true. In the early 70's the cost to extract oil from oil shale was just above the break even point. The Saudis torpedoed the whole thing by lowering the cost of crude. As long as the Saudis can just open the taps, they can always keep many of the alternatives uneconomic. Too bad our energy policy seems to be fork as much money over to the oil companies and Saudis as you can so that they will keep forking over contributions to keep you in office. A President who actually cared about the future of our country beyond the next election would long ago have tried to slap a significant tax on imported crude oil. As it is, our energy policy is an oil company's dream....

References:

formatting link
Ed

Reply to
C. E. White

It was common in the past to extrat oil from oil shale. In most cases cheap middle eastern oil made extraction uneconomic.

Ed

Reply to
C. E. White

No, it's completely true. The shale oil thing was a disaster. It wasn't close to being economically profitable. The paper you cited was published in 1978, before large scale shale mining was attempted. It's just wrong.

Shale oil contains a very small amount of energy. You have to put so much into it, in the form of heat, that it's almost pointless. It also uses a tremendous amount of water and is environmentally damaging to say the least. Maybe in 1978 they thought it would work, but they were wrong. Notice how you haven't heard any stories of shale oil coming back into play. How about China, they have shale oil too, why aren't they doing it? At today's prices it should be worthwhile. And the Saudis have opened their spigots full blast, so there's not much they can do to bring prices down.

Reply to
st-bum

It doesn't contain oil. And you have to heat it to 450C to get any energy out of it. Gee I wonder why it didn't work?

formatting link
The term "oil shale" is a misnomer. It does not contain oil nor is it commonly shale. The organic material is chiefly kerogen, and the "shale" is usually a relatively hard rock, called marl. Properly processed, kerogen can be converted into a substance somewhat similar to petroleum. However, it has not gone through the "oil window" of heat (nature’s way of producing oil) and therefore, to be changed into an oil-like substance, it must be heated to a high temperature. By this process the organic material is converted into a liquid, which must be further processed to produce an oil which is said to be better than the lowest grade of oil produced from conventional oil deposits, but of lower quality than the upper grades of conventional oil.

There are two conventional approaches to oil shale processing. In one, the shale is fractured in-situ and heated to obtain gases and liquids by wells. The second is by mining, transporting, and heating the shale to about 450oC, adding hydrogen to the resulting product, and disposing of and stabilising the waste. Both processes use considerable water. The total energy and water requirements together with environmental and monetary costs (to produce shale oil in significant quantities) have so far made production uneconomic. During and following the oil crisis of the 1970’s, major oil companies, working on some of the richest oil shale deposits in the world in western United States, spent several billion dollars in various unsuccessful attempts to commercially extract shale oil.

Reply to
st-bum

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.