Toyota's green image is suddenly black-and-blue

Toyota's green image is suddenly black-and-blue

Mark Rechtin Automotive News December 10, 2007 - 12:01 am ET

LOS ANGELES - For years, Toyota's environmental reputation has been beyond reproach. But now it seems everyone from the Detroit 3 to the Sierra Club is questioning the green credentials of the company that gave America the Prius.

In fact, environmental activists are distancing themselves from Toyota - especially since the company sided with General Motors, Ford and Chrysler on the subject of how much and how fast to raise CAFE standards.

And Toyota's bigger redesigns of the Tundra pickup and Sequoia and Land Cruiser SUVs have not endeared the automaker to green advocates.

Is Toyota worried? Not so you could tell.

"We don't get caught up in the rhetoric," says Jim Lentz, president of Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A. "We have thick skin."

Environmentalists have begun piling on. The Natural Resources Defense Council has launched a Web site titled "How Green Is Toyota?" The site underlines what it calls the company's hypocrisy, calling out Toyota for "trying to move America backward on fuel economy."

3-point message Toyota's new corporate advertising campaign emphasizes these ideas.

  1. Green vehicles

  2. Local production

  1. Social responsibility

Joining the club

In the past, Sierra Club leaders held Toyota up as an example of a car company willing to exceed standards. But more recently it has called the automaker's alignment with the Detroit 3 in this year's congressional fuel economy debate "deeply disappointing."

Unlike Honda and Nissan, Toyota opposed legislation before Congress that would boost fuel economy for all new vehicles to 35 mpg by 2020.

Meanwhile, Toyota's competitors, especially GM, have been pushing their own green credentials hard - and tweaking Toyota along the way.

The Chevrolet Tahoe Two Mode Hybrid has nine decals and badges proclaiming its hybrid status - including a strip of decals 3 inches high running along the sides of the hulking SUV.

At the recent Los Angeles auto show, GM Vice Chairman Bob Lutz told reporters that the Two Mode Tahoe gets the same fuel economy in city driving - 21 mpg - as the four-cylinder Toyota Camry.

An advertising campaign will tout GM's environmental steps, in an attempt to close the automaker's green perception gap with Toyota. GM also is continuing its drumbeat about the Chevrolet Volt hybrid, which is expected to start production in 2010.

And GM is boasting that the publication Green Car Journal named the Tahoe Two Mode Hybrid its "Green Car of the Year" at the Los Angeles auto show. The automaker neglected to mention that no Toyota vehicles were eligible this year because they had won the award in the past.

Art Spinella, president of CNW Marketing Research in Bandon, Ore., said GM's tactics are smart.

"Hybrids are a revenue godsend," Spinella says. "They raise the average MSRP, raise the average transaction price, can potentially raise or at least add profits. Everyone wants a lick from this particular frog."

But Toyota isn't panicking. The U.S. umbrella company, Toyota Motor North America, recently launched its own green advertising as part of a larger corporate image campaign touting the company's environmental stewardship, social responsibility and U.S. economic impact.

But the green portion of the campaign has been in the works for seven months and is not a reaction to recent changes in the political winds, a Toyota spokesman said.

Lentz says neither Toyota nor Lexus plans a hybrid marketing push to boost sales.

Still short of Priuses

"Our hybrid intention numbers continue to rise," he says. "We still can't build enough Priuses. We're at 16 days' supply, but we'll be back into single digits by month's end."

Environmental magazines such as Plenty still gush over the Prius. And the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy listed four Toyotas in its top 10 "greenest" vehicles.

Bill Reinert, Toyota's resident alternative- fuels guru, said the company will not trumpet future technological developments before they are ready for the public. He compares Toyota's restraint to GM's active hyping of the Volt hybrid.

"In 1997, no one had ever heard of a hybrid, even though Toyota had been working on it secretly since 1992," Reinert said. "We didn't say anything. We didn't show clay models. We just did it.

"You can't let competitive PR pressure affect your own long-term plans because then you become reactionary rather than progressive."

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

[chop]

You know, it's funny... one of the things that causes people to get all wrought up about the Prius is the "lookitme" greenness of it - because it's a unique shape. However, this shape gives the Prius a real practical advantage; a Cx far lower than most other cars.

And GM is going at the "lookitme" aspect of the hybrid with badging and decals. But a trucklike Cx. It is to laugh.

[snip]
[snicker]

Isn't CNW the group that proved a Prius had a higher energy cost than a Hummer, in part because they assumed the life of a Prius was only 100K miles and the life of a Hummer was 300K miles? Not to mention a few other assumptions that also stacked the deck.

Why is CNW the "Automotive News" go-to talking head for this sort of thing?

It seems the market has a voice. I wonder how many Yukaburbahoe hybrids GM will sell in the next 12 months, as Toyota sells 300K or so Priuses and a lesser number of Camry hybrids and Highlander hybrids?

And, lest we forget, any "green" attached to GM comes from their aggressive hype of e-85 capability, which boosts their federal fuel economy numbers ridiculously, in spite of the fact that few Yukaburbahoes will ever find their was to an e-85 pump. Never mind the questionable enhancement to our energy use profile from current ethanol production and let's just walk right on by what e-85 is doing to food prices.

Well, I'm being slightly unfair to the General. They do have a set of mild hybrids on the market which can, under the right circumstances, reduce fuel consumption... a bit. I was going to say "significantly" but that's really not proven. With some adjustment, they could probably do better. However, the market seems to be ignoring them altogether, so it hardly matters.

Reply to
dh

Yet, if one goes from the regular Tahoe to the Hybrid Tahoe, one is going to save as much fuel as going from a Corolla to a Prius.

Jeff

Reply to
Jeff

Having what to do with pointless in-your-face greenwashing vs a unique signature that confers a significant practical advantage?

However, if we follow your "logic," if one goes from a regular Yukaburbahoe to a Corolla, one would save a shitload of gas AND money. If one goes from a Yuhaburbahoe to a Prius, one will save money and a shitload of gas.

The Prius is a little bit more money than a Corolla - for a nicer and larger car. The Yukaburbahoe hybrid is $14K more than a regular one for an extra two MPG. I somehow doubt that "green" is a big selling point in that market and I don't think GM is going to sell many of these.

Reply to
dh

Yeah, I'm going to listen to these sources gripe about Toyota. The Big 3 have egg on their face from getting their @$$e$ kicked by a Jap upstart, and the Sierra Club? Didn't they want women to have abortions after having one child? Bunch of friggin' k00ks...

Reply to
Hachiroku

Personally, I am not affected at all if Toyota opposes the fuel economy debate. Its only normal that they give their stand. Its a business after all, and if other car manufacturers can make "greener" cars then its the consumers who win.

There aren't very bright people in Congress =). On how and why they came up with the 35 mpg magic number beats me. What congress should do is ithink of ways on how to reduce hybrids car costs for the average consumer.

Reply to
EdV

The practical advantage is the same with both a Prius and a hybrid Tahoe

- both save the same amount of fuel for people who need the vehicle. Whether the vehicle is one that many people need is another question. However, the vehicle uses about the same amount of fuel as an Uplander or Toyota van (whether the van or hybrid Tahoe would get better mileage depends on how and where it is driven).

Yet, the Prius is not suitable for all people. I believe more people and luggage will fit in a Tahoe than a Prius. And if one is towing a trailer, the Tahoe is probably better suited.

I save even more gas than this most days: I take the train to the big city.

21 MPG - 14 MPG = 7 MPG city. So it is more than just 2 MPG. Obviously, savings depend on how and where it is driven. The highway savings are less.

Jeff

Reply to
Jeff

There's a practical advantage to 9 decals that scream "Hybrid?" Enlighten me. I know what the practical advantage is of a low-drag shape.

Oddly enough, I didn't spot a single Yukaburbahoe towing anything today. And I don't recall seeing any that carried more than a driver, either.

I saved even more energy. I bought a house close to the office. So close that I frequently walk or bike.

I'll believe it when I see it. Reminder: No one has bought any of these yet. Toyota has had hybrids on the street for a decade.

Reply to
dh

No, there is a practical advantage to having one, like the cargo and people capacity vs. a Prius.

Yet, I have seen them towing things and with more than one passenger.

I didn't say that there are a lot of people who actually need these vehicles. Only that there are some. Nor did I say most users of these vehicles need them.

I couldn't afford to live in the big city. But I do work from home on my computer some days.

I can't even find teh Ukaburahoe on the web. I do find the Tahoe, though. The EPA has tested them, though.

Jeff

Reply to
Jeff

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.