Jump to content
  • Greetings Guest!

    CheersandGears.com was founded in 2001 and is one of the oldest continuously operating automotive forums out there.  Come see why we have users who visit nearly every day for the past 16+ years. Signup is fast and free, or you can opt for a premium subscription to view the site ad-free.

William Maley

Toyota News: Toyota's R&D Boss Believes Internal Combustion Engines For Cars To Be Gone By 2050

Recommended Posts

Most vehicles sold feature an internal combustion engine running some type of fuel, but a Toyota executive believes this engine will be gone for vehicles by 2050.

“We expect that by 2050 we will have reduced CO2 emissions from vehicles by 90% compared to the figure in 2010. To achieve that from 2040 simple internal combustion engined cars will not be made, but they may be the basis of some hybrid or plug-in hybrid cars,” said Seigo Kuzumaki, Toyota’s head of advanced R&D and engineering.

Kuzumaki's reasoning for this comes down to governments tightening regulations on emissions. This, in turn, will cause automakers to accelerate development of alternative powertrains such as electrics.

Toyota's a latecomer to electric vehicles, instead choosing to focus on hydrogen. But the Japanese automaker is working on a new family of EVs that will launch in 2020. The models will use lithium-ion batteries and have a range of 300 miles. But Toyota hopes to launch solid state batteries only a few years later for their EVs. Solid state batteries use solid electrolytes instead of liquid to hold a charge. This will provide better performance and a smaller size than the lithium-ion battery packs.

Source: Autocar


View full article

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think in the modern 1st world nations New ICE will be gone by 2030 to 2035 as a for sale option. It is possible they could be gone world wide for new Auto sales by 2050. Hybrids I think will still be around for 3rd world places that have lousy electrical grids.

I do agree with Toyota R&D, the best batteries I ever had in an auto were solid state. Sears for a while sold a platinum solid state battery, expensive and had a 7 year warranty. Loved them, but when I went to buy another, they had discontinued selling them due to poor sales. Was told they were more expensive than majority of people were willing to pay. 

I suspect technology will bring this cost down greatly over the next 5 years on top of breakthroughs like Toshiba has with their rapid charge batteries.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Notice those two words... "...from VEHICLES".  There is still the problem of CO2 from ALL THOSE OTHER SOURCES THAT ARE NOT BEING REGULATED ONE BIT.

Sly insertion to show his displeasure.  And there are millions of people just like him.  This is being forced on people who do not want it, and it will not solve a problem because there is no problem to be solved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, ocnblu said:

Notice those two words... "...from VEHICLES".  There is still the problem of CO2 from ALL THOSE OTHER SOURCES THAT ARE NOT BEING REGULATED ONE BIT.

Sly insertion to show his displeasure.  And there are millions of people just like him.  This is being forced on people who do not want it, and it will not solve a problem because there is no problem to be solved.

Where is this fantasy planet that doesn’t have regulations?

 

And your last paragraph sound like the words of the horse and buggy business over a century ago. Say hello them. 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok... not sure why... but "hello them".

Livestock CO2 emissions are not regulated.  People exhale CO2.  CO2 is generated all over the place and the car is the fall guy because of some misguided vendetta against fossil fuels.  Where are all these metals going to come from to manufacture all these batteries?  And how will they be transported to industrialized countries that will be making them?  By ship most likely and are there emissions standards for ships?

11 minutes ago, surreal1272 said:

hello them

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, ocnblu said:

Ok... not sure why... but "hello them".

Livestock CO2 emissions are not regulated.  People exhale CO2.  CO2 is generated all over the place and the car is the fall guy because of some misguided vendetta against fossil fuels.  Where are all these metals going to come from to manufacture all these batteries?  And how will they be transported to industrialized countries that will be making them?  By ship most likely and are there emissions standards for ships?

 

Newsflash, you can’t control the CO2 emissions of living creatures. You can with everything else. 

 

What is amsuing is the “well there’s all the other sources of pollution so why bother with cars?” argument. It’s amusing and foolishly ignorant. 

 

And yes, say hello to the horse and buggy industry while you fight the obvious evolution of technology. 

Edited by surreal1272
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would say it is much easier to crack down on CO2 pollution on power plants first, then go after cars.  One coal-fired plant will pollute more than thousands of cars at any one time.  2030 may well be the beginning of the end of the ICE in vehicles, but I would rather see no more power plant emissions first.  Afterwards, then the zero-emission vehicle mandates can start.

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:lol:

 

Not going to happen.....now can I see not so many- Yes. I think we will still have choices, though I think the popular one will be electric. Which is okay. There are still going to be cases that good ol' gas engines will need to be used....plus, I think people will still enjoy them....and not everyone is going to retrofit a classic car either....

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, ocnblu said:

 Where are all these metals going to come from to manufacture all these batteries?  And how will they be transported to industrialized countries that will be making them?  By ship most likely and are there emissions standards for ships?

First off China leads the world in recycling metal of all types, we ship it to them after we dump it on ships.

Second, Marine Ocean Going ships do have CO2 regulations, all new ships are EV Ships using LNG or super clean low sulfur bunker fuel to run generators thus reducing emissions and improving efficiencies. Cost of fuel is a bitch, EV ships are far more efficient and maneuverable.

For your reading pleasure:

http://www.ics-shipping.org/docs/default-source/resources/environmental-protection/shipping-world-trade-and-the-reduction-of-co2-emissions.pdf?sfvrsn=6

This was a report put together and approved by the global marine industry to reduce polution and it is from 2006, you can find this going back to the 90's as they looked for ways to reduce CO2 output, reduce cost and clean up the ships used to move cargo around.

http://www.martrans.org/docs/publ/REFEREED JOURNALS/WMUJMA EMISSIONS 2009.pdf

Our own Government signed off on this and President Bush signed this into law with approval of our house and Senate in 2000 with reductions in CO2 and cleaning up the marine fuel industry and the ships.

https://www.epa.gov/regulations-emissions-vehicles-and-engines/international-standards-reduce-emissions-marine-diesel

Sorry to bust your Amish thinking, but our own country and everyone else around the world has been focused on reducing the pollution and CO2 production from the Marine shipping fleets.

Need more reading, here is a Bing Search for you to have more documentation:

https://www.bing.com/search?q=Commercial+ship+emission+regulations&qs=n&form=CHRDEF&pc=U480&sp=-1&pq=undefined&sc=0-21&sk=&cvid=C14899805E194460B76A04978A519516

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, riviera74 said:

I would say it is much easier to crack down on CO2 pollution on power plants first, then go after cars.  One coal-fired plant will pollute more than thousands of cars at any one time.  2030 may well be the beginning of the end of the ICE in vehicles, but I would rather see no more power plant emissions first.  Afterwards, then the zero-emission vehicle mandates can start.

Actually @Drew Dowdell had posted some info that showed the huge reduction in Coal power Plants as they switch to much cleaner Natural Gas which North America sits on the world's largest reserves.

Here is a 3rd party story that shows the big change over:

http://www.power-eng.com/articles/print/volume-119/issue-6/features/coal-to-gas-plant-conversions-in-the-u-s.html

A research story by The Guardian that shows the dominate production of Electricity in the US will be by Natural Gas by 2020.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/14/gas-surges-ahead-of-coal-in-us-power-generation

Here is our own government details showing that Natural Gas Production of Electricity surpassed Coal in 2016 4 years ahead of original expectations.

https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=25392

2/3rds of CO2 output by Dirty Coal has been removed since they started the switch to Natural Gas production in the 90's.

Now is the time to start the transition to EV Auto's.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While all of that blather up there is good, there will NEV.ER. be an appropriate time to "start the transition to EV Auto's" (sic)

(You kill me with your funny non-grammatical apostrophes)  :lol:

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, surreal1272 said:

And your last paragraph sound like the words of the horse and buggy business over a century ago. Say hello them. 

We ahve a really cool house in Columbus built by people in that business....ten years after it was built, they went broke...

https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/1330-Bryden-Rd-Columbus-OH-43205/33846110_zpid/

Image result for 1330 bryden road columbus ohio

It is slowly being rebuilt by a very determined individual...no one else has been in the house for something like 30 years...

Scientists warning to humanity about global climate change and other things that will happen if we keep using fossil fuels;

http://scientistswarning.forestry.oregonstate.edu/sites/sw/files/Ripple_et_al_11-3-17 Scientists main text.pdf

Who do i believe...13,000 plus scientists or an automotive body shop estimator from Lancaster PA with an admitted bias against electric cars?

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ocnblu said:

While all of that blather up there is good, there will NEV.ER. be an appropriate time to "start the transition to EV Auto's" (sic)

(You kill me with your funny non-grammatical apostrophes)  :lol:

However, the amount of fossil fuel is indeed finite, there will be a very painful end to life as we know it if we do not transition to renewable energy.  I like to deal with unpleasant things before they bite me in the ass, not after. Just sayin.

6 hours ago, dfelt said:

Actually @Drew Dowdell had posted some info that showed the huge reduction in Coal power Plants as they switch to much cleaner Natural Gas which North America sits on the world's largest reserves.

Here is a 3rd party story that shows the big change over:

http://www.power-eng.com/articles/print/volume-119/issue-6/features/coal-to-gas-plant-conversions-in-the-u-s.html

A research story by The Guardian that shows the dominate production of Electricity in the US will be by Natural Gas by 2020.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/14/gas-surges-ahead-of-coal-in-us-power-generation

Here is our own government details showing that Natural Gas Production of Electricity surpassed Coal in 2016 4 years ahead of original expectations.

https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=25392

2/3rds of CO2 output by Dirty Coal has been removed since they started the switch to Natural Gas production in the 90's.

Now is the time to start the transition to EV Auto's.

And to Solar and Wind and away from even natural gas as a fuel.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone armchairing the future has been talking about the banning of IC, but I can see plenty of room for co-existence way into the future. Once IC in new vehicles becomes a minor percentage (for conversation- let's say IC gets to 20%), there's no longer a reason to ban them; they'll become a statistical non-factor. Regardless, I still believe the following 2 general things; that new EV vehicles WILL become a majority of vehicles sold, and that this 'flip' will take 50 years minimum.

Again I remind; we've had a 'successful' PHEV from a major OEM for 15 years now, there are currently 3 dozen PHEVs/ EVs on the US market, and the marketshare is still only 1% at the end of this year.
Those saying 'most of the market will be EVs in 12 years' are being woefully ignorant of the trending.

A plethora of relevant examples exist; look at set belts- mandated for front passengers since January 1966, in everything built since (initially front outer passengers only), takes 2 secs to apply, has empirical evidence of effectiveness, most states (if not all) assign fines for non-use.... but only at (it's historical high) 90% useage in 2016. That's 50 years of trying to instill a habit that takes 2 seconds.

Edited by balthazar
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, riviera74 said:

I would say it is much easier to crack down on CO2 pollution on power plants first, then go after cars.  One coal-fired plant will pollute more than thousands of cars at any one time.  2030 may well be the beginning of the end of the ICE in vehicles, but I would rather see no more power plant emissions first.  Afterwards, then the zero-emission vehicle mandates can start.

And they have been cracking on power plants. That’s the point that Mr. Anti-EV does not get while talking about cows and other non-related crap. There have been efforts almost accross the board to reduce CO2, yet he says “why bother” just because of his half baked hang up of EVs. The horse and buggy industry would be proud of him. Oh wait. They don’t exist anymore.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, surreal1272 said:

And they have been cracking on power plants. That’s the point that Mr. Anti-EV does not get while talking about cows and other non-related crap. There have been efforts almost accross the board to reduce CO2, yet he says “why bother” just because of his half baked hang up of EVs. The horse and buggy industry would be proud of him. Oh wait. They don’t exist anymore.

They do in Amish Ohio, Pennsylvania and Indiana.  Thriving, actually.  But a tiny percentage of the actual transportation market.

Just like ICE in 2065.

30 minutes ago, balthazar said:

Everyone armchairing the future has been talking about the banning of IC, but I can see plenty of room for co-existence way into the future. Once IC in new vehicles becomes a minor percentage (for conversation- let's say IC gets to 20%), there's no longer a reason to ban them; they'll become a statistical non-factor. Regardless, I still believe the following 2 general things; that new EV vehicles WILL become a majority of vehicles sold, and that this 'flip' will take 50 years minimum.

Again I remind; we've had a 'successful' PHEV from a major OEM for 15 years now, there are currently 3 dozen PHEVs/ EVs on the US market, and the marketshare is still only 1% at the end of this year.
Those saying 'most of the market will be EVs in 12 years' are being woefully ignorant of the trending.

A plethora of relevant examples exist; look at set belts- mandated for front passengers since January 1966, in everything built since (initially front outer passengers only), takes 2 secs to apply, has empirical evidence of effectiveness, most states (if not all) assign fines for non-use.... but only at (it's historical high) 90% useage in 2016. That's 50 years of trying to instill a habit that takes 2 seconds.

Agreed...but we should be continuing the transition.  I want everyone to enjoy the same freedom that I do in owning a car.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, balthazar said:

 

Again I remind; we've had a 'successful' PHEV from a major OEM for 15 years now...

Yes, and the last time I was in NYC all of the dirty, polluting inefficient crown vics had largely been replaced with vehicles like the Prius....same thing in LA when my wife was there just recently, lots of hybrids on the road...

At some point when fuel prices spike cars like the Prius will become the norm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, ocnblu said:

Notice those two words... "...from VEHICLES".  There is still the problem of CO2 from ALL THOSE OTHER SOURCES THAT ARE NOT BEING REGULATED ONE BIT.

Sly insertion to show his displeasure.  And there are millions of people just like him.  This is being forced on people who do not want it, and it will not solve a problem because there is no problem to be solved.

Some/Many of the other man-made sources are targeted for regulation as well. 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only thing that I think Toyota has wrong here is the timeline.  First off, existing cars will not be gone. But new production cars will likely be down to EV only.

2050 is only 33 years away.

Today, the most technologically advanced cars on the road are PHEVs and EVs like the S-Class PHEV, CT6 PHEV, Chevy Bolt EV, and Tesla Model-S.  This is the powertrain diagram for the CT6 PHEV. Aside from the CT6's transmission which is the most advanced hybrid transmission available, the concepts and technologies of this car are the same as the Fusion Energi or Pruis Prime.... I only picked this picture to show the technology, I realize it is not an average person's car.

6a00d8341c4fbe53ef01bb08bc4f49970d-800wi.png

 

33 years ago the average midsize car was powered by a carbed V6 or V8.  The 1984 Thunderbird was one of the most advanced average person car. It had Central Fuel Injection... which was basically a glorified carb with a single fuel injector instead of vacuum operated jets. Numerous manufacturers were still running carbed engines for an additional 8 years.   In another thread here on C&G we are talking about the new Corvette V8 that has two different kinds of fuel delivery systems, and in that regard it is about 3 or 4 years late to the party. Think about the level of technological difference between a 1984 Thunderbird and a 2017 CT6 PHEV or Pruis Prime.

605878_1.jpg

33 years prior to that Thunderbird was 1951 and this was one of the most advanced average person's car on the road.  Think about the technology difference between a 1951 Olds with its "High Compression V8" and the 1984 Thunderbird.

3601455266_cba1f434f9_z.jpg

33 years before that and you were in a Model-T.

122_97aa066dcc42404e7602768333af5659_m.jpg

33 years before the Model-T, you could get a Studebaker with between one and four horsepower.

5e10d5d0586407969eb6faa7a4850a50.jpg

The point of this thought exercise is to help you keep in mind what is possible in the span of 33 years.

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like the computer industry and Moore's Law that explains the doubling of computer power every 24 months, battery technology is in the early days of where CPU technology was in the 90's and we have blown way past that. 

Battery tech is also ramping up fast from Air batteries and the first one to prove 1,100 miles on a single charge to various other forms. What happens over the next 2-3 years will truly change the way people live life and get around.

http://www.pocket-lint.com/news/130380-future-batteries-coming-soon-charge-in-seconds-last-months-and-power-over-the-air

This story is recent and covers the whole battery industry, the various options and the amazing size and density that is just now going to production. Samsung has finalized a solid state battery that will out last their current Li batteries by a factor of 3.

If we did not have the Internet and the advanced technology we have today, I would agree with Balthazar that we are looking at 50 plus years to transition much like how the auto industry started from 1876 to 1915 when ICE auto's clearly won the battle. Yet we no longer live in a years to get info out to humanity and I actually expect this to change much faster than many here will realize. Look at how fast people change phones, computers and just about everything else. Humanity likes to have the best, sooner and faster than others the Jones - Jones competition will allow a faster change over to EV's than the PHEV has done.

Simpler, less maintenance cost and easy to use as it blends with today's modern technology.

We know it is not a matter of if but when. I believe the start is this year 2017 and by 2030+ we will see a majority of new auto's be EV and the death of new auto sales from ICE will be over by 2040-2045.

Few Charts to show the growth:

BatteryDensity.png

DensityCells.png

DevelopmentOfLithium.png

EnergyDensity.jpg

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, A Horse With No Name said:

We ahve a really cool house in Columbus built by people in that business....ten years after it was built, they went broke...

https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/1330-Bryden-Rd-Columbus-OH-43205/33846110_zpid/

Image result for 1330 bryden road columbus ohio

It is slowly being rebuilt by a very determined individual...no one else has been in the house for something like 30 years...

Scientists warning to humanity about global climate change and other things that will happen if we keep using fossil fuels;

http://scientistswarning.forestry.oregonstate.edu/sites/sw/files/Ripple_et_al_11-3-17 Scientists main text.pdf

Who do i believe...13,000 plus scientists or an automotive body shop estimator from Lancaster PA with an admitted bias against electric cars?

Yeah Chris, I'm the ONLY ONE out here with this opinion.  Bull crap.

There is not that much difference between the 1951 Oldsmobile and the 1984 Thunderbird though.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a real world, industry comparison:

toyota prius prime, overall length 183", MSRP $27100, projected 2017 sales : 20,018
toyota corolla, overall length 183", MSRP $18500, projected 2017 sales : 347,928

Seems like it would be easy-peasy to nudge their customer base into an PHEV the same size; despite the maybe 2 price tiers higher buy-in, it has an eMPG rating of 133.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, ocnblu said:

Yeah Chris, I'm the ONLY ONE out here with this opinion.  Bull crap.

There is not that much difference between the 1951 Oldsmobile and the 1984 Thunderbird though.

No you are not the only one but you are part of an ever shrinking minority that wants to cling to the past and bitch and moan like what you are saying is going to change a single thing about progress and technology. All I have to say is “buck up” becuase it’s not changing just becuase you can’t or won’t see the writing on the wall. 

  • Upvote 3
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



  • Similar Content

    • By William Maley
      Toyota is planning a big push with hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. According to Reuters, the Japanese automaker is doubling-down on investments for fuel cell vehicles by making improvements to reduce costs and building different models including commercial trucks.
      “We’re going to shift from limited production to mass production, reduce the amount of expensive materials like platinum used in FCV components, and make the system more compact and powerful,” said Yoshikazu Tanaka, chief engineer of the Mirai.
      Currently, Toyota hand builds the Mirai at a plant in Toyota City. Everyday, about 6.5 cars roll out of the plant. This is due to the detailed inspections that partially assembled models go through. The parts comprising the Mirai are quite expensive as well. According to analysis done by Strategic Analysis Inc., it costs Toyota about $11,000 to produce each of the fuel cell stacks. Blame the use of the platinum, titanium, and carbon fiber for the stacks.
      Toyota has been building up production capacity as it expects sales of FCVs to increase from about 3,000 to over 20,000 after 2020. This will help reduce the cost of each fuel cell stack to $8,000.
      “It will be difficult for Toyota to lower FCV production costs if it only produces the Mirai,” said a source,
      That's where an expansion of FCVs come in. Toyota is planning a "phased introduction' of other FCVs, including SUVs and commercial trucks starting around 2025. Toyota declined to talk about future products, but did reveal that it has built prototypes of small delivery vehicles and transport trucks with fuel cell powertrains.
      “We’re going to use as many parts from existing passenger cars and other models as possible in fuel cell trucks. Otherwise, we won’t see the benefits of mass production,” said Ikuo Ota, manager of new business planning for fuel cell projects at Toyota.
      Why is Toyota doubling down on fuel cells? Sources say that Toyota believes demand will increase as more countries, including China "warm to fuel cell technology". The company also sees FCVs as a hedge against battery materials such as cobalt becoming scarce.
      But there is still one issue that Toyota, and other automakers build FCVs still need to solve; infrastructure. There aren't many hydrogen refueling stations around. For example, the majority of hydrogen stations in the U.S. are in California. Not helping is a current shortage of hydrogen at refueling stations in California. Green Car Reports says this issue is due to various problems with supplier Air Products. The company said that it hopes to restore hydrogen supplies sometime in early August.
      Source: Reuters, Green Car Reports

      View full article
    • By William Maley
      Toyota is planning a big push with hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. According to Reuters, the Japanese automaker is doubling-down on investments for fuel cell vehicles by making improvements to reduce costs and building different models including commercial trucks.
      “We’re going to shift from limited production to mass production, reduce the amount of expensive materials like platinum used in FCV components, and make the system more compact and powerful,” said Yoshikazu Tanaka, chief engineer of the Mirai.
      Currently, Toyota hand builds the Mirai at a plant in Toyota City. Everyday, about 6.5 cars roll out of the plant. This is due to the detailed inspections that partially assembled models go through. The parts comprising the Mirai are quite expensive as well. According to analysis done by Strategic Analysis Inc., it costs Toyota about $11,000 to produce each of the fuel cell stacks. Blame the use of the platinum, titanium, and carbon fiber for the stacks.
      Toyota has been building up production capacity as it expects sales of FCVs to increase from about 3,000 to over 20,000 after 2020. This will help reduce the cost of each fuel cell stack to $8,000.
      “It will be difficult for Toyota to lower FCV production costs if it only produces the Mirai,” said a source,
      That's where an expansion of FCVs come in. Toyota is planning a "phased introduction' of other FCVs, including SUVs and commercial trucks starting around 2025. Toyota declined to talk about future products, but did reveal that it has built prototypes of small delivery vehicles and transport trucks with fuel cell powertrains.
      “We’re going to use as many parts from existing passenger cars and other models as possible in fuel cell trucks. Otherwise, we won’t see the benefits of mass production,” said Ikuo Ota, manager of new business planning for fuel cell projects at Toyota.
      Why is Toyota doubling down on fuel cells? Sources say that Toyota believes demand will increase as more countries, including China "warm to fuel cell technology". The company also sees FCVs as a hedge against battery materials such as cobalt becoming scarce.
      But there is still one issue that Toyota, and other automakers build FCVs still need to solve; infrastructure. There aren't many hydrogen refueling stations around. For example, the majority of hydrogen stations in the U.S. are in California. Not helping is a current shortage of hydrogen at refueling stations in California. Green Car Reports says this issue is due to various problems with supplier Air Products. The company said that it hopes to restore hydrogen supplies sometime in early August.
      Source: Reuters, Green Car Reports
    • By William Maley
      I need to get something out of the way before diving into the review of the 2018 Toyota C-HR. Originally the C-HR was to join Scion’s lineup, but the C-HR would become a Toyota as the Scion brand would shut its doors in late 2016. With this change of brands, does this leave the C-HR with an identity crisis?
      The C-HR is short for ‘Coupe High Roof’ and the design makes that very clear. Proportions are very similar to a coupe with a long front and stubby back. Other coupe details to be aware of are a set of wider fenders, a sloping roofline, and a rear spoiler. It makes for a very polarizing design that many will agree catches your eye for better or worse
      Toyota’s designers must have been infatuated with diamonds as you’ll notice this shape throughout the C-HR. Key examples include the pattern on the cloth seats and arrangement of buttons on the steering wheel. The center stack is slightly angled towards the driver to emphasize a sporty nature. Material quality is about average with a mix of soft-touch plastics on the dash, and hard plastics for the door panels and center console. The C-HR’s ergonomics are excellent as controls are laid out logically and easy to use.
      I found the front seats are lacking in lower-body support. I’m 5’9” and after driving the C-HR for an hour, I found my thighs and legs started to ache. This comes down to a short bottom cushion. Shorter drivers will likely not run into this issue. ‘Claustrophobic’ is the word to describe the C-HR’s back seat as the small rear windows make it feel small. Not helping is the limited amount of legroom as I found my knees touching the backside of the front seat. CH-R’s cargo space is in the middle of the class when the rear seats are up at 19 cubic feet. To give some perspective, the Mazda CX-3 is the smallest at 12.4 cubic feet, while the Honda HR-V has the largest at 24.3. Fold the rear seats and the C-HR is at the bottom of the class with 36.4 cubic feet. The Mazda CX-3 has 9.1 cubic feet more space when its rear seats are folded.
      All C-HRs come equipped with a 7-inch touchscreen radio with the basics; AM/FM, Bluetooth, and inputs for USB and aux cords. While I found the system to be intuitive to use with a simple menu structure and decent performance, I did find myself wishing Toyota had included Apple CarPlay and Android Auto or the option of a larger system with navigation.
      Powering the C-HR is a 2.0L four-cylinder with 144 horsepower and 139 pound-feet of torque. This is paired with a CVT and front-wheel drive. All-wheel drive is nowhere to be found despite the C-HR offering it in markets outside the U.S. Driving in town, the C-HR feels lively thanks to a responsive throttle. But above these speeds, the C-HR reveals a major weakness; put your foot down and the engine takes its sweet time to get up to speed - taking over 11 seconds to hit 60 mph. This makes certain tasks such as passing a slower vehicle treacherous. Under hard acceleration, the CVT is quite loud. Toyota does offer other engines for the C-HR elsewhere, including a hybrid. Reading through various test drives, the hybrid is slightly quicker; recording a 0-60 time of 11 seconds.
      Fuel economy figures for the 2018 C-HR are 27 City/31 Highway/29 Combined. My average for the week landed at 28.1 mpg.
      Like most new and redesigned Toyota models, the C-HR rides on the modular TGNA platform. I have praised this platform on both the Prius and Prius Prime as it makes them feel playful on a winding road. This extends to the C-HR. Despite a higher ride height, body motions are kept in check when cornering. Steering feels precise and has ample weight when turning. Ride quality is on the firm side, but it will not beat up passengers. A fair amount of tire and wind noise comes inside when driving on the expressway.
      The Toyota C-HR is quite expensive for a subcompact crossovers. The base XLE begins at $22,500. My XLE Premium tester begins at $24,350 and with some added accessories, the final price was $25,633. That’s without leather seats, navigation, or a sunroof. Toyota is quick to point out that the C-HR does come equipped with a number of active safety features such as adaptive cruise control and lane keep assist as standard. That only helps the base XLE when it comes to arguing value. The XLE Premium has a tougher time since you can get into a well equipped Hyundai Kona Limited FWD with a sunroof, leather seats, a 7-inch touchscreen with Apple CarPlay and Android Auto integration; and 18-inch alloy wheels for only $53 more. You do miss out on the active safety features since as you can only get those on the top-line Ultimate, but the Kona presents a better value than the C-HR when you compare features bit by bit.
      The Toyota C-HR left me very frustrated as the week came to a close. The crossover has some charm with sharp driving dynamics and a very willing chassis. But it is clear that the C-HR feels more like a Scion than a Toyota as it was built to be cost-effective as it doesn’t offer any options. What you see is what you get. The problem is that competitors offer more equipment for similar money. The C-HR also trails competitors in terms of cargo capacity and performance. I do believe there is a crossover that can stand out from the growing field of subcompact models, but Toyota needs to think of the C-HR as one of their own models, not as a Scion.
      Disclaimer: Toyota Provided the C-HR, Insurance, and One Tank of Gas
      Year: 2018
      Make: Toyota
      Model: C-HR
      Trim: XLE Premium
      Engine: 2.0L DOHC, 16-Valve Four-Cylinder with Valvematic
      Driveline: CVT, Front-Wheel Drive
      Horsepower @ RPM: 144 @ 6,100
      Torque @ RPM: 139 @ 3,900
      Fuel Economy: City/Highway/Combined - 27/31/29
      Curb Weight: 3,300 lbs
      Location of Manufacture: Arifiye, Sakarya, Turkey
      Base Price: $24,350
      As Tested Price: $25,633 (Includes $960.00 Destination Charge)
      Options:
      Carpeted Floormats and Cargo Mat - $194.00
      Mudguards - $129.00

      View full article
    • By William Maley
      I need to get something out of the way before diving into the review of the 2018 Toyota C-HR. Originally the C-HR was to join Scion’s lineup, but the C-HR would become a Toyota as the Scion brand would shut its doors in late 2016. With this change of brands, does this leave the C-HR with an identity crisis?
      The C-HR is short for ‘Coupe High Roof’ and the design makes that very clear. Proportions are very similar to a coupe with a long front and stubby back. Other coupe details to be aware of are a set of wider fenders, a sloping roofline, and a rear spoiler. It makes for a very polarizing design that many will agree catches your eye for better or worse
      Toyota’s designers must have been infatuated with diamonds as you’ll notice this shape throughout the C-HR. Key examples include the pattern on the cloth seats and arrangement of buttons on the steering wheel. The center stack is slightly angled towards the driver to emphasize a sporty nature. Material quality is about average with a mix of soft-touch plastics on the dash, and hard plastics for the door panels and center console. The C-HR’s ergonomics are excellent as controls are laid out logically and easy to use.
      I found the front seats are lacking in lower-body support. I’m 5’9” and after driving the C-HR for an hour, I found my thighs and legs started to ache. This comes down to a short bottom cushion. Shorter drivers will likely not run into this issue. ‘Claustrophobic’ is the word to describe the C-HR’s back seat as the small rear windows make it feel small. Not helping is the limited amount of legroom as I found my knees touching the backside of the front seat. CH-R’s cargo space is in the middle of the class when the rear seats are up at 19 cubic feet. To give some perspective, the Mazda CX-3 is the smallest at 12.4 cubic feet, while the Honda HR-V has the largest at 24.3. Fold the rear seats and the C-HR is at the bottom of the class with 36.4 cubic feet. The Mazda CX-3 has 9.1 cubic feet more space when its rear seats are folded.
      All C-HRs come equipped with a 7-inch touchscreen radio with the basics; AM/FM, Bluetooth, and inputs for USB and aux cords. While I found the system to be intuitive to use with a simple menu structure and decent performance, I did find myself wishing Toyota had included Apple CarPlay and Android Auto or the option of a larger system with navigation.
      Powering the C-HR is a 2.0L four-cylinder with 144 horsepower and 139 pound-feet of torque. This is paired with a CVT and front-wheel drive. All-wheel drive is nowhere to be found despite the C-HR offering it in markets outside the U.S. Driving in town, the C-HR feels lively thanks to a responsive throttle. But above these speeds, the C-HR reveals a major weakness; put your foot down and the engine takes its sweet time to get up to speed - taking over 11 seconds to hit 60 mph. This makes certain tasks such as passing a slower vehicle treacherous. Under hard acceleration, the CVT is quite loud. Toyota does offer other engines for the C-HR elsewhere, including a hybrid. Reading through various test drives, the hybrid is slightly quicker; recording a 0-60 time of 11 seconds.
      Fuel economy figures for the 2018 C-HR are 27 City/31 Highway/29 Combined. My average for the week landed at 28.1 mpg.
      Like most new and redesigned Toyota models, the C-HR rides on the modular TGNA platform. I have praised this platform on both the Prius and Prius Prime as it makes them feel playful on a winding road. This extends to the C-HR. Despite a higher ride height, body motions are kept in check when cornering. Steering feels precise and has ample weight when turning. Ride quality is on the firm side, but it will not beat up passengers. A fair amount of tire and wind noise comes inside when driving on the expressway.
      The Toyota C-HR is quite expensive for a subcompact crossovers. The base XLE begins at $22,500. My XLE Premium tester begins at $24,350 and with some added accessories, the final price was $25,633. That’s without leather seats, navigation, or a sunroof. Toyota is quick to point out that the C-HR does come equipped with a number of active safety features such as adaptive cruise control and lane keep assist as standard. That only helps the base XLE when it comes to arguing value. The XLE Premium has a tougher time since you can get into a well equipped Hyundai Kona Limited FWD with a sunroof, leather seats, a 7-inch touchscreen with Apple CarPlay and Android Auto integration; and 18-inch alloy wheels for only $53 more. You do miss out on the active safety features since as you can only get those on the top-line Ultimate, but the Kona presents a better value than the C-HR when you compare features bit by bit.
      The Toyota C-HR left me very frustrated as the week came to a close. The crossover has some charm with sharp driving dynamics and a very willing chassis. But it is clear that the C-HR feels more like a Scion than a Toyota as it was built to be cost-effective as it doesn’t offer any options. What you see is what you get. The problem is that competitors offer more equipment for similar money. The C-HR also trails competitors in terms of cargo capacity and performance. I do believe there is a crossover that can stand out from the growing field of subcompact models, but Toyota needs to think of the C-HR as one of their own models, not as a Scion.
      Disclaimer: Toyota Provided the C-HR, Insurance, and One Tank of Gas
      Year: 2018
      Make: Toyota
      Model: C-HR
      Trim: XLE Premium
      Engine: 2.0L DOHC, 16-Valve Four-Cylinder with Valvematic
      Driveline: CVT, Front-Wheel Drive
      Horsepower @ RPM: 144 @ 6,100
      Torque @ RPM: 139 @ 3,900
      Fuel Economy: City/Highway/Combined - 27/31/29
      Curb Weight: 3,300 lbs
      Location of Manufacture: Arifiye, Sakarya, Turkey
      Base Price: $24,350
      As Tested Price: $25,633 (Includes $960.00 Destination Charge)
      Options:
      Carpeted Floormats and Cargo Mat - $194.00
      Mudguards - $129.00
    • By William Maley
      Toyota Motor North America Reports U.S. Sales for June, First Half 2018
      TMNA, Toyota and Lexus divisions set light truck sales record RAV4, Highlander posted best-ever June and first half Lexus NX Hybrid recorded best-ever June PLANO, Texas (July 3, 2018) – Toyota Motor North America (TMNA) today reported June 2018 sales of 209,602 units. With one more selling day in June 2018 compared to June 2017, sales were up 3.6 percent on volume basis and down 0.3 percent on a daily selling rate (DSR) basis. 
       
      For the first half of the year, TMNA reported sales of 1,189,312 units, up 3.0 percent on a volume basis versus the same period in 2017. On a DSR basis, sales were up 1.6 percent versus last year.
       
      Toyota division posted June 2018 sales of 185,852 units, up 4.4 percent on a volume basis and up 1.9 percent on a DSR basis.   
       
      “Record June light truck sales, led by RAV4 and Highlander, solidified Toyota as the No. 1 selling retail brand through the first half of this year,” said Andrew Gilleland, vice president of Sales Operations, Toyota division. “Strong consumer demand on Toyota Camry, the excitement of the all-new 2019 Toyota Avalon and Corolla Hatchback, paired with excellent light truck availability sets us up for continued strong sales throughout the summer.”
       
      Lexus posted June sales of 23,750 units, down 2.6 percent on a volume basis and down 6.2 percent on a DSR basis. 
       
      “Lexus closed out the first half of the year up led by best-ever LUV sales,” said David Christ, group vice president and general manager, Lexus division. “RX is up seven percent year-to-date and remains the top-selling luxury vehicle in the industry while the NX delivered ten percent year-over-year growth. In addition to these great results, we successfully launched our flagship sedan, the all-new LS 500, and the all-new RXL. We’re looking forward to continued success in the third quarter, which will get a boost from our all-new ES sedan that goes on sale in September.”
       
      June and First Half 2018 Highlights:
      TMNA, Toyota and Lexus divisions posted best-ever light truck sales for June and the first half Camry recorded June sales of 28,215 units Corolla sedan posted sales of 25,947 units for the month RAV4 increased by 10.6 percent; best-ever June and best-ever first half Highlander increased by 20.7 percent; best-ever June and best-ever first half 4Runner sales of 11,569 units in June; a best-ever June Tacoma increased by 30.6 percent Tundra posted June sales of 9,955 Lexus LUVs posted a 7.4 percent increase, a best-ever June NX Hybrid up 270 percent, the sixth consecutive best-ever month NX combined sales up 5.8 percent in June, a best-ever June and first half RX saw gain of 5.3 percent in June GX increased 23.5 percent, a best-ever June in 13 years LS up 135.5 percent in the first half  *Note:  Unless otherwise stated, all figures reflect unadjusted raw sales volume

  • My Clubs

  • Recently Browsing

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Reader Rides

About us

CheersandGears.com - Founded 2001

We ♥ Cars

Get in touch

Follow us

Recent tweets

facebook

×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.