It is moves like this which show the tremendous impact of Tesla. The old automakers were never going to be the ones to push the switch to greener tech themselves. Even the companies that we may have thought were forward looking a decade ago like Toyota are now showing that they had no plans to embrace cleaner vehicles as an overall company strategy. The industry needed an outsider to threaten the incumbents into actually changing.
Toyota was still going on about how EVs were not viable and hydrogen fuel cells were the future while anyone who looked outside their window would see EVs all over the place. Elon's early responses to this remain true (grid already exists, people can charge at home, easier to build EV infrastructure, etc.) - there's been nearly zero progress in hydrogen fuel cells.
Hybrids were a mediocre half-measure and hydrogen was a worse solution to the problem. Tesla proved this model despite constant criticism even after wild success.
It's not a huge surprise Toyota is throwing their weight around to try to cheat out some legislative relevance rather than compete on product. Many companies being disrupted do that (see recent viasat story, US car dealerships, etc.)
I was of the same opinion and had respect for what Tesla stands for and what they do. Until I encountered Tesla Solar. The contracts these guys try to get you into makes Comcast or Exxon Mobil or medical insurance companies feel like saints.They have door to door salesmen who sell this to unsuspecting 80 year olds who don't even understand what they are signing up for
There is a thing called PPA. Usual lease terms is for 20 years or more. No way to get out of them without signing your life away. They make you pay for what it generates, not what you use.. I had to walk away from a really good house just because it came with a Tesla Solar PPA..
> are now showing that they had no plans to embrace cleaner vehicles as an overall company strategy.
If you read the NYT article that is the source for this, though, that's not the whole story. The real issue is that Toyota placed a big bet on hydrogen, which turned out to be the wrong clean energy bet, and now they are caught flat-footed.
It's like people who bet on Mesos and then later had to try to catch up because the world chose Kubernetes. It's not like those people were against "container orchestration", they just bet on the wrong tech.
This phenomenon is probably why systems that protect the status quo produce less innovation. Even though it might behoove them, and they have the resources to, the industry leaders are less inclined (because of inertia?) to resist ground breaking paradigms.
I guess it kind of makes sense for them. It's high risk/high reward and it will take a scrappy new company to try it.
I have many issues with Tesla and Elon Musk as companies, and they are no saints. But I cannot deny the impact that their cars have had on the industry. An electric-car startup has nothing to lose from shifting from ICE vehicles--every other automaker does.
What's crazy is I absolutly thought Toyota would be the leaders here. The prius HAD a full electric drivetrain ALREADY. Regen etc etc. Neat dash display. They could have dropped the gas engine out and simplified things, increase battery size and they'd have been well on the way.
Instead we have this hydrogen craziness. Billions here in CA have been spent on a "hydrogen superhighway". Meanwhile, for some reason the EV / Tesla charging network is getting built out naturally - I just did an EV plug at home for my relatives with electric cars -> no govt subsidy needed. If we get an EV (we want to) I will leave the house every day with a "full" tank.
The conversion losses are a lot less with electric -> Hydrogen you start with electricity, make hydrogen, compress it, transport it, pump it, use to to make electricity again, run engine.
Electricity you can also make locally (solar etc) and hopefully one day use as a battery backup to your house (100kW house battery would be great).
Instead of everybody jumping on bandwagon and siding with every legislature to be PC, individuals and companies have right to challenge those laws or on how practical they are. These challenges will naturally yield better laws considering the huge wave already behind the electric vehicles.
"Toyota’s Indian subsidiary publicly criticized India’s target for 100 percent electric vehicle sales by 2030, saying it was not practical.", the keyword being not practical, country which struggles with electricity during summer and rations farmers electricity is legislating 100% electric?
You're right that challenging legislature can improve it, but it would be naive to assume that Toyota has the goal of improving it for anyone/anything other than their bottom line. They are solely driven by their profit motive, and so it is safe to assume they are never participating in the legislative process in good faith, i.e. for the betterment of the public and the world. Instead they are only participating in the legislative process with the expectation that they can gain additional power and profit.
Once we take that into consideration, it's hard to see their pushback against electric vehicles in a good light.
And how practical is unmitigated climate change? These things aren't occurring in a vacuum, or just to "be PC". This is way beyond urgent and extreme action is necessary.
Its a very much pie in the sky thought but EV theoretically could actually help the electrical infrastructure.
Part of the issue is that supply & demand have to match, but demand for electrical systems is not static. You could theoretically use the EV batteries as reservoirs to store surplus energy during low demands periods, and supply energy during high demand periods. While I doubt it would flatten the duck curve, it could help to smooth it out some.
The number of cities crossing 50C during the summer is getting larger and larger. Is that practical?
India had basically no cars at all in the recent past. The country would survive going back to that state. It would not survive months of lethal heat every year.
> "companies have right to challenge those laws or on how practical they are."
Is it not practical for Toyota to only offer electric cars for sale in India by 2030? Is it not practical for Toyota to sell fewer vehicles in India in 2030? To pull out of selling in India entirely? I know the criticism is "it's not practical for India to switch to electric vehicles (and keep everything else the same)" but (a) why is that Toyota's "right to challenge" and (b) why assume everything else has to stay the same? Assume the Indian government democratically chose economic slowdown from reduced vehicle sales but still wants those vehicles which are sold to only be electric, citizens should have the right to challenge that but why should international companies have such a right?
Those laws won't be better if all this amounts to is special pleading to not obsolete Toyota's R&D and capex in gas engines. India also "struggles" with petroleum infrastructure, safe handling, pollution, etc.
that comment is spot on. India is a country that struggles with distributing electrical energy. EVs there are nothing but a pipe dream or a plaything for the rich.
In the average western country where almost everyone has their electrical energy needs met, EVs do not have a technological limitation to adoption.
It's hard to overstate how influential Toyota has been, historically, on legislatures and legislation. Trade agreements, for the past 40-ish years, have been the keystone piece of both trade and industrial policy.
These agreements are designed around the auto industry, and its JIT, and global supply chain it necessitates. Auto manufacturing is basically the model industry. The auto industry of 90s onward, was basically modeled on Toyota and The Toyota Way. The classification of subindustries, the structure of tariffs... Most of it is directly or indirectly a product of decisions made at Toyota. For better or worse, they invented modern global manufacturing.
It's a very polite way of saying that Toyota is selling electric shit boxes. The brand new Lexus UX 300e is so bad and overpriced that it will not surprise me if Toyota's plan is to make a bad selling car on purpose to say that customers don't want EVs.
Thinking about the engineering, they squandered a tremendous lead. Look what they had on the road, mass produced in 1997: the electric propulsion, control, storage, and regen. If you squint, they solved the hard problems engineering problems already; just take away the gas part to make a full plugin EV.
This smells more like a business problem. Maybe they can't scale the battery deals they need, big enough and fast enough.
Eh. Many EVs on the market are shitty. It’s not much more expensive than a Chevy Bolt and those are catching fire often enough Chevy has told everyone not to charge unattended or overnight and to park them outside.
That being said I don’t know how bad this vehicle is because it isn’t sold in the U.S. and I’m not really interested in a subcompact crossover regardless
Toyota could spray silver paint on a dog turd, slap a 40k sticker on it and people would buy it. Toyota isn't in the business of selling cars. They're in the business of selling billboards that say "look how financially savvy I am" on one side and "look I can afford premium products" on the other side to upper middle class types. Toyota isn't innovating because they're under no pressure to innovate as long as people keep buying and tinkering with a brand image like that is fraught with peril so it's hard to justify unless you absolutely have to. This is why they've been so conservative for the last ~20yr.
I'm in the Midwest, and I went to Toyota and Honda and a few others looking for a PHEV SUV (Plug-in Hybrid) recently.
At Toyota I mentioned being interested in the Rav4 Prime and got laughed at by the dealer. He proceeded to tell me that they're only likely to receive a grand total of 2 Rav4 Primes all year and that all of them are pretty much going exclusively to the coasts.
He actually said he's known of a few people that have taken flights to California to buy a PHEV and drive it back to the Midwest.
I actually couldn't find any PHEV SUVs at any dealerships we went to and I'm probably going to end up leasing just a Hybrid (not from Toyota though) for a few years and hoping EVs are more prevalent when the lease is up. I was really wanting to not put out any emissions while around town, too.
Granted there's a Tesla dealership in the area and we could probably get one of those, but we do like to make long road trips sometimes that would be enough out of its range. I'd also be fine with a Sedan, but my wife is dead set on getting an SUV, so the PHEV SUV was supposed to be the compromise.
> Maximizing the benefit of every battery cell produced requires that we distribute them smartly.
> This means putting them into a greater number of “right sized” electrified vehicles, including HEVs and PHEVs, instead of placing them all into a fewer number of long-range BEVs, like my model X. This is particularly important because presently it is difficult to recycle the kinds of batteries used in BEVs. If we are to achieve carbon neutrality, we must pay attention to all parts of the “3R” process — Reduce, Reuse, and Recycle.
> For example, we hardly ever put gas into our RAV4 Prime PHEV, which has a battery ⅙ as large as our Model X BEV. For the same investment in batteries as our single Model X, five other RAV4 Prime customers could reduce their carbon footprint too.
I had a conspiracy theory level explanation for why Toyota is dragging their feet on EVs -- they need to have the inherit unreliability of ICE cars in order to make selling highly reliable Toyotas viable. Stay with me on this one.
Toyota vehicles are already highly reliable. If you take Toyota level quality and apply it to already simplified EV cars the average lifespan of their cars would go from 15 years to 30 years (guestimates) since there's 1/100th of the moving parts (or less?) in an EV. You'd sell fewer cars and your parts division would sell fewer replacement parts. You can't be profitable on wiper fluid and tires.
Toyota execs saw the end of their business if they ever adopted EVs so they need to ensure future vehicles were powered by explosions -- you still gotta have an entire ICE powertrain in a hybrid. They knew hydrogen was a dead end, but by the time everyone else figured it out it would be 30 years later.
In Norway, sales of new gasoline and diesel cars ends in 2025. No exceptions for hybrids, plug-in or otherwise. Norway is a microscopic market but it still is astounding to me that Toyota will likely be shut out of the country in four years as they have almost nothing in the pipeline except an as-yet nameless crossover using some GM EV platform.
Must be weird to be a dealer in Oslo now, considering the RAV-4 and Yaris hybrids still sell in ok numbers.
If you only provide incentives as tax credits for buying new EVs, you’re really only getting a small % of a wealthier segment of the population to buy them. And in many cases there are problems; look at GMs current predicament with the Bolt. They have to advise people not to charge overnight and to park outside because their batteries might catch on fire. The EV market sub $40k is still very weak. They’re also impractical for anyone who doesn’t park somewhere they can charge.
Now look at hybrids and PHEVs. They can be as much as $15k cheaper out the door, but they still cost a bit more than a traditional ICE vehicle. If your goal is to reduce the emissions of new vehicles as quickly as possible, you should use a more “all of the above” strategy. Incentivize small hybrid vehicles & make them cheaper than similar non-hybrid vehicles, and suddenly the majority of cars priced under $30k being sold would be hybrids and you would cut emissions significantly.
Ultimately if you want the market to solve this problem, you need to get the financial incentives aligned. Right now they just aren’t, it’s just pumping up EVs that are still niche & ignoring other more effective short term solutions.
FWIW I’d love to see some kind of subsidy for used hybrids & EVs too, many people can’t afford to buy new cars at all but they might consider at least switching to a hybrid if it’s economical.
I sold my car this year and decided to use public transport until the car industry sorts itself out. The EVs may be zero emission vehicles, but the environmental cost of making them does not entice me to buy one. Also, it is currently an option for a homeowner who has a driveway/garage as the EU and the UK networks aren't developed well enough to make long-distance travel as easy petrol/diesel cars. Europe is building a lot of high-rise apartment blocks with little or not parking spaces which makes car ownership either very expensive or impossible. If you want an example of it, visit new estates near the London City Airport or its vicinity. They are built for the future without privately-owned cars. If the car industry wants to survive, maybe they should be investing in premium car parks with EV charging facilities or houses/apartment blocks with similar facilities. Porsche did something like this in the Miami Porsche Design Tower. Like it or not, car ownership will dwindle and resemble airline industry with cheap options for the masses (Uber) and luxury options for the wealthy who can afford not only the vehicles but also the more expensive residences and charging facilities.
Bad company who scared of the future and cant innovate, partners with bad people to halt the march of the progressive and virtuous. I believe this to be lazy clickbaity reporting
Remove the pearl-clutching and all Toyota is doing is trying to get the government to extend government subsidies beyond BEVs using the very same system of lobbying major companies use. Their methods are the same as every other company and their aim seems perfectly sensible
Historically a fan of Toyota and I loved the RAV4 hybrid I had until a couple of years ago. Saw the writing on the wall though when they started their “self-charging hybrid” nonsense, like we don’t all know a euphemism when we hear one
The reality is that Toyota has an antique model of amortizing an engine design over too long. the CAFE regulations put them in a tough spot because the overall fleet has to reach a certain MPG. For a long time they made it work with the prius bring the average high so the 5.7L v8 in the Tundra, Land Cruiser, and sequoia, and the 4.6L in the 4Runner, Tacoma, and FJ Cruiser could continue to get very low specific power output / liter and very poor mileage.
They reacted to the regulations by creating 1 very effective vehicle, and letting all the others suck.
You say "suck" but Toyota vehicles are some of the best and longest-lasting vehicles out there. The resale value stays high for new models and old models just keep running. I've only had one non-Toyota
So, "suck" in terms of MPG, but in terms of long term value, they are great cars and trucks.
It's a 4.0L in the 4Runner (still 17 MPG), and now a 3.5L Atkinson cycle in the Tacoma. The majority of their sales are neither Priuses nor Tacomas, though (efficiency outliers be sales outliers, too). CAFE factors are going to be weighted by production numbers (right?), so as long as they sell 10x as many Corollas & Camrys as Land Cruisers the spot's not so tight.
I definitely agree the 5.7L in the Tundra/Sequoia gets horrible mileage and that's why I see many times more F-150s near me.
They sell very few Tundras & Sequoias, I’m not so sure about the other vehicles. Hybridized trucks and body on frame SUVs are coming within this year though. They simply invest less into vehicles they sell fewer of.
The Corolla and Camry get excellent gas mileage even for not being hybrids though. Part of the issue here is a shift in consumer preference towards SUVs, in particular vehicles like the RAV4 and Highlander which get much worse gas mileage even if the powertrains are more efficient.
The Japanese automakers in particular seem to have been caught flat footed by the shift to EVs. Strange considering they were/are the leaders in hybrid technology.
Honda is partnering with GM to build their cars on their EV platform until they can come up with something on their own, and I am not sure what Toyota’s long-term plans are. And this makes me think they are not sure or are so woefully behind that they have to try and delay change as much has possible.
I don't think Toyota cares about Tesla so much, but they have to care about VW- the largest car manufacturer. VW's push into EVs must have them terrified.
No, the problem is domestically, the Japanese government wants Toyota to do fuel cells, not batteries. It's causing no doubt development problems for them to work on both.
Yeah, this is an unfortunate transition considering Toyota has generally been the most technologically sophisticated mainstream car manufacturer. When I recently did some test driving, Toyotas were by far the most advanced vehicles I test drove, I'd expect them to have no difficulty competing in a post-combustion environment. I didn't end up purchasing a Toyota this time around, but only because the primary criteria to meet wasn't technological superiority.
[+] [-] slg|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gonehome|4 years ago|reply
Hybrids were a mediocre half-measure and hydrogen was a worse solution to the problem. Tesla proved this model despite constant criticism even after wild success.
It's not a huge surprise Toyota is throwing their weight around to try to cheat out some legislative relevance rather than compete on product. Many companies being disrupted do that (see recent viasat story, US car dealerships, etc.)
I hope they lose, imo they deserve it.
[+] [-] tw600040|4 years ago|reply
There is a thing called PPA. Usual lease terms is for 20 years or more. No way to get out of them without signing your life away. They make you pay for what it generates, not what you use.. I had to walk away from a really good house just because it came with a Tesla Solar PPA..
[+] [-] hn_throwaway_99|4 years ago|reply
If you read the NYT article that is the source for this, though, that's not the whole story. The real issue is that Toyota placed a big bet on hydrogen, which turned out to be the wrong clean energy bet, and now they are caught flat-footed.
It's like people who bet on Mesos and then later had to try to catch up because the world chose Kubernetes. It's not like those people were against "container orchestration", they just bet on the wrong tech.
[+] [-] RickJWagner|4 years ago|reply
I'll say this for Toyota-- I've owned a Prius and 3 Lexus, all bought used. Those cars simply don't wear out. I'm sold on the idea of Toyota quality.
So if they're behind, I hope the catch up quickly. I want to buy an electric car, but I want one that lasts like a Toyota.
[+] [-] distribot|4 years ago|reply
I guess it kind of makes sense for them. It's high risk/high reward and it will take a scrappy new company to try it.
[+] [-] bin_bash|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] some-guy|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] MomoXenosaga|4 years ago|reply
CO2 emissions need to go down fast and governments are panicking.
[+] [-] unknown|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] slownews45|4 years ago|reply
Instead we have this hydrogen craziness. Billions here in CA have been spent on a "hydrogen superhighway". Meanwhile, for some reason the EV / Tesla charging network is getting built out naturally - I just did an EV plug at home for my relatives with electric cars -> no govt subsidy needed. If we get an EV (we want to) I will leave the house every day with a "full" tank.
The conversion losses are a lot less with electric -> Hydrogen you start with electricity, make hydrogen, compress it, transport it, pump it, use to to make electricity again, run engine.
Electricity you can also make locally (solar etc) and hopefully one day use as a battery backup to your house (100kW house battery would be great).
[+] [-] djanogo|4 years ago|reply
"Toyota’s Indian subsidiary publicly criticized India’s target for 100 percent electric vehicle sales by 2030, saying it was not practical.", the keyword being not practical, country which struggles with electricity during summer and rations farmers electricity is legislating 100% electric?
[+] [-] WillDaSilva|4 years ago|reply
Once we take that into consideration, it's hard to see their pushback against electric vehicles in a good light.
[+] [-] standardUser|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Jaepa|4 years ago|reply
Part of the issue is that supply & demand have to match, but demand for electrical systems is not static. You could theoretically use the EV batteries as reservoirs to store surplus energy during low demands periods, and supply energy during high demand periods. While I doubt it would flatten the duck curve, it could help to smooth it out some.
[+] [-] sbierwagen|4 years ago|reply
India had basically no cars at all in the recent past. The country would survive going back to that state. It would not survive months of lethal heat every year.
[+] [-] jodrellblank|4 years ago|reply
Is it not practical for Toyota to only offer electric cars for sale in India by 2030? Is it not practical for Toyota to sell fewer vehicles in India in 2030? To pull out of selling in India entirely? I know the criticism is "it's not practical for India to switch to electric vehicles (and keep everything else the same)" but (a) why is that Toyota's "right to challenge" and (b) why assume everything else has to stay the same? Assume the Indian government democratically chose economic slowdown from reduced vehicle sales but still wants those vehicles which are sold to only be electric, citizens should have the right to challenge that but why should international companies have such a right?
[+] [-] btgeekboy|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Zigurd|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] anigbrowl|4 years ago|reply
Questionable.
[+] [-] eldaisfish|4 years ago|reply
In the average western country where almost everyone has their electrical energy needs met, EVs do not have a technological limitation to adoption.
[+] [-] dalbasal|4 years ago|reply
These agreements are designed around the auto industry, and its JIT, and global supply chain it necessitates. Auto manufacturing is basically the model industry. The auto industry of 90s onward, was basically modeled on Toyota and The Toyota Way. The classification of subindustries, the structure of tariffs... Most of it is directly or indirectly a product of decisions made at Toyota. For better or worse, they invented modern global manufacturing.
It's sad to see them where they seem to be today.
[+] [-] speedgoose|4 years ago|reply
It's a very polite way of saying that Toyota is selling electric shit boxes. The brand new Lexus UX 300e is so bad and overpriced that it will not surprise me if Toyota's plan is to make a bad selling car on purpose to say that customers don't want EVs.
[+] [-] imglorp|4 years ago|reply
This smells more like a business problem. Maybe they can't scale the battery deals they need, big enough and fast enough.
[+] [-] bluedino|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jrsj|4 years ago|reply
That being said I don’t know how bad this vehicle is because it isn’t sold in the U.S. and I’m not really interested in a subcompact crossover regardless
[+] [-] throwaway0a5e|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cableshaft|4 years ago|reply
At Toyota I mentioned being interested in the Rav4 Prime and got laughed at by the dealer. He proceeded to tell me that they're only likely to receive a grand total of 2 Rav4 Primes all year and that all of them are pretty much going exclusively to the coasts.
He actually said he's known of a few people that have taken flights to California to buy a PHEV and drive it back to the Midwest.
I actually couldn't find any PHEV SUVs at any dealerships we went to and I'm probably going to end up leasing just a Hybrid (not from Toyota though) for a few years and hoping EVs are more prevalent when the lease is up. I was really wanting to not put out any emissions while around town, too.
Granted there's a Tesla dealership in the area and we could probably get one of those, but we do like to make long road trips sometimes that would be enough out of its range. I'd also be fine with a Sedan, but my wife is dead set on getting an SUV, so the PHEV SUV was supposed to be the compromise.
[+] [-] krosaen|4 years ago|reply
https://gillpratt.medium.com/?p=b38bfbc1f16
> Maximizing the benefit of every battery cell produced requires that we distribute them smartly.
> This means putting them into a greater number of “right sized” electrified vehicles, including HEVs and PHEVs, instead of placing them all into a fewer number of long-range BEVs, like my model X. This is particularly important because presently it is difficult to recycle the kinds of batteries used in BEVs. If we are to achieve carbon neutrality, we must pay attention to all parts of the “3R” process — Reduce, Reuse, and Recycle.
> For example, we hardly ever put gas into our RAV4 Prime PHEV, which has a battery ⅙ as large as our Model X BEV. For the same investment in batteries as our single Model X, five other RAV4 Prime customers could reduce their carbon footprint too.
[+] [-] nostromo|4 years ago|reply
This is totally fair; I'm glad Toyota is making this case. Hybrids like the Prius should be part of our solution to curb co2.
Unlike Teslas, Priuses are actually affordable to a large number of Americans.
[+] [-] garyrichardson|4 years ago|reply
Toyota vehicles are already highly reliable. If you take Toyota level quality and apply it to already simplified EV cars the average lifespan of their cars would go from 15 years to 30 years (guestimates) since there's 1/100th of the moving parts (or less?) in an EV. You'd sell fewer cars and your parts division would sell fewer replacement parts. You can't be profitable on wiper fluid and tires.
Toyota execs saw the end of their business if they ever adopted EVs so they need to ensure future vehicles were powered by explosions -- you still gotta have an entire ICE powertrain in a hybrid. They knew hydrogen was a dead end, but by the time everyone else figured it out it would be 30 years later.
[+] [-] timidiceball|4 years ago|reply
Must be weird to be a dealer in Oslo now, considering the RAV-4 and Yaris hybrids still sell in ok numbers.
[+] [-] RubberShoes|4 years ago|reply
Haven't seen this before: https://techcrunch.com/2016/05/17/how-intel-missed-the-iphon...
[+] [-] jrsj|4 years ago|reply
Now look at hybrids and PHEVs. They can be as much as $15k cheaper out the door, but they still cost a bit more than a traditional ICE vehicle. If your goal is to reduce the emissions of new vehicles as quickly as possible, you should use a more “all of the above” strategy. Incentivize small hybrid vehicles & make them cheaper than similar non-hybrid vehicles, and suddenly the majority of cars priced under $30k being sold would be hybrids and you would cut emissions significantly.
Ultimately if you want the market to solve this problem, you need to get the financial incentives aligned. Right now they just aren’t, it’s just pumping up EVs that are still niche & ignoring other more effective short term solutions.
FWIW I’d love to see some kind of subsidy for used hybrids & EVs too, many people can’t afford to buy new cars at all but they might consider at least switching to a hybrid if it’s economical.
[+] [-] surfingdino|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] aseerdbnarng|4 years ago|reply
Remove the pearl-clutching and all Toyota is doing is trying to get the government to extend government subsidies beyond BEVs using the very same system of lobbying major companies use. Their methods are the same as every other company and their aim seems perfectly sensible
[+] [-] asplake|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] abakker|4 years ago|reply
They reacted to the regulations by creating 1 very effective vehicle, and letting all the others suck.
[+] [-] nvahalik|4 years ago|reply
So, "suck" in terms of MPG, but in terms of long term value, they are great cars and trucks.
[+] [-] arh68|4 years ago|reply
I definitely agree the 5.7L in the Tundra/Sequoia gets horrible mileage and that's why I see many times more F-150s near me.
[+] [-] jrsj|4 years ago|reply
The Corolla and Camry get excellent gas mileage even for not being hybrids though. Part of the issue here is a shift in consumer preference towards SUVs, in particular vehicles like the RAV4 and Highlander which get much worse gas mileage even if the powertrains are more efficient.
[+] [-] etempleton|4 years ago|reply
Honda is partnering with GM to build their cars on their EV platform until they can come up with something on their own, and I am not sure what Toyota’s long-term plans are. And this makes me think they are not sure or are so woefully behind that they have to try and delay change as much has possible.
[+] [-] jhallenworld|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] rcMgD2BwE72F|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kilroy123|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] thehappypm|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] delfinom|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ocdtrekkie|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] JKCalhoun|4 years ago|reply