Nov 17, 2023·edited Nov 17, 2023Liked by Jack Baruth
I think Toyota has their approach right for hybrids and it is a natural extension of what they'd already been doing for decades with the Prius.
I have mild regret about not finding a Hybrid Highlander as the family vehicle because it does all the in town short hops.
Kawasaki is also introducing hybrids (as well as all electrics but the hybrids are more interesting). Depending on how they operate- keep the neighbors happy in the morning while leaving and provide monster torque when you want it.
Disagree. The "new" Camry is a lazy, cynical compliance car. If Toyota was serious, they would have invested more in the redesign. It's one thing when Toyota goes cheap and safe on a car like the Lexus IS, an uncompetitive product no one gives a shit about. But this is the Camry and going the easy route on a bestseller shows that they've given up.
I do think that going all-hybrid makes the most sense, and if the automakers had any kind of real leadership, they'd push back on government edicts and promote this route. But they're not, because they're run by gutless me-too fools. I'm not sure Toyota (and Honda) stands apart on principle, or because they've dithered about for so long out of characteristic caution that they're missing the boat on joining the party. Time will tell.
I disagree. Cars are more expensive than ever to design and develop, and I understand why Toyota felt it hadn't quite gotten all the use out of the 2018 engineering. If they can build a desirable and competitive car without a full redesign, why not? A complete redesign likely would have been a foolish use of their development dollars.
Besides, it's not without precedent. The 2012-2017 Camry was essentially a reskin (or a couple of them) of the 2007-2011.
If they were really that cost driven, they could have spent a lot less. The quarter panels and decklid are new and they even changed rear door opening. But it all looks EXACTLY THE SAME unless you really scrutinize it. They could have just given it a new front clip and called it done.
That's unbelievably stupid. And it just reinforces my belief in how rudderless and out of ideas this company has become. Dropping everything but the hybrid version isn't a fuck you to anyone but the customers.
Eh, the Camry wasn't a sports car anyway, altho they tried to dress it that way in recent years. This car is and was an appliance.
The Prius, with its hatchback and significant, positive redesign, is to me a better choice regardless. I would say that Toyota has said "un fuck you" to the customers with the new Prius.
But the dud's refresh probably didn't cost that much. From some web site:
Toyota sold 242,571 Camry in 2023. (From Jan - Oct 2023)
How many Camry did Toyota sell in October 2023?
Toyota sold 24,596 Camry in October 2023.
How many Camry did Toyota sell in 2022?
Toyota sold 295,201 Camry in 2022. In 2021, Toyota sold 313,795 Camry. They sold 18,594 more units in year 2021 compared to 2022 with a percent loss of 5.93% YoY.
Slightly less headroom and cargo room on the new one, is what you mean? Less legroom too, perhaps?
Probably a good trade for the better exterior styling, but probably not for everyone. The older generations are still very usable for those who like them, me included.
I think what Toyota did was masterful. I was wondering how Toyota would keep the Prius relevant in a world where it’s no longer the statement it once was...and turning into an enthusiast-oriented stylish car was a brilliant idea.
I've shown the new Prius to my wife as a contender to replace her 130k mile 2012 Camry (which still runs like a top and gets 32mpg in mixed/highway use). She likes sporty *looking* cars but has very little interest in dealing sports car compromises (rough ride, poor visibility, winter traction issues, low profile tires, bad mpg). The other option I keep pitching is a Dodge Challenger. She likes "swoopy/curvy" coupes, her one demerit of the Challenger is that they're absolutely *everywhere* in Indy so she'd be going from driving a grey Camry that blends in to a Challenger that is almost as common on the roads it seems like.
Stylish? Sure. But “enthusiast-oriented?” Come on.
Marketing hype aside, I don’t the new car is going to move the needle. The justification for the Prius to exist is gone now that everything else is a hybrid.
The money spent on that redesign should have gone into the Camry.
100%. Toyota has hit it out of the park with this design. Fit some sweet rims on it and you’ve got a real looker. For the first time EVER I’m actually thinking about how a Prius might work for us. Will have to test one and see.....
All the changes you cited are pretty superficial, including the rear door opening. They probably struck a good balance between maximal newness and minimal unnecessary investment. The expensive part would have been changing the structure, and they didn’t. It looks (and likely feels) new *enough.* Remember that an automaker is beholden to its shareholders and has a fiduciary responsibility to spend money wisely.
And, again, Toyota isn’t alone in an unwillingness to invest in an all-new sedan. The Accord took a similar stance: new skin and a new interior on existing bones. GM has decided to extend the Malibu beyond its original 2024 cancel date, but without a redesign. Beyond that, competitors are dropping or have dropped like flies. The Passat, Fusion, 200, Mazda6? All gone. Hyundai and Nissan have reported the discontinuation of the Sonata and Altima, respectively. The K5 and especially legacy are likely on borrowed time.
I also don’t think Toyota is out of ideas. They’ve invested a ton of money into genuinely new, genuinely desirable products. They just didn’t do that for a dying segment wherein the existing product was more than competitive and only needed a freshening. I think that’s smart.
Anyone with sedans in the US market is playing the movie HighLander. "There can only be one". Or a few. For the ones that survive, it's a good piece of coin.
It may. At the same time, companies exist to make money. "Good enough for now" maybe much more profitable than "Give the customers new and improved". Honda's update of the Accord isn't all that either.
“Remember that an automaker is beholden to its shareholders and has a fiduciary responsibility to spend money wisely.”
If that was the guiding principle, then they should be pulling non competing products like the Tundra and LS, instead of completely redesigning them to still be uncompetitive. And they shouldn’t be mucking around with all this Gazoo Racing silliness that is mostly invisible to 95% of their customers.
No, you spend your money on protecting your core products. A half-baked update like all the other also-rans that are dying does nothing to entice consumers…if there’s nothing really new in the segment, people are going to gravitate elsewhere.
This feels like a car that’s not going to see another generation and will be drug out by Toyota until they get on board with EVs and/or finally get ordered to stop selling it. Hardly the bold stance against electrification that Robert’s interpreting it as.
Toyota is probably relatively safe, if Japanese institutional investors haven’t been captured by DEI.
Sitting in the airport waiting for my connection, I looked at their shareholder ownership. JP Morgan is #5 on the list and is the first US shareholder. They own 3%. The top 4 ate Japanese and own 28% of shares outstanding. Probably how they can avoid having to go all in on EV’s.
Agree with you, Kyree. The '25 Camry's interior is firmly in the modern/current year aesthetic, a decided step forward (or whatever direction one thinks) from the present. It's a good move. The exterior is still very busy, but I see where they are "going." The addition of having standard epic mpg is also a good move, IMO. As much as I do appreciate the benefits of EVs (advertised and experienced), a hybrid continues to be far and away the most practical way to get many benefits in one package. The just-replaced generation of CR-V hybrid blended EV initial acceleration to ICE highway motivation beautifully--we've come along way from the Prius-in-a-Camry-suit Camry Hybrids (which I've driven as well) and are better for it.
More generally (and the Camry is part of this), I continue to gather an idea of where the automotive industry is going aesthetically, both in exterior and interior design. We have some uncomfortable-in-the-sweater-I-just-put-on generations of design present, but overall, the path is more clearly visible, and I like where it's going. This will become more evident in mid-cycle refreshes and next generation designs. It is generally led by the Koreans and the Japanese, with the Germans producing vomitous designs and the Americans having the Ram 1500 and the EV-Only, But You Know I Love You, Baby, Here's Some ICE new Charger.
And the 2007-2011 was basically a reskin of the 02-06 XV30. And if you look at an 02-06 you can quite frankly find a lot of very similar (and same part numbers) that go back all the way to the 92-96 cars and even some elements to 87-91.
Hard disagree. I care a lot about my 15 IS350 F-Sport, which has been flawless reliability-wise and remains a joy to drive after 8 years. Certainly, a boon companion in heavy duty traffic as well as a lot of fun on the windy country backroads near my house - not as much as fun as a dedicated sports car, obviously, but its (relatively) dininutive size makes a big difference on tight roads. I dont like the refresh as much but, if mine were stolen, I'd replace it with another one. I don't care that a m340i is a second or more faster to 0-60 when the IS is more than fast enough for me on public roads. For the things I care about, it is the only choice in its segment. So I would suggest that "uncompetitive" is in the eye of the beholder, and as the esteemed Mr. Farago makes clear, Toyota is more than competitive in the things that matter to many, many consumers.
I drove an Escape hybrid for work for years. We had 3 of them in the fleet. Battery cooling water pump went out on all 3 around 100k. Other than that, just synthetic oil changes every 10k. All 3 went well over 300k. One was totaled due to ice, one rusted away, mine was neglected since it was being traded in on a new vehicle and blew up due to low oil. It was well past the 10k mark. Great drive train. Hoping to get a hybrid Maverick in the future.
Interestingly--at least with the NiMH batteries--the Toyota hybrids have had air-cooled batteries (a main fan and an auxiliary fan that does double duty for the rear cabin on some cars). But the inverters have been water-cooled, with a completely separate system from that of the engine, but using the same coolant.
One fly in the ointment of ~10year old Toyota hybrids is the integrated brake booster/ABS controller. It starts to leak/fail internally…. $3500 parts and labor at an independent shop, my brother has done a bunch of them, enough to make him not recommend hybrid Toyotas to customers. Tough pill to swallow on an older car. Kind of like how a CVT crapping out on a Nissan just about guarantees a trip to the junkyard.
That's more than a fly in the ointment, considering low ownership cost is a major reason why someone buys a Toyota. I always thought the hybrids in particular were their most reliable models.
Sounds like the same part/design that they stuck on a certain number of their models during that era. Something to do with some sort of higher-end version of traction/stability control (offroad traction control for the trucks, Prius to deal with the hybrid system, Lexus I can only guess why). If the guy with the nice Lexus might pony up the $3500, the uber running a 180k mile Prius will likely call it quits.
The gen 2 Prius (04-09 in the US) is indeed one of the best overbuilt Toyotas made since the 92 XV10 Camry or various Tahara built Land cruiser products. Ironically enough said land cruisers/4Runners/GXes have that same damn integrated booster/ABS system to run their ATRAC system. With the third gen Prius (2010) you get into Toyotas cost cut/unintended acceleration/oil burning 2.4s era. Those third gen Priuses are also dealing with a fair number of failing head gaskets now as they’re coming of age. Disappointing.
I’ve worked a bit on my SIL’s 2013 Camry Hybrid and one high point is the ease of transmission maintenance: a simple drain and fill procedure. On my wife’s 2.5 6A 2012 Camry the procedure is needlessly complicated by the omission of a dipstick. You need to get the transmission to the correct temperature range and correct level is then determined by the rate of fluid dribbling out of the secondary drain bolt thingy. I’m not kidding. Also, the 2012-2014 Camry 6A is known for torque converter “pulsed” engagement that prematurely wears them out. Toyota extended the warranty to 8 years 150k miles and had some programming fixes.
TL;DR if you want a bombproof Toyota buy a 90s Camry with a 4spd auto.
I hated them as a kid, the calling card of smug liberal intellectuals that hated the sort of cars that I loved. Now that everyone has moved on, I can appreciate them for the roomy hatchback design and very open cockpit, and simple/purposeful styling inside and out. That generation of 1.5L hybrid really drones/wheezes unpleasantly if driven at anything other than a relaxed pace, so you gotta just slow your roll. None of the Priuses ride particularly well either. If only they had a very plush ride then I'd look at them like a ersatz French car (with better reliability).
Because it's rolling on Corolla underpinnings with a twist beam rear axle, kind of crude but durable. The newest gen is now on a common platform with the Camry and I suspect does *much* better.
The no-dipstick/wait-and-see-how-much-dribbles-out procedure is becoming more and more common on modern transmissions. I dealt with it on the ZF 6-speed longitude unit, which I had in two L322 Range Rovers and two X350 Jaguar XJs.
Old Subaru 4ATs are great in this regard. Simple spin on external filter. Old Subarus also had a simple accessible inline fuel filter right under the hood as well. Honestly, there's a lot to like about those cars from a DIY service/repair standpoint.
On my Town&Country's 62TE, Chrysler "deleted" the dipstick, by capping the dipstick tube with a little labeled plastic cap that says "dealer service only." But at least the access is there, so I could find out what the level from the bottom of the pan is supposed to be for a given temp, then use the engine dipstick and measure the level (in lieu of the "special" mopar transmission dipstick). A lot of the restriction of AT servicing I think was driven by incorrectly done servicing that lead to issues that the manufacturer was left picking up the bill for. So for them it was better to "seal" the transmission with "lifetime" fluid to get you through the warranty period without messing with it, and then you're on your own with burned up fluid.
I have a 2011 CRV, sis has a 2015 Outback, her son a 2012 Outback. I went to visit her a couple of weeks ago. My spare was 40 pounds. I filled it to 60. Took my air compressor with me. A real one. Checked sis's spare. 15 pounds. Checked the nephew's. 10 pounds. They have plastic fantastic air compressors. Most likely plastic gears inside. Their spares were essentially flat. I doubt a roadside fill-up off of the cig lighter (accessory outlet) would have gotten them to 30.
I was freaked at 40.
She has another son that has a GMC SUV. The small one. He had to drive 2 hours to Philly to catch a plane to Las Vegas for business. On a Sunday. Gets a mile from sis's house. Flat tire. No spare. Luckily he has a buddy in the business with a flat bed and all that. Buddy patches the tire in a Turkey Hill parking lot. The kid calls me. Asks "Would it be a good idea to buy a wheel and tire?" Yeah. That was 7 months ago. He never did. He did make the plane. Every time I talk to him, I bring up the tire. He's still running on the buddy's patch. One of those needle deals with the rubber where it looks like you are sewing.
AAA is nice. How much time you got waiting for them?
Used to think hybrids meant lugging around an unnecessary battery and e-motor, but my wife bought a Pacifica hybrid and regularly gets 40plus mpg. And it carries 7 people and lots of stuff. Last Thanksgiving we gassed it up outside Death Valley in minutes right next to a line of Teslas stuck ‘fast’ charging in the middle of nowhere while we drove to eat where we damn well wanted to!
0. EVs are nothing but a subsidy for buyers and manufacturers- when Sunak walked back the Crown’s EV mandate due to the physical impossibility and economy-crippling side effects, OEMs found a convenient scape goat and wanted a handout. The coming EV collapse will be epic and come at taxpayer expense (as Germany already did with Siemens - to green to fail! - line stolen from another substacker).
1. Toyota’s hybrids, delivering real efficiency, have and will save more resources (from manufacturing to disposal and everything in between) will save more resources than any EV, ever.
2. Just like the EU’s diesel push that resulted in thousands of premature deaths from increased PM2.5 emissions, the insane tire eating overweight EVs will do much more near term damage to people than whether actual carbon emissions they avoid.
3. Bullshit structurally unprofitable and useless renewables that drive up electricity prices (I can tilt all day windmills) will make charging an EV as expensive as gas - at $0.38kwh at many fast chargers, you just need to clear about 20ish highway mpg at $3.20 gas to be cheaper. A Prius crushes an EV on road trip costs.
4. The EV crowd forgets gas is a product of refining crude, and every other refined petroleum product is absolutely necessary for modern life, starting with the diesel used to run the mining equipment to pull the hundreds of tons of raw materials needed to make an EV. Or food. Do we go back to the early standard oil days and just dump surplus gas in the Cuyahoga?
Dead right on all counts, with the addition that China will happily take all the gasoline we don't. As long as China exists, every resource that CAN be extracted from the Earth WILL be.
This. Conservation to the nth degree is pants on head stupid when over six times the population of the US in China, India and elsewhere is 'riding dirty'.
Nov 17, 2023·edited Nov 17, 2023Liked by Jack Baruth
Genuinely asking: Got some reputable data to support your third bullet point? California generates one-third of its electricity from renewables and the cost to charge my EV - both at home and at public charging stations - is still less than the cost of gasoline.
Been 14 months since I went electric, but before I did filling my Mazda 6 cost me around $50 and got me about 425 miles IIRC. "Filling" my Mach-E costs about $27 and gets me 310 miles.
I've driven from Oakland to Tucson and back and typically rolled into a charging station with 20 to 30 percent state of charge. Never paid more than $20 to fill the pack, which never took more than 25 minutes.
Sure, and it's absolutely a moving target to determine gas/charge cost equivalency.
As an EV goes faster at a steady state Cruze, they burn a lot more kwh per mile, and also are heavily influenced by temp, AC or heat use, etc. A TST podcast mentioned driving a Lucid to Vegas from LA, and whether it really was a 'luxury' car if it had to stay at 70 mph getting passed by everyone to make it to the next charger due to the increased kwh burn going with the flow of traffic at 85-90mph and the AC running hard.
I threw together the sheet at the imigur link using a lot of public data all based off of what InsideEVs found driving a RWD lyriq at 70 and 80 mph. EV charging varies from ~$.15 at a midwest house to $.56/kwh at an on-peak tesla supercharger.
Also, CA's average Sept 2022 gas price was $5.37/gal when you last filled up your Mazda 6 - gas is cheaper now, making any car with a gas engine more attractive.
In CA, PG&E home rates are $.26 off-peak, and $.58 on peak (!). EVs vary hugely in kwh burn as well.
Fully agree you'd need a Gen 1 honda insight driven by a hypermiler and a lot of pushing to compete with an EV commuting in stop-and-go traffic using a home charger with cheap electricity charged at an off-peak subsidized rate.
However, areas with high EV penetration don't have inexpensive electricity, and I'd also argue that the cost to add an L2 port at home and EV charger should be rolled into the actual cost to drive an EV. EVs also are at their best efficiency in stop-and-go traffic when ICE cars are at their worst.
CA's electric prices are crazy and regressive due to renewables and lack of gas infrastructure. Robert Bryce collects some good data on this. He has a lens, as we all do, however, the nice part about electric grids and costs is the facts really aren't in dispute because physics and GAAP don't care about avoided future CO2 costs.
The really crazy thing about the shift to EVs that I can't understand is that night-time off-peak charging comes from the most carbon-intensive energy sources - coal and gas - because the sun is down. While the average CO2 emissions from CA's grid might look good, the marginal impact from increased nighttime demand has to be unpleasant (CAISO conveniently calls coal 'imports' and doesn't count it, despite imports providing 24% of its power as I type this).
Another problem with any kind of EV road-tripping is the demand charge (size of the electricity pipe feeding a fast charger) that must be paid to ensure a fast charger can actually get the power needed to fast charge. A 250kw charger needs at least 250kw of demand, which is $21.80 per kw per month in CA (around here, it's ~$17.50), so you've got $65,400 in fixed costs before a single electron goes through the pipe (insert a your mom joke here), and energy is also not cheap, particularly on peak, in many areas.
With the highly variable use case for EVs vs ICEs vs PHEVs vs HEVs overlayed with regional temperature, commute type, and availability of preferential home charging rates, one can likely save a lot switching to an EV or not with minor variations in assumptions. In my area, I'd save about $65-70 a month just commuting with an EV vs a Civic Si, but give some of that back when I go on road trips (not counting time spent at a charger, or the ~$2k cost to install an L2 charger in my garage).
There are no free lunches at the energy buffet. The EIA just released its forecast showing that heating a home with nat gas saves about $400 vs heating a home with electricity, because getting heat straight from a flame is a lot more efficient than burning it, converting to electricity, transmitting it, then running it through resistive heating elements. That's not chump change to most people.
Fundamentally, on an unsubsidized basis, the cost to charge an EV is far from cheap when counting all the transmission, distribution, generation, and infrastructure needed.
How do these costs compare to the fixed costs of gas stations and the cost of the refining, distribution, and infrastructure of gasoline? If you're going to include those in the cost of "filling up" an EV, you must also factor them into the cost of filling an ICE vehicle so you are making an apples to apples comparison.
No, but you also don't have to build your own public charging station, which is what we're talking about here.
If you live in a home with a decent electrical panel, running a 220-volt line costs a couple of hundred bucks. I can't speak to other models, but the 30-amp charger that came with my Mach-E was more than up to the job of charging the car to full capacity overnight, so I didn't need to buy a wall-mount charger. The cost of installing a 220 outlet was quickly offset by the savings in gasoline.
That's an interesting spreadsheet, but I'm not sure I entirely understand it. I'm also not sure some of your assumptions are correct.
I suck at math, so all I can do is offer personal experience: When I drove from Oakland to Tucson and back in our Mach-E, I ran the car in eco mode for max efficiency, set the cruise control at 75 to 80, ran the ac, and kept up with the flow of traffic (I didn't get passed by many people, and did a fair amount of passing of others). I didn't experience the burn rate - or energy cost - your spreadsheet suggests. I'd typically roll into a charging station with between 20 and 30 percent SOC and leave with 80 to 85, and never paid more than $18-20 for the electrons. I know the Mach-E keeps a log of its energy use / efficiency (much like some cars keep a history of fuel economy), and I seem to recall getting a kwh/mile figure in the high threes. We've got the 91 kw/hr pack, which gives us a range of about 270 miles - roughly 87 percent of the 310 miles the car is rated at. I'll see if I can dig it up.
It also appears you are assuming energy use increases with speed in an EV but remains constant in ICE. Your "gas per 100 mi" column appears to suggest that a car rated at 25 mpg highway will return that at 70 and 80 mph and that fuel costs are therefore constant. Fuel efficiency of ICE vehicles decreases rapidly at speeds higher than 50 mph. I've seen figures that place the decrease at 17 percent at 70 mph, 23 percent at 75 mph, 28 percent at 80 mph, and 40 percent at 85 mph. At 85 mph, a car with an EPA fuel economy of 25 mpg is getting about 15 mpg - and that is at a steady speed. It doesn't account for the decrease in efficiency associated with rapid acceleration to get to that speed.
All of that said, I appreciate the time and thought that went into the spreadsheet, and I will give it further thought. I also thank you for the engaging discussion.
Likewise! Some funny-lookin' guy who lives in a big marble house on the national mall said "I may be wrong in regard to any or all of them; but holding it a sound maxim, that it is better to be only sometimes right, than at all times wrong, so soon as I discover my opinions to be erroneous, I shall be ready to renounce them.”
There are so many variables going into charging costs and fuel costs that a change in any one has a butterfly-flapping-its-wings effect on everything else, and everyone's personal use case is different.
Re the WaPo article, I think the key differentiator is this "This assumes, as the Energy Department estimates, drivers recharge at home 80 percent of the time, along with other methodological assumptions at the end of this article."
Home charging an EV will almost always win out over all but the most efficient gas car, but many people don't have home chargers and it can't be done on a road trip (I was careful to qualify my initial post with prius on a road trip).
For the MPG, I had to fix a number, so whatever a comparable ICE/HEV car would get at the same speed could be used to compare to that Lyriq's actual numbers. At 70 mph, where my Si gets around 40mpg, it'd cost me $8.25 to cover 100 miles, while recharging the Lyriq at an EA fast charger would cost $15.48. If I were in an F150, it'd be $13.20. If I had a prius, i'd only pay $5.08.
To rival home charging an EV at $0.15/kwh with Midwest gas prices, I'd need to go back to my Gen 1 insight and baby it, but if I were on a PG&E tariff and paid CA gas prices, a new Prius would get close to breakeven with gas pretty cheap, and if it goes up to $5.50/gal, I better have figure out how to hypermile.
My Si gets about 38 cruising at 80mph measured over many miles, and is generally agnostic to outside temp. EVs, too, highly vary how many kwh they burn at a set speed.
I used the InsideEV Lyriq test as a real-world marker of the impact of speed on that particular EV. A Hummer EV probably is a lot more speed sensitive than a slippery Model S, in the same way when my Si cruises a bit faster than 80 and the engine starts adding some boost, economy goes from 38 to ~33. My LS430 doesn't change at the same rate.
Re: gas prices and refining/extraction/distribution cost, what you pay at the pump reflects the 'all-in' cost for that, plus margin, plus the gas station's margin. I'd argue that gas stations are already built and therefore sunk costs, along with all existing refining infrastructure (though those babies take billions in annual maintenance).
Compare to the panoply of incentives for public EV chargers ($100k each in California), along with utility incentives paid for by ratepayers. https://afdc.energy.gov/laws/recent
This excludes tariff incentives that, in most states, are paid for with other ratepayer money. Another key thing to remember is an EV charging station and a gas station are not the same thing. If the utility company loses money, it - by law - can add more to your bill to make up the hole in its budget until it gets its authorized rate of return. If my corner gas station loses money, it closes, the same with oil extractors and refiners and the companies that deliver it.
You're absolutely right about the butterfly-flapping its wings aspect of all of this. It's definitely a complex and nuanced subject, and I appreciate the reasoned discussions we have here (not just with regard to EVs).
Good point about the 20 percent of folks who can't charge at home. I work with someone in exactly that position - she bought a VW iD4, then discovered her home needs several thousand dollars in electrical upgrades to handle 220-charging. I know she's taken some road trips as well. I'll try to remember to ask her what she's paying to charge.
Lots to digest here, so I'll give everything you've posted more thought.
What I wonder is whether the extra weight of EVs will have a significant impact on road damage. Road repair is not without cost. My old Odyssey has a stated curb weight of 4200 lb which I consider heavy. That is light for most EVs.
Probably not. Road damage is proportional to the fourth power of weight, which means that most of the damage is from fully-laden trucks. Personal vehicles barely matter. Example: an 80,000 pound loaded vehicle causes 4000 times the road wear of a 10,000 pound vehicle.
We talk about roads all the time in my township meetings; the most accurate predictor of a road requiring imminent resurfacing is when Google Maps starts routing trucks through it.
Oh absolutely - I seem to recall reading that the Hummer EV is actually _worse_ for the environment than any ICE car because of its mass, the resources required to build it, and the amount of energy required to propel it. Building it is as stupid a decision as GM has made in quite some time if you ask me.
I was a big fan of the Ford Lightning when it was announced, but having owned the Mach-E for more than a year, I now think it, too, is stupid. IIRC, the thing weighs something north of 6500 pounds. Although it offers solid range and, from what I hear, can handle towing and other duties, that's just too big. I think Ram has the right idea - electrify trucks by giving them a hybrid drivetrain. Seems a far smarter use of the technology - not to mention the resources needed to make the batteries.
Yes. And now add snowplows (and the associated freeze/thaw cycles). EVs (or personal trucks/SUVs) are a rounding error in terms of road wear versus regular cars.
Apps showing chargers that are up or available that don't work or taken. Chargers putting out just a percentage of their supposed capacity. He came across one charger that someone had pasted a note to months previous stating how the charger was always broken.
Because this guy is a fanboy, he starts from the premise that it's only an issue with road trips because everyone that owns a EV has a home charger.
"Aging Wheels" (who I kind of like) is also a Reliant Robin fanboy, a Yugo fanboy, and a Trabant fanboy. So I guess his taste runs generally toward crap, and the EV's would be among peers.
I know what you mean. 20 years ago, I had the chance to buy a running, registered '70 Cutlass for $500. Oh sure, it was brown, had a 2-bbl small-block and a slushbox - but $500?
The 2023 F-150 I rented in Houston a couple of months ago, which turned out to have the 5.0, was no slouch. The 3.5 EcoBoost would have been faster, but the 5.0 was charming.
"Plus, if you put the pedal to the metal, the motherfucker will RUN."
I had a '23 F-150 5.0 rental for a race at high plains raceway. When I left, I was a little speed blind and wondered why the truck stopped accelerating on Highway 36, as there was no traffic and no real reference for speed on the altiplano. Turns out it has a governor at 98.
The electronic nannies giveth and the electronic nannies taketh away.
I learned to drive in my parents' '85 "stripper" F-150 (no A/C, no radio). I remember gazing at the blank plastic panel where a radio should have been. We kept a boombox in the truck for music purposes and my mom (a saint) had to listen to my Bad Religion tapes.
There is a world of difference between the '85 and my '19 "stripper" F-150. Strippers get fancier with time.
I miss crank windows, but them's the breaks. Progress has its costs.
Nov 17, 2023·edited Nov 17, 2023Liked by Jack Baruth
I'm a big fan of hybrids. My first hybrid was a 2021 Toyota Venza Limited with the Stargazer roof. I didn't *hate* it, but I didn't love it enough to forego a nearly $5,000 profit selling it during the height of the pandemic shortages.
That same transverse 2.5-liter I4 hybrid powertrain proved to be more than adequate in my recent loaner, a 2023 Lexus ES 300h. Unfortunately, it didn't last too long in my care, as I hit a deer the night I got it at 70 MPH on I-35. It destroyed the front fascia and set off most of the airbags. And, if it wasn't a fuse that caused the "Hybrid System Malfunction" error and prevented the car from moving under its own power after that...something mechanical was damaged, too. That was last Saturday morning.
My daily driver for the last two years (as of November 13) has been a 2022 BMW X5 xDrive45e. It's got 30 miles of electric range, and then still has a big burly turbocharged I6 to help out. I think it's great. It's averaging 36 MPG combined, which is amazing for a 5,600-lb, air-suspended luxury crossover.
Now the recently acquired 2008 LS 600h L *did* require a new traction battery. These Toyota hybrids really don't like to sit, so I'm not surprised that the LS 600h L, their most expensive and most complicated product by far at the time, has a disproportionately high number of batteries go bad compared to an RX 450h or a Prius. That was $4,100 for an aftermarket battery with an 18-month warranty, but they installed it in the car while it was in my driveway. Apparently I got off easy. This same company charges a whopping $8,000 for a Porsche Cayenne Hybrid battery, regardless of generation.
But, yes, I do think we have a lot further to go with HEVs and PHEVs, especially for people who have things to do and can't wait for an unreliable charging infrastructure. Hell, Ram just announced a new Ramcharger, with a targeted 145 miles of EV range and a Pentastar under the hood that essentially acts as a generator and that has no mechanical connection to the wheels. With the generator, total range extends to 663 hp. And it's capable of fast-charging, too. Stellantis quality issues notwithstanding, I think that's a much more appealing truck than the EV ones.
The Ramcharger is the series hybrid truck drivetrain I’ve been hoping to see. Very promising. Getting the trans and driveshaft weight and complexity out makes a ton of sense and offsets the battery’s hit on payload.
Love the turbine idea. Def the best power to weight. :-D
The series hybrid really does seem to be the best of all worlds functionally - electric torque, gas range, and real regenerative braking.
I haven’t driven a Ram but Jack has said in prior reviews they have the most refined ride of all three. Not sure how that translates to rough-roading, but I will say my cousin uses Rams in his busy large animal vet practice in western PA.
Probably the closest packaging equivalent to a turbine would be a Wankel, which Mazda is talking about using as a sustain motor. I’d like to think historic rotary reliability issues would be significantly improved by optimizing it for a constant RPM and not having to worry about low end torque. Maybe a mech E or Mazda fan could comment on that.
Glad you're alright Kyree! Hitting a deer at that speed can be surprisingly deadly. Cars aren't crash tested against deer as far as I know; maybe at some point they will be and we'll get some mad max style windshields :)
What turns me off on hybrids is that outside of the honda cr-z, nobody has offered a manual with hybrid. I know manuals are “going away” or “slower” or whatever people (who cant drive or suck at driving manuals) say, but I only buy manuals because I like them better in all circumstances (including in traffic). Thats what keeps me, admittedly a small minority interest, out of the hybrid pool. Otherwise I’m all for hybrids and hope the world wakes up to mandatory EV foolishness sooner rather than later.
Although I live in a city, our EV is regularly driven as many as 100 miles round-trip in a day. Granted, that's not the same as driving from one far-flung location in, say, West Texas to another, but it's not like I'm using my car only to run to the supermarket.
My household has been EV only for the last year. 120k EV only miles so far with 15k added by the newest one. Live in the suburbs of Columbus, OH. Purchased the latest one after putting 25k miles a year on the first one with no maintenance outside of tires and wipers.
Great read! Thanks.
Bravo!
I think Toyota has their approach right for hybrids and it is a natural extension of what they'd already been doing for decades with the Prius.
I have mild regret about not finding a Hybrid Highlander as the family vehicle because it does all the in town short hops.
Kawasaki is also introducing hybrids (as well as all electrics but the hybrids are more interesting). Depending on how they operate- keep the neighbors happy in the morning while leaving and provide monster torque when you want it.
Hi Robert!
OT, but IIRC you wrote about remembering having an F-91W from before 1989, and how the F-91W looked pretty typical.
There was a series of F-series watches beginning in 1978:
https://en.everybodywiki.com/Casio_F-series_watches
Wikipedia says that 91W directly replaced the F-87W of 1982 or 1984 depending on the source:
http://www.digital-watch.com/DWL/1work/casio_f-87w/
Disagree. The "new" Camry is a lazy, cynical compliance car. If Toyota was serious, they would have invested more in the redesign. It's one thing when Toyota goes cheap and safe on a car like the Lexus IS, an uncompetitive product no one gives a shit about. But this is the Camry and going the easy route on a bestseller shows that they've given up.
I do think that going all-hybrid makes the most sense, and if the automakers had any kind of real leadership, they'd push back on government edicts and promote this route. But they're not, because they're run by gutless me-too fools. I'm not sure Toyota (and Honda) stands apart on principle, or because they've dithered about for so long out of characteristic caution that they're missing the boat on joining the party. Time will tell.
I disagree. Cars are more expensive than ever to design and develop, and I understand why Toyota felt it hadn't quite gotten all the use out of the 2018 engineering. If they can build a desirable and competitive car without a full redesign, why not? A complete redesign likely would have been a foolish use of their development dollars.
Besides, it's not without precedent. The 2012-2017 Camry was essentially a reskin (or a couple of them) of the 2007-2011.
Yeah, to the point that I think either the new dashboard showed up a year early or the old one stayed on a year late, I can't remember which.
If they were really that cost driven, they could have spent a lot less. The quarter panels and decklid are new and they even changed rear door opening. But it all looks EXACTLY THE SAME unless you really scrutinize it. They could have just given it a new front clip and called it done.
That's unbelievably stupid. And it just reinforces my belief in how rudderless and out of ideas this company has become. Dropping everything but the hybrid version isn't a fuck you to anyone but the customers.
Eh, the Camry wasn't a sports car anyway, altho they tried to dress it that way in recent years. This car is and was an appliance.
The Prius, with its hatchback and significant, positive redesign, is to me a better choice regardless. I would say that Toyota has said "un fuck you" to the customers with the new Prius.
The new Prius is gorgeous. I stood staring at a metallic red one outside of Panera the other day. From pictures the new Camry looks like a dud.
But the dud's refresh probably didn't cost that much. From some web site:
Toyota sold 242,571 Camry in 2023. (From Jan - Oct 2023)
How many Camry did Toyota sell in October 2023?
Toyota sold 24,596 Camry in October 2023.
How many Camry did Toyota sell in 2022?
Toyota sold 295,201 Camry in 2022. In 2021, Toyota sold 313,795 Camry. They sold 18,594 more units in year 2021 compared to 2022 with a percent loss of 5.93% YoY.
"I would say that Toyota has said "un fuck you" to the customers with the new Prius."
Have they though? They made it significantly less practical than the old model so auto journalists would say it's cool.
Slightly less headroom and cargo room on the new one, is what you mean? Less legroom too, perhaps?
Probably a good trade for the better exterior styling, but probably not for everyone. The older generations are still very usable for those who like them, me included.
Why car companies should care what auto journalists think is beyond me.
Right, when you're just going to buy them off anyways!
I think what Toyota did was masterful. I was wondering how Toyota would keep the Prius relevant in a world where it’s no longer the statement it once was...and turning into an enthusiast-oriented stylish car was a brilliant idea.
I've shown the new Prius to my wife as a contender to replace her 130k mile 2012 Camry (which still runs like a top and gets 32mpg in mixed/highway use). She likes sporty *looking* cars but has very little interest in dealing sports car compromises (rough ride, poor visibility, winter traction issues, low profile tires, bad mpg). The other option I keep pitching is a Dodge Challenger. She likes "swoopy/curvy" coupes, her one demerit of the Challenger is that they're absolutely *everywhere* in Indy so she'd be going from driving a grey Camry that blends in to a Challenger that is almost as common on the roads it seems like.
Stylish? Sure. But “enthusiast-oriented?” Come on.
Marketing hype aside, I don’t the new car is going to move the needle. The justification for the Prius to exist is gone now that everything else is a hybrid.
The money spent on that redesign should have gone into the Camry.
Good take.
The new Prius looks like a Colani design. Which maybe was the point, but it looks too flattened.
The next Tundra https://carsbase.com/photo/colani/colani-colani-truck-pic-60744.html
The moment you said Colani, I went "Dang, he nailed it".
Or this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4S43ASGEOuU
I've seen those before. Love the windshield wipers!
I love the "click on a word feature" in Mac OS. Now I know who Colani was. Thanks!
100%. Toyota has hit it out of the park with this design. Fit some sweet rims on it and you’ve got a real looker. For the first time EVER I’m actually thinking about how a Prius might work for us. Will have to test one and see.....
All the changes you cited are pretty superficial, including the rear door opening. They probably struck a good balance between maximal newness and minimal unnecessary investment. The expensive part would have been changing the structure, and they didn’t. It looks (and likely feels) new *enough.* Remember that an automaker is beholden to its shareholders and has a fiduciary responsibility to spend money wisely.
And, again, Toyota isn’t alone in an unwillingness to invest in an all-new sedan. The Accord took a similar stance: new skin and a new interior on existing bones. GM has decided to extend the Malibu beyond its original 2024 cancel date, but without a redesign. Beyond that, competitors are dropping or have dropped like flies. The Passat, Fusion, 200, Mazda6? All gone. Hyundai and Nissan have reported the discontinuation of the Sonata and Altima, respectively. The K5 and especially legacy are likely on borrowed time.
I also don’t think Toyota is out of ideas. They’ve invested a ton of money into genuinely new, genuinely desirable products. They just didn’t do that for a dying segment wherein the existing product was more than competitive and only needed a freshening. I think that’s smart.
Anyone with sedans in the US market is playing the movie HighLander. "There can only be one". Or a few. For the ones that survive, it's a good piece of coin.
I can totally see this becoming the Panther of midsize sedans.
As is, the only one I’ve ridden in was a taxi.
It may. At the same time, companies exist to make money. "Good enough for now" maybe much more profitable than "Give the customers new and improved". Honda's update of the Accord isn't all that either.
“Remember that an automaker is beholden to its shareholders and has a fiduciary responsibility to spend money wisely.”
If that was the guiding principle, then they should be pulling non competing products like the Tundra and LS, instead of completely redesigning them to still be uncompetitive. And they shouldn’t be mucking around with all this Gazoo Racing silliness that is mostly invisible to 95% of their customers.
No, you spend your money on protecting your core products. A half-baked update like all the other also-rans that are dying does nothing to entice consumers…if there’s nothing really new in the segment, people are going to gravitate elsewhere.
This feels like a car that’s not going to see another generation and will be drug out by Toyota until they get on board with EVs and/or finally get ordered to stop selling it. Hardly the bold stance against electrification that Robert’s interpreting it as.
"Remember that an automaker is beholden to its shareholders"
Lol. This is 2023 dude! It's shareholder is Blackrock and they are forcing DEI on everyone
Toyota is probably relatively safe, if Japanese institutional investors haven’t been captured by DEI.
Sitting in the airport waiting for my connection, I looked at their shareholder ownership. JP Morgan is #5 on the list and is the first US shareholder. They own 3%. The top 4 ate Japanese and own 28% of shares outstanding. Probably how they can avoid having to go all in on EV’s.
I'd like to think the Japanese aren't as suicidal as the west.
But she's got a new hat!
Agree with you, Kyree. The '25 Camry's interior is firmly in the modern/current year aesthetic, a decided step forward (or whatever direction one thinks) from the present. It's a good move. The exterior is still very busy, but I see where they are "going." The addition of having standard epic mpg is also a good move, IMO. As much as I do appreciate the benefits of EVs (advertised and experienced), a hybrid continues to be far and away the most practical way to get many benefits in one package. The just-replaced generation of CR-V hybrid blended EV initial acceleration to ICE highway motivation beautifully--we've come along way from the Prius-in-a-Camry-suit Camry Hybrids (which I've driven as well) and are better for it.
More generally (and the Camry is part of this), I continue to gather an idea of where the automotive industry is going aesthetically, both in exterior and interior design. We have some uncomfortable-in-the-sweater-I-just-put-on generations of design present, but overall, the path is more clearly visible, and I like where it's going. This will become more evident in mid-cycle refreshes and next generation designs. It is generally led by the Koreans and the Japanese, with the Germans producing vomitous designs and the Americans having the Ram 1500 and the EV-Only, But You Know I Love You, Baby, Here's Some ICE new Charger.
And the 2007-2011 was basically a reskin of the 02-06 XV30. And if you look at an 02-06 you can quite frankly find a lot of very similar (and same part numbers) that go back all the way to the 92-96 cars and even some elements to 87-91.
They live and die by regulations and massive subsidies. I don't like it, but I get it.
Hard disagree. I care a lot about my 15 IS350 F-Sport, which has been flawless reliability-wise and remains a joy to drive after 8 years. Certainly, a boon companion in heavy duty traffic as well as a lot of fun on the windy country backroads near my house - not as much as fun as a dedicated sports car, obviously, but its (relatively) dininutive size makes a big difference on tight roads. I dont like the refresh as much but, if mine were stolen, I'd replace it with another one. I don't care that a m340i is a second or more faster to 0-60 when the IS is more than fast enough for me on public roads. For the things I care about, it is the only choice in its segment. So I would suggest that "uncompetitive" is in the eye of the beholder, and as the esteemed Mr. Farago makes clear, Toyota is more than competitive in the things that matter to many, many consumers.
I drove an Escape hybrid for work for years. We had 3 of them in the fleet. Battery cooling water pump went out on all 3 around 100k. Other than that, just synthetic oil changes every 10k. All 3 went well over 300k. One was totaled due to ice, one rusted away, mine was neglected since it was being traded in on a new vehicle and blew up due to low oil. It was well past the 10k mark. Great drive train. Hoping to get a hybrid Maverick in the future.
Interestingly--at least with the NiMH batteries--the Toyota hybrids have had air-cooled batteries (a main fan and an auxiliary fan that does double duty for the rear cabin on some cars). But the inverters have been water-cooled, with a completely separate system from that of the engine, but using the same coolant.
One fly in the ointment of ~10year old Toyota hybrids is the integrated brake booster/ABS controller. It starts to leak/fail internally…. $3500 parts and labor at an independent shop, my brother has done a bunch of them, enough to make him not recommend hybrid Toyotas to customers. Tough pill to swallow on an older car. Kind of like how a CVT crapping out on a Nissan just about guarantees a trip to the junkyard.
That's more than a fly in the ointment, considering low ownership cost is a major reason why someone buys a Toyota. I always thought the hybrids in particular were their most reliable models.
I think they do well in cities because you never build up a lot of heat or pressure in the booster.
The brake booster is a huge problem on the gen. 4 LS in particular, and not just the hybrid.
Sounds like the same part/design that they stuck on a certain number of their models during that era. Something to do with some sort of higher-end version of traction/stability control (offroad traction control for the trucks, Prius to deal with the hybrid system, Lexus I can only guess why). If the guy with the nice Lexus might pony up the $3500, the uber running a 180k mile Prius will likely call it quits.
The gen 2 Prius (04-09 in the US) is indeed one of the best overbuilt Toyotas made since the 92 XV10 Camry or various Tahara built Land cruiser products. Ironically enough said land cruisers/4Runners/GXes have that same damn integrated booster/ABS system to run their ATRAC system. With the third gen Prius (2010) you get into Toyotas cost cut/unintended acceleration/oil burning 2.4s era. Those third gen Priuses are also dealing with a fair number of failing head gaskets now as they’re coming of age. Disappointing.
I’ve worked a bit on my SIL’s 2013 Camry Hybrid and one high point is the ease of transmission maintenance: a simple drain and fill procedure. On my wife’s 2.5 6A 2012 Camry the procedure is needlessly complicated by the omission of a dipstick. You need to get the transmission to the correct temperature range and correct level is then determined by the rate of fluid dribbling out of the secondary drain bolt thingy. I’m not kidding. Also, the 2012-2014 Camry 6A is known for torque converter “pulsed” engagement that prematurely wears them out. Toyota extended the warranty to 8 years 150k miles and had some programming fixes.
TL;DR if you want a bombproof Toyota buy a 90s Camry with a 4spd auto.
I also like the gen 2 Prius. I daresay they're kinda cute.
I hated them as a kid, the calling card of smug liberal intellectuals that hated the sort of cars that I loved. Now that everyone has moved on, I can appreciate them for the roomy hatchback design and very open cockpit, and simple/purposeful styling inside and out. That generation of 1.5L hybrid really drones/wheezes unpleasantly if driven at anything other than a relaxed pace, so you gotta just slow your roll. None of the Priuses ride particularly well either. If only they had a very plush ride then I'd look at them like a ersatz French car (with better reliability).
Yeah thats true. I dont know why they couldnt make my prius ride like the camry.
Because it's rolling on Corolla underpinnings with a twist beam rear axle, kind of crude but durable. The newest gen is now on a common platform with the Camry and I suspect does *much* better.
The no-dipstick/wait-and-see-how-much-dribbles-out procedure is becoming more and more common on modern transmissions. I dealt with it on the ZF 6-speed longitude unit, which I had in two L322 Range Rovers and two X350 Jaguar XJs.
Yep. Another poke in the eye to the do-it-yourselfer.
Why are cars disposable commodities, but their prices don't reflect that fact?
It's really dumb and I have no idea why they do it that way.
Because the usual driver either never replaces it or turn it back in on lease.
Also, why more ATs don't have replaceable external filters is stupid.
Old Subaru 4ATs are great in this regard. Simple spin on external filter. Old Subarus also had a simple accessible inline fuel filter right under the hood as well. Honestly, there's a lot to like about those cars from a DIY service/repair standpoint.
On my Town&Country's 62TE, Chrysler "deleted" the dipstick, by capping the dipstick tube with a little labeled plastic cap that says "dealer service only." But at least the access is there, so I could find out what the level from the bottom of the pan is supposed to be for a given temp, then use the engine dipstick and measure the level (in lieu of the "special" mopar transmission dipstick). A lot of the restriction of AT servicing I think was driven by incorrectly done servicing that lead to issues that the manufacturer was left picking up the bill for. So for them it was better to "seal" the transmission with "lifetime" fluid to get you through the warranty period without messing with it, and then you're on your own with burned up fluid.
Maybe the dipstick is going the way of the spare tire.
I have a 2011 CRV, sis has a 2015 Outback, her son a 2012 Outback. I went to visit her a couple of weeks ago. My spare was 40 pounds. I filled it to 60. Took my air compressor with me. A real one. Checked sis's spare. 15 pounds. Checked the nephew's. 10 pounds. They have plastic fantastic air compressors. Most likely plastic gears inside. Their spares were essentially flat. I doubt a roadside fill-up off of the cig lighter (accessory outlet) would have gotten them to 30.
I was freaked at 40.
She has another son that has a GMC SUV. The small one. He had to drive 2 hours to Philly to catch a plane to Las Vegas for business. On a Sunday. Gets a mile from sis's house. Flat tire. No spare. Luckily he has a buddy in the business with a flat bed and all that. Buddy patches the tire in a Turkey Hill parking lot. The kid calls me. Asks "Would it be a good idea to buy a wheel and tire?" Yeah. That was 7 months ago. He never did. He did make the plane. Every time I talk to him, I bring up the tire. He's still running on the buddy's patch. One of those needle deals with the rubber where it looks like you are sewing.
AAA is nice. How much time you got waiting for them?
How German of them.
"Repair? Vhat do you mean 'Repair?' Ach, just buy ze new car, you peasant!"
Toyota out here jumping up on down on other OEM's necks.
MAYBE THEN THEYLL WAKE UP
Someone has to show the way.
Channeling former US pres. George HW Bush, you forgot Mazda. Straight sixes with 300+ HP in their new offerings.
Used to think hybrids meant lugging around an unnecessary battery and e-motor, but my wife bought a Pacifica hybrid and regularly gets 40plus mpg. And it carries 7 people and lots of stuff. Last Thanksgiving we gassed it up outside Death Valley in minutes right next to a line of Teslas stuck ‘fast’ charging in the middle of nowhere while we drove to eat where we damn well wanted to!
Gonna try the in vogue numbered list:
0. EVs are nothing but a subsidy for buyers and manufacturers- when Sunak walked back the Crown’s EV mandate due to the physical impossibility and economy-crippling side effects, OEMs found a convenient scape goat and wanted a handout. The coming EV collapse will be epic and come at taxpayer expense (as Germany already did with Siemens - to green to fail! - line stolen from another substacker).
1. Toyota’s hybrids, delivering real efficiency, have and will save more resources (from manufacturing to disposal and everything in between) will save more resources than any EV, ever.
2. Just like the EU’s diesel push that resulted in thousands of premature deaths from increased PM2.5 emissions, the insane tire eating overweight EVs will do much more near term damage to people than whether actual carbon emissions they avoid.
3. Bullshit structurally unprofitable and useless renewables that drive up electricity prices (I can tilt all day windmills) will make charging an EV as expensive as gas - at $0.38kwh at many fast chargers, you just need to clear about 20ish highway mpg at $3.20 gas to be cheaper. A Prius crushes an EV on road trip costs.
4. The EV crowd forgets gas is a product of refining crude, and every other refined petroleum product is absolutely necessary for modern life, starting with the diesel used to run the mining equipment to pull the hundreds of tons of raw materials needed to make an EV. Or food. Do we go back to the early standard oil days and just dump surplus gas in the Cuyahoga?
Dead right on all counts, with the addition that China will happily take all the gasoline we don't. As long as China exists, every resource that CAN be extracted from the Earth WILL be.
This is the most horrifying idea.
They consume all.
Nonstop.
This. Conservation to the nth degree is pants on head stupid when over six times the population of the US in China, India and elsewhere is 'riding dirty'.
Genuinely asking: Got some reputable data to support your third bullet point? California generates one-third of its electricity from renewables and the cost to charge my EV - both at home and at public charging stations - is still less than the cost of gasoline.
Been 14 months since I went electric, but before I did filling my Mazda 6 cost me around $50 and got me about 425 miles IIRC. "Filling" my Mach-E costs about $27 and gets me 310 miles.
I've driven from Oakland to Tucson and back and typically rolled into a charging station with 20 to 30 percent state of charge. Never paid more than $20 to fill the pack, which never took more than 25 minutes.
Sure, and it's absolutely a moving target to determine gas/charge cost equivalency.
As an EV goes faster at a steady state Cruze, they burn a lot more kwh per mile, and also are heavily influenced by temp, AC or heat use, etc. A TST podcast mentioned driving a Lucid to Vegas from LA, and whether it really was a 'luxury' car if it had to stay at 70 mph getting passed by everyone to make it to the next charger due to the increased kwh burn going with the flow of traffic at 85-90mph and the AC running hard.
I threw together the sheet at the imigur link using a lot of public data all based off of what InsideEVs found driving a RWD lyriq at 70 and 80 mph. EV charging varies from ~$.15 at a midwest house to $.56/kwh at an on-peak tesla supercharger.
Also, CA's average Sept 2022 gas price was $5.37/gal when you last filled up your Mazda 6 - gas is cheaper now, making any car with a gas engine more attractive.
In CA, PG&E home rates are $.26 off-peak, and $.58 on peak (!). EVs vary hugely in kwh burn as well.
Fully agree you'd need a Gen 1 honda insight driven by a hypermiler and a lot of pushing to compete with an EV commuting in stop-and-go traffic using a home charger with cheap electricity charged at an off-peak subsidized rate.
However, areas with high EV penetration don't have inexpensive electricity, and I'd also argue that the cost to add an L2 port at home and EV charger should be rolled into the actual cost to drive an EV. EVs also are at their best efficiency in stop-and-go traffic when ICE cars are at their worst.
https://imgur.com/cTdqH67
CA's electric prices are crazy and regressive due to renewables and lack of gas infrastructure. Robert Bryce collects some good data on this. He has a lens, as we all do, however, the nice part about electric grids and costs is the facts really aren't in dispute because physics and GAAP don't care about avoided future CO2 costs.
The really crazy thing about the shift to EVs that I can't understand is that night-time off-peak charging comes from the most carbon-intensive energy sources - coal and gas - because the sun is down. While the average CO2 emissions from CA's grid might look good, the marginal impact from increased nighttime demand has to be unpleasant (CAISO conveniently calls coal 'imports' and doesn't count it, despite imports providing 24% of its power as I type this).
https://robertbryce.substack.com/p/california-screamin
I don't believe there is serious disagreement that renewables drive up current prices when excluding amorphous GHG costs that are highly subjective, see e.g. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140988323004577
Other info:
PG&E tariff -https://www.pge.com/en/account/rate-plans/find-your-best-rate-plan/electric-vehicles.html#ev2adetails
Inside EVs Lyriq 70mph/80mph test - https://insideevs.com/reviews/684372/cadillac-lyriq-range-test-comparison/
Torrance, CA Tesla supercharger pricing - https://www.plugshare.com/location/299530
I figured out how to share the sheet for feedback/criticism.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ks1Pv4ZCW30oEha-X4CLMWkCyV6nQ3FU7BwBoXYg8eo/edit?usp=sharing
Another problem with any kind of EV road-tripping is the demand charge (size of the electricity pipe feeding a fast charger) that must be paid to ensure a fast charger can actually get the power needed to fast charge. A 250kw charger needs at least 250kw of demand, which is $21.80 per kw per month in CA (around here, it's ~$17.50), so you've got $65,400 in fixed costs before a single electron goes through the pipe (insert a your mom joke here), and energy is also not cheap, particularly on peak, in many areas.
The National Association of State Energy Officials wrote the following about the impact of fixed cost demand chargers: "However, in the low- and medium-use scenarios which more closely reflect today’s conditions, the forecasted cost of charging reaches 4-40 times as expensive as the cost to fill a gasoline vehicle." https://www.naseo.org/data/sites/1/documents/publications/Demand%20Charges%20and%20EV%20Charging%20-%20Final.pdf
With the highly variable use case for EVs vs ICEs vs PHEVs vs HEVs overlayed with regional temperature, commute type, and availability of preferential home charging rates, one can likely save a lot switching to an EV or not with minor variations in assumptions. In my area, I'd save about $65-70 a month just commuting with an EV vs a Civic Si, but give some of that back when I go on road trips (not counting time spent at a charger, or the ~$2k cost to install an L2 charger in my garage).
There are no free lunches at the energy buffet. The EIA just released its forecast showing that heating a home with nat gas saves about $400 vs heating a home with electricity, because getting heat straight from a flame is a lot more efficient than burning it, converting to electricity, transmitting it, then running it through resistive heating elements. That's not chump change to most people.
https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/steo/report/perspectives/2023/10-winterfuels/article.php#vinttab2
Fundamentally, on an unsubsidized basis, the cost to charge an EV is far from cheap when counting all the transmission, distribution, generation, and infrastructure needed.
PG&E Tariff A-10 https://www.pge.com/tariffs/assets/pdf/tariffbook/ELEC_SCHEDS_A-10.pdf
How do these costs compare to the fixed costs of gas stations and the cost of the refining, distribution, and infrastructure of gasoline? If you're going to include those in the cost of "filling up" an EV, you must also factor them into the cost of filling an ICE vehicle so you are making an apples to apples comparison.
I dont have to build my own gas station at home though, so that is a false equivalence.
No, but you also don't have to build your own public charging station, which is what we're talking about here.
If you live in a home with a decent electrical panel, running a 220-volt line costs a couple of hundred bucks. I can't speak to other models, but the 30-amp charger that came with my Mach-E was more than up to the job of charging the car to full capacity overnight, so I didn't need to buy a wall-mount charger. The cost of installing a 220 outlet was quickly offset by the savings in gasoline.
That's an interesting spreadsheet, but I'm not sure I entirely understand it. I'm also not sure some of your assumptions are correct.
I suck at math, so all I can do is offer personal experience: When I drove from Oakland to Tucson and back in our Mach-E, I ran the car in eco mode for max efficiency, set the cruise control at 75 to 80, ran the ac, and kept up with the flow of traffic (I didn't get passed by many people, and did a fair amount of passing of others). I didn't experience the burn rate - or energy cost - your spreadsheet suggests. I'd typically roll into a charging station with between 20 and 30 percent SOC and leave with 80 to 85, and never paid more than $18-20 for the electrons. I know the Mach-E keeps a log of its energy use / efficiency (much like some cars keep a history of fuel economy), and I seem to recall getting a kwh/mile figure in the high threes. We've got the 91 kw/hr pack, which gives us a range of about 270 miles - roughly 87 percent of the 310 miles the car is rated at. I'll see if I can dig it up.
It also appears you are assuming energy use increases with speed in an EV but remains constant in ICE. Your "gas per 100 mi" column appears to suggest that a car rated at 25 mpg highway will return that at 70 and 80 mph and that fuel costs are therefore constant. Fuel efficiency of ICE vehicles decreases rapidly at speeds higher than 50 mph. I've seen figures that place the decrease at 17 percent at 70 mph, 23 percent at 75 mph, 28 percent at 80 mph, and 40 percent at 85 mph. At 85 mph, a car with an EPA fuel economy of 25 mpg is getting about 15 mpg - and that is at a steady speed. It doesn't account for the decrease in efficiency associated with rapid acceleration to get to that speed.
FWIW, an analysis by the Washington Post found that it is cheaper, in all 50 states, to fill up with electricity than gasoline. https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/interactive/2023/electric-vehicle-charging-price-vs-gasoline/#
All of that said, I appreciate the time and thought that went into the spreadsheet, and I will give it further thought. I also thank you for the engaging discussion.
Likewise! Some funny-lookin' guy who lives in a big marble house on the national mall said "I may be wrong in regard to any or all of them; but holding it a sound maxim, that it is better to be only sometimes right, than at all times wrong, so soon as I discover my opinions to be erroneous, I shall be ready to renounce them.”
There are so many variables going into charging costs and fuel costs that a change in any one has a butterfly-flapping-its-wings effect on everything else, and everyone's personal use case is different.
Re the WaPo article, I think the key differentiator is this "This assumes, as the Energy Department estimates, drivers recharge at home 80 percent of the time, along with other methodological assumptions at the end of this article."
Home charging an EV will almost always win out over all but the most efficient gas car, but many people don't have home chargers and it can't be done on a road trip (I was careful to qualify my initial post with prius on a road trip).
For the MPG, I had to fix a number, so whatever a comparable ICE/HEV car would get at the same speed could be used to compare to that Lyriq's actual numbers. At 70 mph, where my Si gets around 40mpg, it'd cost me $8.25 to cover 100 miles, while recharging the Lyriq at an EA fast charger would cost $15.48. If I were in an F150, it'd be $13.20. If I had a prius, i'd only pay $5.08.
To rival home charging an EV at $0.15/kwh with Midwest gas prices, I'd need to go back to my Gen 1 insight and baby it, but if I were on a PG&E tariff and paid CA gas prices, a new Prius would get close to breakeven with gas pretty cheap, and if it goes up to $5.50/gal, I better have figure out how to hypermile.
My Si gets about 38 cruising at 80mph measured over many miles, and is generally agnostic to outside temp. EVs, too, highly vary how many kwh they burn at a set speed.
I used the InsideEV Lyriq test as a real-world marker of the impact of speed on that particular EV. A Hummer EV probably is a lot more speed sensitive than a slippery Model S, in the same way when my Si cruises a bit faster than 80 and the engine starts adding some boost, economy goes from 38 to ~33. My LS430 doesn't change at the same rate.
Re: gas prices and refining/extraction/distribution cost, what you pay at the pump reflects the 'all-in' cost for that, plus margin, plus the gas station's margin. I'd argue that gas stations are already built and therefore sunk costs, along with all existing refining infrastructure (though those babies take billions in annual maintenance).
Compare to the panoply of incentives for public EV chargers ($100k each in California), along with utility incentives paid for by ratepayers. https://afdc.energy.gov/laws/recent
This excludes tariff incentives that, in most states, are paid for with other ratepayer money. Another key thing to remember is an EV charging station and a gas station are not the same thing. If the utility company loses money, it - by law - can add more to your bill to make up the hole in its budget until it gets its authorized rate of return. If my corner gas station loses money, it closes, the same with oil extractors and refiners and the companies that deliver it.
Similarly, Buc-Ees doesn't get to pass on the cost to build a new station to everyone driving on the highway, but when utilities build charging stations, they're able to flow those costs - risk free - right through to the single mom in a poorly insulated apartment paying a ton to keep the place warm with cheap electric heat. See e.g. https://www.utilitydive.com/news/utilities-charging-companies-battle-over-ev-fast-chargers-slowing-deploym/688970/
Even measuring oil and gas subsidies is quite hard. EIA does a pretty good job, and pre-IRA act (which is a ~$1.2 trillion cost), renewables got $15.5B, while carbon energy got $2.3B - https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/fossil-fuels/renewable-energy-still-dominates-energy-subsidies-in-fy-2022/
One can argue till eternity about the implicit subsidies to petroleum based on the value of avoided carbon. That's a debate I can't enter as what happens in 2100 varies depends on forecasts and assumptions, while it is possible to count dollars spent today. https://www.imf.org/en/Blogs/Articles/2023/08/24/fossil-fuel-subsidies-surged-to-record-7-trillion
You're absolutely right about the butterfly-flapping its wings aspect of all of this. It's definitely a complex and nuanced subject, and I appreciate the reasoned discussions we have here (not just with regard to EVs).
Good point about the 20 percent of folks who can't charge at home. I work with someone in exactly that position - she bought a VW iD4, then discovered her home needs several thousand dollars in electrical upgrades to handle 220-charging. I know she's taken some road trips as well. I'll try to remember to ask her what she's paying to charge.
Lots to digest here, so I'll give everything you've posted more thought.
What I wonder is whether the extra weight of EVs will have a significant impact on road damage. Road repair is not without cost. My old Odyssey has a stated curb weight of 4200 lb which I consider heavy. That is light for most EVs.
Probably not. Road damage is proportional to the fourth power of weight, which means that most of the damage is from fully-laden trucks. Personal vehicles barely matter. Example: an 80,000 pound loaded vehicle causes 4000 times the road wear of a 10,000 pound vehicle.
We talk about roads all the time in my township meetings; the most accurate predictor of a road requiring imminent resurfacing is when Google Maps starts routing trucks through it.
Send them an invoice. They'll probably pay it.
Didn't an NYC parking garage collapse due to a bunch of heavier EVs exceeding its design limits?
On the pollution side, the increased weight does seem to increase tire wear, but there's competing views on how bad this actually is - https://e360.yale.edu/features/tire-pollution-toxic-chemicals.
Either way, no one can debate less energy is required to push a 3000lb Civic than a 10000lb Hummer EV the same distance at the same speed.
Oh absolutely - I seem to recall reading that the Hummer EV is actually _worse_ for the environment than any ICE car because of its mass, the resources required to build it, and the amount of energy required to propel it. Building it is as stupid a decision as GM has made in quite some time if you ask me.
I was a big fan of the Ford Lightning when it was announced, but having owned the Mach-E for more than a year, I now think it, too, is stupid. IIRC, the thing weighs something north of 6500 pounds. Although it offers solid range and, from what I hear, can handle towing and other duties, that's just too big. I think Ram has the right idea - electrify trucks by giving them a hybrid drivetrain. Seems a far smarter use of the technology - not to mention the resources needed to make the batteries.
Yes. And now add snowplows (and the associated freeze/thaw cycles). EVs (or personal trucks/SUVs) are a rounding error in terms of road wear versus regular cars.
There's a Youtuber called "Aging Wheels". A EV fanboy. Came to the same conclusion, "EV Road Trips Suck Now (Except in a Tesla)"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92w5doU68D8&t=1918s&ab_channel=AgingWheels
Apps showing chargers that are up or available that don't work or taken. Chargers putting out just a percentage of their supposed capacity. He came across one charger that someone had pasted a note to months previous stating how the charger was always broken.
Because this guy is a fanboy, he starts from the premise that it's only an issue with road trips because everyone that owns a EV has a home charger.
The ending in Chattanoga is "Ironic".
"Aging Wheels" (who I kind of like) is also a Reliant Robin fanboy, a Yugo fanboy, and a Trabant fanboy. So I guess his taste runs generally toward crap, and the EV's would be among peers.
A place where the K-car is a reliable, stylish hot rod?
That's bad.
I would unironically take a clean K-car over most any EV on the market. I know I can keep that mopar running for decades with minimal issues.
The audio system needs to play "If I Had $1000000" by the Barenaked Ladies.
Yes.
And if by "K-car" you mean '85 Daytona Turbo Z, I enthusiastically concur.
Don't know why, but I like those things.
I missed out on a $750 late 80s Sundance turbo (stick shift) in high school and I still haven't gotten over it.
I know what you mean. 20 years ago, I had the chance to buy a running, registered '70 Cutlass for $500. Oh sure, it was brown, had a 2-bbl small-block and a slushbox - but $500?
That still hurts.
I'd want one of these: https://www.reddit.com/r/seinfeld/comments/ukm5cf/i_found_it_jon_voights_car/?rdt=42194
Only if owned by Jon Voight though. That's a Seinfeld reference.
What about the one from "Planes, Trains and Automobiles?"
He is a weird guy. I first noticed him when he ripped the guts out a electric Ryobi riding lawnmower and completely redid the system his way.
You forgot the Polski Fiat.
I consider myself an "environmentalist." I drive a 5.0 F-150 and don't feel bad about it. It gets better mileage than my old Mazda B2500 2.5.
Plus, if you put the pedal to the metal, the motherfucker will RUN.
The 2023 F-150 I rented in Houston a couple of months ago, which turned out to have the 5.0, was no slouch. The 3.5 EcoBoost would have been faster, but the 5.0 was charming.
It's a perfected antiquated mechanism.
Newer technology isn't always better technology. A few tweaks around the edges can do wonders for some old girls.
I like that it’s both port- and direct-injected. No carbon buildup.
The 3.5 EcoBoost, as of the gen. 2, is as well. But, still.
I'm a Hair Metal guy - the very CONCEPT of "new" has been consistently disappointing me since about 1991.
I don't think there has been very much good new music in any genre since 1991, but that's just a personal opinion.
NIN
I like the cut of your jib!
Us old dudes gotta stick together.
Or the Pentastar 3.6 in my new Challenger. Smooth, fast, great gas mileage and should get 300,000 miles with some abuse and minimal maintenance
"Plus, if you put the pedal to the metal, the motherfucker will RUN."
I had a '23 F-150 5.0 rental for a race at high plains raceway. When I left, I was a little speed blind and wondered why the truck stopped accelerating on Highway 36, as there was no traffic and no real reference for speed on the altiplano. Turns out it has a governor at 98.
The electronic nannies giveth and the electronic nannies taketh away.
I learned to drive in my parents' '85 "stripper" F-150 (no A/C, no radio). I remember gazing at the blank plastic panel where a radio should have been. We kept a boombox in the truck for music purposes and my mom (a saint) had to listen to my Bad Religion tapes.
There is a world of difference between the '85 and my '19 "stripper" F-150. Strippers get fancier with time.
I miss crank windows, but them's the breaks. Progress has its costs.
I'm a big fan of hybrids. My first hybrid was a 2021 Toyota Venza Limited with the Stargazer roof. I didn't *hate* it, but I didn't love it enough to forego a nearly $5,000 profit selling it during the height of the pandemic shortages.
That same transverse 2.5-liter I4 hybrid powertrain proved to be more than adequate in my recent loaner, a 2023 Lexus ES 300h. Unfortunately, it didn't last too long in my care, as I hit a deer the night I got it at 70 MPH on I-35. It destroyed the front fascia and set off most of the airbags. And, if it wasn't a fuse that caused the "Hybrid System Malfunction" error and prevented the car from moving under its own power after that...something mechanical was damaged, too. That was last Saturday morning.
My daily driver for the last two years (as of November 13) has been a 2022 BMW X5 xDrive45e. It's got 30 miles of electric range, and then still has a big burly turbocharged I6 to help out. I think it's great. It's averaging 36 MPG combined, which is amazing for a 5,600-lb, air-suspended luxury crossover.
Now the recently acquired 2008 LS 600h L *did* require a new traction battery. These Toyota hybrids really don't like to sit, so I'm not surprised that the LS 600h L, their most expensive and most complicated product by far at the time, has a disproportionately high number of batteries go bad compared to an RX 450h or a Prius. That was $4,100 for an aftermarket battery with an 18-month warranty, but they installed it in the car while it was in my driveway. Apparently I got off easy. This same company charges a whopping $8,000 for a Porsche Cayenne Hybrid battery, regardless of generation.
But, yes, I do think we have a lot further to go with HEVs and PHEVs, especially for people who have things to do and can't wait for an unreliable charging infrastructure. Hell, Ram just announced a new Ramcharger, with a targeted 145 miles of EV range and a Pentastar under the hood that essentially acts as a generator and that has no mechanical connection to the wheels. With the generator, total range extends to 663 hp. And it's capable of fast-charging, too. Stellantis quality issues notwithstanding, I think that's a much more appealing truck than the EV ones.
The Ramcharger is the series hybrid truck drivetrain I’ve been hoping to see. Very promising. Getting the trans and driveshaft weight and complexity out makes a ton of sense and offsets the battery’s hit on payload.
I am fascinated by the idea of series hybrids.
Because it is absurd, I want mine with a turbine generator.
Since that isn't and option, I will give the Ramcharger a serious look. I spend a lot of miles on rough unpaved roads, I will be curious how it rides.
Love the turbine idea. Def the best power to weight. :-D
The series hybrid really does seem to be the best of all worlds functionally - electric torque, gas range, and real regenerative braking.
I haven’t driven a Ram but Jack has said in prior reviews they have the most refined ride of all three. Not sure how that translates to rough-roading, but I will say my cousin uses Rams in his busy large animal vet practice in western PA.
Probably the closest packaging equivalent to a turbine would be a Wankel, which Mazda is talking about using as a sustain motor. I’d like to think historic rotary reliability issues would be significantly improved by optimizing it for a constant RPM and not having to worry about low end torque. Maybe a mech E or Mazda fan could comment on that.
Wankels are also loud and dirty and hard to clean up. IANAE but perhaps a turbine in a similar application would not be.
I cannot wait for gearheads to get their hands on the tiny rotary in those range extenders and link a dozen of them together.
Glad you're alright Kyree! Hitting a deer at that speed can be surprisingly deadly. Cars aren't crash tested against deer as far as I know; maybe at some point they will be and we'll get some mad max style windshields :)
Or buy an old Saab?
Moose test.
Worked with a guy in the 80s that hit a moose in his RX-7. After the accident, he grew a beard.
The seemingly mindless devotion to plug-ins makes my tinfoil hat spark like my head is in the microwave. China or somebody has to be behind that.
Ha!
What turns me off on hybrids is that outside of the honda cr-z, nobody has offered a manual with hybrid. I know manuals are “going away” or “slower” or whatever people (who cant drive or suck at driving manuals) say, but I only buy manuals because I like them better in all circumstances (including in traffic). Thats what keeps me, admittedly a small minority interest, out of the hybrid pool. Otherwise I’m all for hybrids and hope the world wakes up to mandatory EV foolishness sooner rather than later.
Got me thinking....
Does _anyone_ own an EV as an only car?
Yes. Citiots.
Although I live in a city, our EV is regularly driven as many as 100 miles round-trip in a day. Granted, that's not the same as driving from one far-flung location in, say, West Texas to another, but it's not like I'm using my car only to run to the supermarket.
I have a buddy who lives rural and does 120 miles a day in his Model 3. But he also owns a Duramax.
Yep. 14 months and 21k miles in, including a roundtrip drive from Oakland to Tucson, and I love it.
I mean, I have a 993, but that's never been more than a "drive it for fun" vehicle. same with my VFR. So yeah, my Mach-E is my only car.
My household has been EV only for the last year. 120k EV only miles so far with 15k added by the newest one. Live in the suburbs of Columbus, OH. Purchased the latest one after putting 25k miles a year on the first one with no maintenance outside of tires and wipers.