Toyota was right about hybrid cars | Hacker News Reader

Toyota was right about hybrid cars

businessinsider.com

33 pointsBrajeshwar50 comments

I have owned hybrids and now only buy EVs. People buying hybrids today, due to cost difference with EVs, are overlooking total cost of ownership. My Prius was a very very complex machine, compared to my EV. Over the years, it cost a lot more to maintain and drive. Factor in regular maintenance + gas that EVs don't need. I also had to replace the catalytic converter after 7 years on my Prius. My 5-year old Tesla doesn't have one.

New Prius comes in very close to Model 3 with subsidies around here. Price isn't the issue for me - charging is.

Hybrids let me take road trips without worrying about that nonsense while letting me commute on a charge.

Won't you have to replace the battery on the Tesla soon? My understand is a Tesla battery is good for 10-20 years and a Prius catalytic converter for 10+ Both cars share a lot of the same maintenance, like tires and brakes. And you've got to pay for electricity(in both terms of time and money)or gas. It isn't as cut and dry as you make it

I've had a Prius since 2009. Maintenance needs have been identical to my previous cars, if not less.

Having bought a Toyota hybrid for the first time about 2 years ago, the value proposition was overwhelmingly in their favor. Cost the same or less as equivalent gas cars in their class, with about 30% to 50% less gas usage, meaning ongoing costs are way lower too.

It was of course way cheaper than any reasonable electric car 2 years ago too, still probably is, and charging infrastructure was terrible where I live back then, still mostly is (but getting better).

I think the years and years of PR around their top tier reliability helps a lot too. I guess the biggest gripe is the looks of their cars, they're basically boring, kind of ugly and utilitarian. But all of the above together kind of nails a segment of car buyers which is "I don't want to give a shit about my car, I need it to work well, not burn the planet too much, not cost a lot, and get me where I need to go", which is probably a pretty large segment.

People who don’t own electric cars usually don’t realize this, but if you own a home, you don’t really need “charging infrastructure”. For regular commute of ~15 miles each way a regular household outlet will suffice. Not having to drive anywhere to “refuel” is pretty nice IMO. As is not having to spend the better part of a day every year on scheduled maintenance because, well, none is required

Regular gas vehicles don’t need the better part of a day every year for scheduled maintenance either. Full synthetic oil only needs to be changed after 5k miles, and most people can get away with 8k miles. It is at most 1 hour at a mechanic, but probably less than 30min at an oil change specific place like Valvoline.

Cabin and engine air filter is a 5min job anyone can do too. The only other regular thing needed is tire rotations, although that applies to EV also.

Obviously, not having to deal with all that gas related drivetrain is great. But is it worth an extra $10k to $20k or more? Probably not for most.

Dunno, BMW requires that you drop off your car for the entire day. And you don’t get a loaner either. So did VW, Toyota and Subaru I had in the past. All recommend changing oil at least once a year. Hugely inconvenient and disrespectful of my time. I frankly don’t see why dealers don’t make this a 15 minute affair like the various lube shops to which one would be reluctant to take their car while it’s under warranty. Also, a well equipped Prius is like $40k nowadays if you haven’t checked the prices lately.

It's all a US ploy to make you spend money. In europe nobody changes their oil every year it's absolutely bonkers when I read that. My new BMW X5 manufacturer first service is set at 18000 miles that's likely 2+ years of ownership! I also have a petrol Z3 and I change the oil every 5 years maybe. It still is 24 years old and goes like clappers. And last time I changed the oil, the old one looked absolutely fine.

Is it true that luxury (or any) car manufacturers extend their oil-change periods so that the engine wears out earlier and their customers will replace their cars sooner. So, BMW wants you to replace your car every x miles (eg 100K miles) - whereas the mechanism can last way longer (300K miles) if maintained better.

the car maker has an inherent incentive to reduce the lifespan of the vehicle which conflicts with the customer's incentive to extend the lifespan.

This just sounds like you don't drive much.

I easily cover 10-15k miles a year as a Brit. Changing the oil in my car every 50,000-75,000 miles ("5 years maybe") would be totally ridiculous. In many vehicles you're looking at things like timing belt changes in that time frame, you've replaced the tyres multiple times, etc.

> first service is set at 18000 miles that's likely 2+ years of ownership!

An American commuter will hit that in a year easy.

I doubt it.

https://www.thezebra.com/resources/driving/average-miles-dri...

> The average miles driven per year by Americans has now reached a total of 14,263 miles.

And I bet this is a mean average, so is skewed higher by people who drive a lot. If I were to guess, the vast majority of personal vehicles stay under 10k miles per year.

Women and retired people especially, who usually have their own vehicle:

> Men drive around 6,000 miles per year more than women on average, and after retirement drivers post around 30 percent fewer miles per year.

> Hugely inconvenient and disrespectful of my time.

dealing with dealers and repair shops is not fun. but gas-cars are still the known-devil - masses understand their issues and are habituated to them. evs come with unknowns which hinder fast mass adoption.

There’s no reason to get an oil change at a dealer, it exists solely to upsell on other services. New cars under warranty can get a 15 minute oil job just fine, it’s removing one bolt and reinstalling it for 99% of cars.

It’s not just an oil change with ICE cars either - they run the diagnostics, fix the various recalls, and maintain your service record. Cars are very complicated nowadays, especially hybrid ones, it’s cheaper to catch problems early. Plus it’s free for the first 3 years if one values their time at $0/hr.

Only on HN will people argue that spending a day or two a year on something as stupid and unnecessary as refueling and car maintenance is worthwhile.

The car spends the day doing maintenance, I drop it off and they drop me off at home. I telework, then they pick me up and I get my car.

I imagine the aggregate time spent on engine maintenance is no more than the aggregate extra charging time you have to attend to when not at home?

> Only on HN will people argue that spending a day or two a year on something as stupid and unnecessary as refueling and car maintenance is worthwhile.

Probably because you’re inventing scenarios in your head that only apply to you.

> Only on HN will people argue that spending a day or two a year on something as stupid and unnecessary as refueling and car maintenance is worthwhile

You are arguing that, even after being told it is not true. And then you select a known high maintenance brand to keep arguing it, which makes your motive sound disingenuous.

I never understood people who complained about oil changes.

Do... people not rotate their tires or something? EVs are heavier and therefore have more tire-wear. Its probably more important to rotate those tires.

Oil Change + Tire Rotation is pretty typical service. Even if you get rid of oil changes, the tires still should go around-and-round.

I never even heard of tire rotation before I moved to the US.

Tire performance degenerates greatly the more they wear out.

*Especially* wet-weather performance. 2/32nds an inch is the legal end of tires but by this point you are taking twice the distance to stop the car.

https://cdn.discounttire.com/sys-master/images/hfb/h15/89828...

The front tires has more weight (especially when braking: the weight shifts forward due to momentum). If you want the front tires to perform better, you need to have longer treads / less-worn-out tires, especially in wet weather.

BMW recommends not rotating tires on performance vehicles, since back and front tires are different anyways. I guess that means we are just going to have less life on our tires, but regenerative braking should help at least.

> regenerative braking

That still puts the same stresses on the tire as regular braking.

I’m guessing it’s because AFAIK most people don’t have a separate set of winter tyres which means you automatically rotate them twice a year.

A lot of this is dependent on where you live. I live in a less dense area than most.

My local shops generally have loaners available, and if not, their courtesy cars will drive you anywhere within a reasonable distance if you need to get home or to work. Ford dealer has driven me the 40 minutes home and then come back to pick me up when the car was ready. They also have "drive through" service for oil changes and simple stuff like that if you don't want to be bothered making an appointment.

It takes me about 1-hour to change my own oil for $35. I do full synthetic because why not? (Conventional oil would be like $28 but... spending the extra money for nicer oil is is so cheap anyway...)

EDIT: The only reason it takes me 1-hour to change my oil is that I also do my own tire-rotations at the same time. The oil change is... really easy.

> Also, a well equipped Prius is like $40k nowadays if you haven’t checked the prices lately.

A Corolla Hybrid is like $25k.

I never dreamed about buying a BMW until the i4 came out. Their ICEs just scare me, and I believe one day oil changes. But the i4 doesn’t really require much service at all, maybe new tires eventually. It makes owning a German car feasible.

But if you go with a reliable Honda or Toyota (or their luxury up brands), owning an ICE isn't that much of a hassle.

I have had a Volkswagen, it certainly didn't take a day at the dealer. And most of the wait time was other customers ahead of me.

That weasel in my hood disagreed with me and regularly chewed my car out.

> they're basically boring, kind of ugly and utilitarian.

Good, it’s what cars should be. “Car culture” is a plight on society and the sooner we break free of tying our self worth to our cars the better.

I do still wish they’d make a good pure EV.

A pure EV Prius would automatically be the best EV in the American market, IMO.

Prius is synonymous with the power-split device (the "differential" like device that allows the EV + Gasoline engine to work as a team to drive the car).

Toyota's pure EV is bZ4X, and correctly is a new name to distinguish itself.

"bZ4X" has to be the most "we don't really want anyone to know about, talk about, or god-forbid actually buy our car" name ever.

“ The BZ in bZ4X stands for “Beyond Zero” which represents the all-electric nature of the car, the 4 refers to the size (presumably there will be a bZ3 or a bZ5) and the X means that it is an SUV or crossover.”

I don’t know, I like algorithmic naming conventions.

I'm still convinced they don't want to sell Beyond Zero of these things.

Let’s not forget that it lacks a glove compartment!

When was the last time you wore driving gloves /s

That power-split planetary gearbox is great. They "have CVTs", literally, because it's a transmission and it's continuously variable, but it's not a steel band and roller that'll turn into metal shavings. Indeed, a planetary "CVT" is simpler and more reliable than a traditional six-speed automatic. But people get triggered by the word "CVT". We should instead say "steel band" and "planetary gearset" or something.

It's a very clever piece of engineering. I didn't quite get it until I saw this webpage with a little visual simulator of how it works, which is really great!

http://eahart.com/prius/psd/

Strategically this was true a decade ago. Tactically/revenue-wise yes they'll make a lot on hybrids. Maximization of carbon impact of battery production would have been best with hybrids if the policy was properly aligned 20 years ago.

Hybrids should have been heavily incented or outright required in the year 2000. With the prius and insight showing such gains ESPECIALLY in city driving, the DoT for every major market should have told car companies to get 90% of new consumer cars as hybrids, and given them 20 years for trucks and heavy equipment.

But now, with the arrival of mass production sodium ion, hybrids are a legacy technology. Sure hybrids will have a role, but it is an inevitably diminishing one, just like ICEs.

I don't believe Toyota is right about anything with BEVs. They missed the EV boat and strangely keep pushing hydrogen. It shows shocking inertia and dysfunction in their management, and it has for ten years now.

Toyota likely has the size and resources to catch up. They can probably essentially buy a Chinese EV company or forge a really strong partnership to close the gap, but it will require management direction to become less muddled.

in principle, The plug in hybrid is better than an EV in every way. the weight of an entire ICE+gas tank is less than the weight of 70 kwh of battery. You get all of the benefits of being a hybrid in terms of energy recapture, and all the range of an ICE in rare situations. You can also make 10 of them per pure EV.

Not really. Had they started making electric vehicles when bmw did (and kept with it unlike bmw) instead of their half effort late entry, they would have had several electric models selling very well at this moment. But they didn’t try so they don’t.

I think you miss the point.

The large number of hybrid vehicles, especially in the low $25k new segment (ex: Corolla Hybrid) are selling like hotcakes right now, even when EVs and other vehicles are having trouble today.

EVs are $5k, $6k, $9k+ lower priced in just the last few months across multiple brands. They're getting chewed up in terms of profits right now. Its why EV stocks (TSLA, RIVN and LCID) dropped so much in the past few months. The numbers are in and... they're ugly. EVs are doing poorly.

--------

> Hybrid sales rose much more quickly than EV sales last year, up 65% to more than 1.2 million, according to Cox Automotive. While Americans bought the same number of purely battery-powered EVs, that segment's growth was just 46% year-over-year.

> Shoppers in the market for a hybrid are also much more likely to pony up more cash for these cars.

So Hybrids are growing faster than Electrics. Furthermore, Hybrids are cheaper to make, and sell for higher prices. Its turning out to be an excellent business decision for Toyota.

You speak as if Toyota wouldn't move the market themselves and needs the pricing Tesla needs to make a profit. I also don't understand the concept that hybrids are cheaper. They are cheaper because it is Toyota making a more complex car than a non-car maker could attempt.

All the "complexity" of a hybrid (or at least... a Prius) is approximately 15 gears that replace the alternator/starter/transmission.

The Toyota Power-split device is a planetary-gearset connecting 2x electric motors/generators with 1x ICE engine.

But a regular ICE car needs 2x electric motor/generators *anyway*. #1 is called the starter (turns Lead-Acid battery pack into cranking force to start the engine), and #2 is called the alternator (turns engine RPMs into electricity to charge the battery pack). Then you need a gear-shifter to have the ICE car handle a variety of different speeds.

Change #1 and #2 to be bigger, stronger. Then make the effective-gear shifting a function of the relationship of #1 vs #2 RPMs, and you got a Toyota Power Split Device.

--------

Its so efficient and usable, that Ford has copied the design, as well as Stellanis's Chrysler Pacifica. As it turns out, a Hybrid barely has any more complexity over a regular ICE in practice.

Its just a *different* set of gears, but really not a big deal.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jofycaXByTc

Over the last 25 years of Prius, the Hybrid / Power-split Device has rarely failed. Prius transmission / generator / starter is incredibly reliable. Its just gears.

All in all, the "complexity" of a Hybrid is roughly the same level of complexity as an automatic-transmission wet-clutch device.

It seems that massive batteries required by EVs are surprisingly expensive. And ICE+Hybrid tech is not so much...

Toyota has no problem trying to make hydrogen vehicles happen despite the hydrogen stack costing over $10k.

In other words, The reason Toyota doesn’t have a successful EV line is due to Toyota not wanting to try because they bet on hydrogen early on instead of EVs

If Toyota had released an EV 11 years ago like bmw and kept iterating on it then today they’d have several models with very competitive costs, likely significantly cheaper than the model 3 but with far better build quality.

Are they successful with their hybrid sales, yes, but had they invested in EVs then they would be successful in both EVs and Hybrids, selling both like hot cakes.

I’d say their bet on hybrids was the conservative safe one that did okay except one inconvenient thing no one has mentioned yet. Their bet wasn’t hybrids alone as the future of cars.

Their bet wasn’t on hybrids alone, their bet was on hybrids and hydrogen and it’s obvious the hydrogen cars are an unmitigated disaster.

Had their strategy been hybrids and EV instead of hybrids and hydrogen, they would have two hugely successful next gen car lineups. Instead they have one doing well and one that is a disaster going nowhere.

I mean honestly, imagine if they’d put even a fraction of their determination into EVs that they been focusing on the mirai. They’re so dedicated to making it happen that they’re nearly giving it away for free once the $15k of free fuel is factored in

Car companies are not responsible for dropping the price of Li-ion. Its cell companies like BYD, LG Chem, and Panasonic.

Have Tesla pay Panasonic to drop cell prices, and Toyota can leverage their long-term relationship with Panasonic to get a same-price battery pack in the long run anyway.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com