Toyota and Suzuki Announce Electric Car Partnership

cageymaru

cageymaru

Fully [H]
Joined
Apr 10, 2003
Messages
21,911
Toyota and Suzuki have announced a partnership to produce electrified vehicles for the world's markets. The two companies had been considering the terms of a collaboration involving electrified cars since 2017. Toyota brings its Toyota Hybrid System (THS), hybrid electric vehicle (HEV) components such as engines and batteries, and new electrified platforms such as the RAV4 and Corolla Wagon to Suzuki. Suzuki will use its strengths to supply small car platforms to Toyota for India, allow Toyota to adopt and manufacture newly developed Suzuki engines for small compact cars, and OEM supply Toyota with Suzuki's India-produced cars for the African market. The two companies will continue to compete against each other.

"When it comes to vehicle electrification, which is expected to make further inroads, hybrid technologies are seen as playing a huge role in many markets, as from before. Widespread acceptance is necessary for electrified vehicles to be able to contribute to Earth's environment. Through our new agreement, we look forward to the wider use of hybrid technologies, not only in India and Europe, but around the world. At the same time, we believe that the expansion of our business partnership with Suzuki-from the mutual supply of vehicles and powertrains to the domains of development and production-will help give us the competitive edge we will need to survive this once-in-a-century period of profound transformation. We intend to strengthen the competitiveness of both our companies by applying our strong points and learning from each other."
 
cageymaru said:
Toyota and Suzuki have announced a partnership to produce electrified vehicles for the world's markets. The two companies had been considering the terms of a collaboration involving electrified cars since 2017. Toyota brings its Toyota Hybrid System (THS), hybrid electric vehicle (HEV) components such as engines and batteries, and new electrified platforms such as the RAV4 and Corolla Wagon to Suzuki. Suzuki will use its strengths to supply small car platforms to Toyota for India, allow Toyota to adopt and manufacture newly developed Suzuki engines for small compact cars, and OEM supply Toyota with Suzuki's India-produced cars for the African market. The two companies will continue to compete against each other.

"When it comes to vehicle electrification, which is expected to make further inroads, hybrid technologies are seen as playing a huge role in many markets, as from before. Widespread acceptance is necessary for electrified vehicles to be able to contribute to Earth's environment. Through our new agreement, we look forward to the wider use of hybrid technologies, not only in India and Europe, but around the world. At the same time, we believe that the expansion of our business partnership with Suzuki-from the mutual supply of vehicles and powertrains to the domains of development and production-will help give us the competitive edge we will need to survive this once-in-a-century period of profound transformation. We intend to strengthen the competitiveness of both our companies by applying our strong points and learning from each other."
Click to expand...
Sorry, but didn't Toyota just bought or took control of Suzuki about 1 year ago ? That doesn't mean they don't have to do some homework for the financial part. But, hey, that's not big news. That's just Toyota Corp news.
 
sfsuphysics said:
How long ago did we see a story about the reason Toyota doesnt do electric vehicles is supply of battery materials? 25k EVs or 1.5M hybrids, now they want to make EVs?
Click to expand...
EVs are the future. Toyota put it's money behind hydrogen which failed. Toyota's now scrambling to look good for shareholders while their pants are down and in last place for the future
 
sfsuphysics said:
How long ago did we see a story about the reason Toyota doesnt do electric vehicles is supply of battery materials? 25k EVs or 1.5M hybrids, now they want to make EVs?
Click to expand...

I am guessing that Toyota was fully convinced that hydrogen fuel cells were the future, and that EVs were just going to be a side show. Of course, with Tesla selling more EV's every week than Toyota has sold fuel cell vehicles since they released the Mirai in late 2015, that looks really silly now. Fuel cells only make "sense" if you have government officials offering very heavy subsidies for them. For everyone else they make no sense at all; they cost as much to fuel as an ordinary gasoline car (see fueleconomy.gov; a Toyota Mirai costs $1250 to fuel for a year, vs their estimate of $1100 for a Camry); the price of the fuel cells has not gone down as fast as the price of batteries, the storage tanks end up making the car weigh as much as an electric vehicle anyways (a long range Tesla Model 3 & the Toyota Mirai weigh almost exactly the same, and have very similar ranges), and then there are all the problems with building up a suitable infrastructure for hydrogen fuel.

Electric vehicles are able to piggy back off the existing electrical grid for the most part; most people can install home chargers, and then charging stations for the rest/long trips. If most people charge at night there is enough slack capacity in most of the US to handle a large portion switching over; amusingly the state that will need the most improvements to its electric grid to handle a large-scale switchover to electrics is California, the state that has been pushing electric cars the most. Hydrogen needs entirely new facilities. New storage tanks, new pumps, new trucks or pipelines to move the hydrogen, and so on. Just the trucks part is a challenge; hydrogen has a much lower energy density per volume than gasoline, so you end up needing multiple hydrogen trucks to replace every gasoline truck. And each of those trucks is much more expensive to build than a gas tanker, what with the compressed storage tanks and all.
 
I just want a truck that's not over 100 bucks a week to drive x 52 per year x 10 years, I'll take any kind of hybrid. Is that wrong?
 
skydriver said:
I just want a truck that's not over 100 bucks a week to drive x 52 per year x 10 years, I'll take any kind of hybrid. Is that wrong?
Click to expand...

Nope waiting for the same thing.

If I remember correctly I believe Toyota wants an all all HEV vehicle lineup by 2025.

It makes sense. If Hydrogen fuel cells isn’t the answer then they have to fast track EV. Afterall that will be where the money is at.

I wouldn’t mind an HEV truck. Since my.current Truck gets 11-13 anything would be an improvement
 
Jandor said:
Sorry, but didn't Toyota just bought or took control of Suzuki about 1 year ago ? That doesn't mean they don't have to do some homework for the financial part. But, hey, that's not big news. That's just Toyota Corp news.
Click to expand...

No. Volkswagen has a 19.9% stake, with GM at 3% and Fuji Heavy (Subaru) at 1%.

Edit: Suzuki bought back their shares from VW after a lawsuit a few years ago, I forgot about that.
 
travisty said:
EVs are the future. Toyota put it's money behind hydrogen which failed. Toyota's now scrambling to look good for shareholders while their pants are down and in last place for the future
Click to expand...

Hydrogen did not fail. The cars are essentially battery electric hybrid cars with a hydrogen fuel cell replacing a hydrocarbon combustion engine. The infrastructure for hydrogen is not here in America yet but hydrogen is going big in Japan. When it comes down to it, all these alternative vehicles are electric vehicles. The big issue is how to make battery storage. There is not enough available lithium to make all the batteries so alternative technologies need to be developed, scaled up for production, and costs driven down.
 
travisty said:
EVs are the future.
Click to expand...

People have been promoting EV's as the future for decades, and they will still be saying EV's are the future decades from now.

For many people, electric cars have too many limitations.
(limited range, no place to plug in at their apartment/condo, older homes that would require expense electric panel upgrade to add a 240 volt charger, long charging times when traveling long distance, high prices, etc.)

Hybrids are still the best short term solution for most people.
Hybrids deliver improved mileage, while avoiding the limitations of electric cars.
That's why Toyota has gradually been introducing Hybrid versions of their existing cars.
 
I have to disagree with that assessment, Nutzo; sales of EVs have gone from nothing to hundreds of thousands in less than a decade. And production of them is ramping up; Tesla by itself should basically double its sales numbers next year now that it has its Model 3 production line sorted out. And all the other automakers are starting to throw serious dollars/euros/yen/yuan at making their own EVs. The key is that battery prices just keep steadily dropping, which is the primary factor holding back electric vehicles. Most estimates predict that BEVs with useful (200+ miles) ranges will be less expensive than similar gas one by 2030. US-R-12-2018.pngWW-C-12-2017.png
 
nutzo said:
People have been promoting EV's as the future for decades, and they will still be saying EV's are the future decades from now.

For many people, electric cars have too many limitations.
(limited range, no place to plug in at their apartment/condo, older homes that would require expense electric panel upgrade to add a 240 volt charger, long charging times when traveling long distance, high prices, etc.)

Hybrids are still the best short term solution for most people.
Hybrids deliver improved mileage, while avoiding the limitations of electric cars.
That's why Toyota has gradually been introducing Hybrid versions of their existing cars.
Click to expand...

Lol can always depend on you to spread lies. No one was talking about EVs until EV1 which was the first major release of an EV for nearly 100 years. At that point battery technology wasn't there.

Guess what? After a few doubling times, price per mile per battery size have gotten to the point that the average car buyer can purchase a 200+ mile EV that can be recharged in half an hour.

The world cannot continue on with fossil fuels and if people who need to make long trips can't sacrifice 20 extra minutes to charge (over filling up) than fuck them. I'm 34 and I want a planet I can grow old on.
 
jcollett69 said:
Hydrogen did not fail. The cars are essentially battery electric hybrid cars with a hydrogen fuel cell replacing a hydrocarbon combustion engine. The infrastructure for hydrogen is not here in America yet but hydrogen is going big in Japan. When it comes down to it, all these alternative vehicles are electric vehicles. The big issue is how to make battery storage. There is not enough available lithium to make all the batteries so alternative technologies need to be developed, scaled up for production, and costs driven down.
Click to expand...

Hydrogen has failed. It takes more energy to make than just storing the electricity in the base-ev battery (not even taking into account transport or pressurization), it's highly explosive, it's hard to contain, and it comes from either pure drinking water (which is becoming more scarce) or from hydrocarbons (fossil fuels). The latter being where the vast majority of hydrogen comes from.

As for not enough lithium, there's plenty actually. Up till now no one was looking for it. Lithium, being the third element in the periodic table, it's a very plentiful element.

Just off the coast of a Japanese island there's a huge deposited which can meet all demands - https://investingnews.com/daily/res...sting/japan-semi-infinite-supply-rare-earths/
 
Last edited:
travisty said:
Lol can always depend on you to spread lies. No one was talking about EVs until EV1 which was the first major release of an EV for nearly 100 years. At that point battery technology wasn't there.

Guess what? After a few doubling times, price per mile per battery size have gotten to the point that the average car buyer can purchase a 200+ mile EV that can be recharged in half an hour.

The world cannot continue on with fossil fuels and if people who need to make long trips can't sacrifice 20 extra minutes to charge (over filling up) than fuck them. I'm 34 and I want a planet I can grow old on.
Click to expand...

So full of BS.

Distant limitations are still a problem. 200+ miles doesn’t cut when a good day of driving may be 400+. Now you make the comment what’s an extra 20 minutes. I doubt you can find an EV plug everywhere in that amount time. Fossil fuels still win or HEV’s still win.

You didn’t address retro fitting houses to fill the charging demands either or address any pricing concerns.

Some of us are more practical in our approach to buying a EV that at best has limited usage. For me EV’s aren’t a consideration. Ever seen an EV truck? Haven’t priced one either. But considering new ICE trucks are high 30’s to low 60’s I doubt I’ll be looking new anytime soon. So out of reach for a large portion of people.

We can live on FF’s for quite some time if not yours and mine combined lifetimes or longer. The sane nonsense was said when I was a kid too. Guess what? We aren’t extinct and the planet is still here. I’m almost 50 and have no concerns for the next 50 years for the planet magically disappearing.
 
Gavv said:
So full of BS.

Distant limitations are still a problem. 200+ miles doesn’t cut when a good day of driving may be 400+. Now you make the comment what’s an extra 20 minutes. I doubt you can find an EV plug everywhere in that amount time. Fossil fuels still win or HEV’s still win.

You didn’t address retro fitting houses to fill the charging demands either or address any pricing concerns.

Some of us are more practical in our approach to buying a EV that at best has limited usage. For me EV’s aren’t a consideration. Ever seen an EV truck? Haven’t priced one either. But considering new ICE trucks are high 30’s to low 60’s I doubt I’ll be looking new anytime soon. So out of reach for a large portion of people.

We can live on FF’s for quite some time if not yours and mine combined lifetimes or longer. The sane nonsense was said when I was a kid too. Guess what? We aren’t extinct and the planet is still here. I’m almost 50 and have no concerns for the next 50 years for the planet magically disappearing.
Click to expand...

Retrofitting houses for 240V?! If your house has these you most likely already have the capability of 240V charging:
  • Electric water heater
  • Electric stove / range
  • Electric clothes dryer
  • Electric baseboard heat (unlikely)
  • Heat pump / Central AC
If you have 2 or more then I'd about guarantee you're fine. Electrical upgrades would only be necessary is if you live in a house that is older and had all gas heat and appliances. And that's because the amperage of your main breaker box would be too low (60 amp - 100 amp). But any house with a 200 amp service (which is the norm) would not need upgrading.
 
Chpset Guru said:
Retrofitting houses for 240V?! If your house has these you most likely already have the capability of 240V charging:
  • Electric water heater
  • Electric stove / range
  • Electric clothes dryer
  • Electric baseboard heat (unlikely)
  • Heat pump / Central AC
If you have 2 or more then I'd about guarantee you're fine. Electrical upgrades would only be necessary is if you live in a house that is older and had all gas heat and appliances. And that's because the amperage of your main breaker box would be too low (60 amp - 100 amp). But any house with a 200 amp service (which is the norm) would not need upgrading.
Click to expand...


My buddy wanted a L2 charger in his garage. Turns out there was already a mini panel with 240V in his garage. Small charge to hook up a 240 V plug and he was done. 240 is everywhere, and with time of day charging it is unlikely to impact your other peak loads.
 
travisty said:
Lol can always depend on you to spread lies. No one was talking about EVs until EV1 which was the first major release of an EV for nearly 100 years. At that point battery technology wasn't there.

Guess what? After a few doubling times, price per mile per battery size have gotten to the point that the average car buyer can purchase a 200+ mile EV that can be recharged in half an hour.

The world cannot continue on with fossil fuels and if people who need to make long trips can't sacrifice 20 extra minutes to charge (over filling up) than fuck them. I'm 34 and I want a planet I can grow old on.
Click to expand...

There where electric car over 100 years ago, but Ice won that battle. There have been people trying to build electric cars ever since. Just because no major car company manufactured an electric car until the EV1 doesn't mean there where no electric cars around.


Guess we'll have to wait 10 years to see who's closer to the truth. I did say hybrids are a short term solution.

My guess is that in 2029 (10 years), there will be more Hybrids on the road (regular hybrids and plugin hybrids) than full electric cars.
That's because many manufactures are now making hybrids just another drive train option. More power and better mileage is a good option.

The average age of a car on the road in the US is now 11.5 years.
The vast majority of cars being sold today are still ICE cars.
Hybrids are about 2% of cars on the road.
Electrics are less than 1%
So, in 10 years the majority of cars on the road will still be ICE cars. ​

Besides, saying a 200+ mile EV can be charged in 30 minutes is misleading, even if you are using a Tesla Supercharging stations 30 minutes will only get you a little more than half a charge, and that assumes your battery is almost empty. The last 50% of a charge will take much longer and the charging slows down as the battery get close to capacity.
A non Tesla car or non Tesla charging station would be much slower.

FYI:
Tesla Supercharging stations charge with up to 145 kW of power distributed between two adjacent cars, with a maximum of 120 kW per car. That is up to 16 times as fast as public charging stations; they take about 20 minutes to charge to 50%, 40 minutes to charge to 80%, and 75 minutes to 100%.
 
Chpset Guru said:
Retrofitting houses for 240V?! If your house has these you most likely already have the capability of 240V charging:
  • Electric water heater
  • Electric stove / range
  • Electric clothes dryer
  • Electric baseboard heat (unlikely)
  • Heat pump / Central AC
If you have 2 or more then I'd about guarantee you're fine. Electrical upgrades would only be necessary is if you live in a house that is older and had all gas heat and appliances. And that's because the amperage of your main breaker box would be too low (60 amp - 100 amp). But any house with a 200 amp service (which is the norm) would not need upgrading.
Click to expand...

Not sure about else where in the country, but here in California, most homes built before the 70's will not have a 200 amp panel.
If they have added central air, they are likely maxed out.
 
dreadcthulhu said:
I have to disagree with that assessment, Nutzo; sales of EVs have gone from nothing to hundreds of thousands in less than a decade. And production of them is ramping up; Tesla by itself should basically double its sales numbers next year now that it has its Model 3 production line sorted out. And all the other automakers are starting to throw serious dollars/euros/yen/yuan at making their own EVs. The key is that battery prices just keep steadily dropping, which is the primary factor holding back electric vehicles. Most estimates predict that BEVs with useful (200+ miles) ranges will be less expensive than similar gas one by 2030. View attachment 149778View attachment 149779
Click to expand...

Easy to double your sales when you have such a small market share and your prices are heavily subsidized by the taxpayer.

It will be interesting to see what happens to sales over the next couple years as the rebates go away.

Even if the price is the same, the current electric cars still won't work for many people. (trucks, minivans, long distances, towing trailers, or no place to plug in at their apartment, etc.)
 
Chpset Guru said:
Retrofitting houses for 240V?! If your house has these you most likely already have the capability of 240V charging:
  • Electric water heater
  • Electric stove / range
  • Electric clothes dryer
  • Electric baseboard heat (unlikely)
  • Heat pump / Central AC
If you have 2 or more then I'd about guarantee you're fine. Electrical upgrades would only be necessary is if you live in a house that is older and had all gas heat and appliances. And that's because the amperage of your main breaker box would be too low (60 amp - 100 amp). But any house with a 200 amp service (which is the norm) would not need upgrading.
Click to expand...

This is an added cost to owning the vehicle. Many homes may not be capable.

Not a problem to those who can afford it. Harder for those who can’t and own houses that need the upgrade. Upgrading services can be expensive that way.

But let’s just assume it’s pocket change to upgrade or every house has up to date current panels and wiring. Easier to fit your argument that way.
 
In the UK at least, retrofitting the houses is the biggest challenge, I want an EV but it's a rare occasion that I can park outside my 110 year old terraced house... I've also just recently came back from Italy and there too an EV would be an issue it is mostly apartment buildings.

I'm seriously considering a Hybrid Ioniq instead. Failing that a second-hand 320D M Sport as to be frank that's cheaper and more exciting to drive.

For reference my street looks like this:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&sou...aw0nYb7q8-jPFj91-ZB0UfP9&ust=1558446292159808
 
jcollett69 said:
Hydrogen did not fail. The cars are essentially battery electric hybrid cars with a hydrogen fuel cell replacing a hydrocarbon combustion engine. The infrastructure for hydrogen is not here in America yet but hydrogen is going big in Japan. When it comes down to it, all these alternative vehicles are electric vehicles. The big issue is how to make battery storage. There is not enough available lithium to make all the batteries so alternative technologies need to be developed, scaled up for production, and costs driven down.
Click to expand...
Correct analogy is that Fuel Cell replaces the battery in an EV vehicle with potentially the convenience of tanking up like a gas engine instead of charging. There are direct combustion hydrogen engines that replace gas with H2 as the fuel. That's a different animal.

Tanking Up means filing a pressure vessel in your car which is a non-trivial act for the pressures required to liquify (or compress to a high density) H2.
 
dreadcthulhu said:
I have to disagree with that assessment, Nutzo; sales of EVs have gone from nothing to hundreds of thousands in less than a decade. And production of them is ramping up; Tesla by itself should basically double its sales numbers next year now that it has its Model 3 production line sorted out. And all the other automakers are starting to throw serious dollars/euros/yen/yuan at making their own EVs. The key is that battery prices just keep steadily dropping, which is the primary factor holding back electric vehicles. Most estimates predict that BEVs with useful (200+ miles) ranges will be less expensive than similar gas one by 2030. View attachment 149778View attachment 149779
Click to expand...

Production isnt the model 3's problem. It's demand. People don't really want one.
 
Just an FYI - a 200A 240V panel is about 35kW.

A long way from the Tesla fastcharger capacity some people are touting for that 30min charge.

Now, if your at home you probably don’t need a 30min charge.... but just making it clear a car charger will be a very large load on even a 200A service, and if you do try to use faster charging you could run into issues with other larger loads (HVAC, well pumps, stoves, etc)
 
Brian_B said:
Just an FYI - a 200A 240V panel is about 35kW.

A long way from the Tesla fastcharger capacity some people are touting for that 30min charge.

Now, if your at home you probably don’t need a 30min charge.... but just making it clear a car charger will be a very large load on even a 200A service, and if you do try to use faster charging you could run into issues with other larger loads (HVAC, well pumps, stoves, etc)
Click to expand...

Are operating under some kind of assumption that people think you can install Superchargers at home.

You can install Level 2 charging at home. Level 2 charging is limited by the on-board charger, in the case of the Model 3, it is 32 Amp, 7.7KW, IIRC. That a fairly normal capability for 240 Volt circuits in North America.

This delivers something like 25 miles for each hour of charging. Sufficient when you are likely sleeping ~8 hours overnight while it charges.
 
Gavv said:
Nope waiting for the same thing.

If I remember correctly I believe Toyota wants an all all HEV vehicle lineup by 2025.

It makes sense. If Hydrogen fuel cells isn’t the answer then they have to fast track EV. Afterall that will be where the money is at.

I wouldn’t mind an HEV truck. Since my.current Truck gets 11-13 anything would be an improvement
Click to expand...
Rivian?
 
Snowdog said:
Are operating under some kind of assumption that people think you can install Superchargers at home.

You can install Level 2 charging at home. Level 2 charging is limited by the on-board charger, in the case of the Model 3, it is 32 Amp, 7.7KW, IIRC. That a fairly normal capability for 240 Volt circuits in North America.

This delivers something like 25 miles for each hour of charging. Sufficient when you are likely sleeping ~8 hours overnight while it charges.
Click to expand...

There's been a lot of talk back and forth... one post will be talking about 240V panel being all you need, a couple posts later talking about a commercial fast charge station with 30min 50% capacity. No one has made the distinction. I wanted to be sure it was clear. You aren't installing a fast charger at home.

I didn't assume anything. I'm trying to make sure other people don't make assumptions as well. Thank you for the specs on the L2 charger.
 
Verge said:
Production isnt the model 3's problem. It's demand. People don't really want one.
Click to expand...
Yet if you wanted something like the Powerwall (by Tesla) you may have to wait some time to actually get one, and the reasoning (that's given) they want to use the batteries in their cars more so (maybe larger profit margin? more advertising of their product?) which sounds like a production problem.
 
travisty said:
Hydrogen has failed. It takes more energy to make than just storing the electricity in the base-ev battery (not even taking into account transport or pressurization), it's highly explosive, it's hard to contain, and it comes from either pure drinking water (which is becoming more scarce) or from hydrocarbons (fossil fuels). The latter being where the vast majority of hydrogen comes from.

As for not enough lithium, there's plenty actually. Up till now no one was looking for it. Lithium, being the third element in the periodic table, it's a very plentiful element.

Just off the coast of a Japanese island there's a huge deposited which can meet all demands - https://investingnews.com/daily/res...sting/japan-semi-infinite-supply-rare-earths/
Click to expand...

Indeed. If only they developed Helium-powered cars. Could deliver just-in-time animal balloons for children's birthday parties and on-road helium-assisted karaoke entertainment. Missed opportunity.

:D
 
In my first post I mentioned Hydrogen fuel cell cars costing as much to fuel as a regular gas car. That turns out to be wrong; FCV turn out to be much more expensive to fuel than gasoline cars. For some bizarre reason fueleconomy.gov's price estimate for how much FCV cost to operate is based on hydrogen being $5.55 a kilo. The actual cost of hydrogen at the pumps is much higher; $14/kg is the most common price according to the California Fuel Cell Partnership. That leads to a car like the Toyota Mirai actually costing $3,150 a year to fuel (after the free fuel for 3 years Toyota bundles runs out). That's slightly more than the cost of fueling a Cadillac Escalade. A plain Camry, similar in size to Mirai, comes in at $1,300 right now, and a Tesla Model 3 at $500 a year. Hydrogen is going to have to have large scale price drops to have even a hope of gaining traction.
 
dreadcthulhu said:
In my first post I mentioned Hydrogen fuel cell cars costing as much to fuel as a regular gas car. That turns out to be wrong; FCV turn out to be much more expensive to fuel than gasoline cars. For some bizarre reason fueleconomy.gov's price estimate for how much FCV cost to operate is based on hydrogen being $5.55 a kilo. The actual cost of hydrogen at the pumps is much higher; $14/kg is the most common price according to the California Fuel Cell Partnership. That leads to a car like the Toyota Mirai actually costing $3,150 a year to fuel (after the free fuel for 3 years Toyota bundles runs out). That's slightly more than the cost of fueling a Cadillac Escalade. A plain Camry, similar in size to Mirai, comes in at $1,300 right now, and a Tesla Model 3 at $500 a year. Hydrogen is going to have to have large scale price drops to have even a hope of gaining traction.
Click to expand...

One of many reasons Hydrogen is DOA for passenger cars.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top