Better to lower taxes and just get out of the way so real innovation can happen (and the incompetents like GM can stop wasting valuable resources).

Wow, I misread 3 orders of magnitude.

Yes, that should be a decent incentive, though who knows what the development costs will be. Chrysler spent that about that much alone to develop “stow n go” (yes, I went back and checked it this time) and look at what it got them.

A quick google for Toyota’s research budget gives about $7 billion for 2005, while GM spent $6.6 billion in 2006. That’s pretty comparable, though finding figures for previous years (1990’s, when the Prius was in development) would take more time than I have now…

First: I have never read any proof of this.
Second: All developed countries support basic research at their universities and technical colleges. This research sometimes results in spin off companies that refine an idea and then the spin off is often sold to a big company that can use the idea. Any company in the world is welcome to buy or license one of these new ideas.

Calm down…if you read my other comments, I’m a big supporter of the Prius.

Gasoline is fairly chemically stable. You can set it on fire, but it won’t explode (except in vapor form), because it needs oxygen. Batteries don’t need oxygen. They don’t need an external oxidizer, they bring their own, just like rocket fuel and explosives. This is basic chemistry.

Take a fully charged Li-ion battery, and hammer a nail through it. I guarantee it will burn/explode.

If the domestics had any credibility left it would make sense to support technological development. Unfortunately, all they will do with the handout is pay interest on debt they have no hope of ever paying off.

…I would like either Paul or Robert to tell me the difference between Toyota covering their bases with several technologies and GM’s alleged ADD.

I’ll tell you the difference. Toyota isn’t losing their underwear every time they sell a product.

There’s credibility in them thar financials.

That said, I would like either Paul or Robert to tell me the difference between Toyota covering their bases with several technologies and GM’s alleged ADD.

I totally agree with you about Press’ motives. Regarding GM’s ADD, Toyota does two things very different: It may talk about what its R&D is up to in general terms, as in this presentation, but it doesn’t show non-functioning concepts like the Volt way before the technology even exists. And when its new technology goes into production, it’s more focused, economically viable and successful. A classic case is GM’s hybrid strategy: the cheap underachieving BAS belt-assist and the technically ambitious but overly-expensive two-mode hybrid.

The most significant aspect of Toyota’s plan is its mix. The company takes the practical view that liquid fuels will continue to prevail, hybrid architecture is a bridge or coping strategy rather than a solution, and it will take some time for EVs to find their place. All five of their development points are represented with varying priorities in every other major car company’s utterances about future product planning.

Phil

A fiasco eclipsed only by righty “hero extraordinaire” Dick Cheney’s “energy task force.”

You had to go there….

That said, I would like either Paul or Robert to tell me the difference between Toyota covering their bases with several technologies and GM’s alleged ADD.

Plus some people surely will be “mortified” to even think of being propelled by a fuel cell vehicle because of the Hindenberg, and isn’t hydrogen “explosive?”

In reality, if we wish to be moved along faster than the Amish with horses and buggies, we need some sort of means of energy potential or storage for intense work in moving a vehicle containing our bodies. It’s the SAFETY of what that motive force is, that counts.

Now I’ll go to the defense of Toyota and say that I’ve actually READ a synoposis of the original development team’s work on the first generation Prius. Despite the stability of the NiMH battery as opposed to the LiIon battery, on the first drive of a prototype by the President of Toyota, a 3rd passenger had to sit in the rear of the car with a laptop, furiously working to keep the battery pack from exploding. I bet he was sweating bullets….

In any case, from 1997 through 2008, there have been a LOT of Prius cars (as well as other hybrids) built and clearly, they are safe and don’t explode (as we saw with some lap-tops with LiIon batteries). Clearly, too, it’s very very obvious that Toyota are taking the same softly softly get it right approach to the plug in Prius and LiIon batteries.

Little wonder, given the problems they’ve had with the LiIon batteries, that they are looking forward.

As for “sour grapes” attitudes by some commentators who cry “foul” that Toyota supposedly had financial support by the Government of Japan, I say – even if it’s true, what of it?

It’s not like every other nation in the world wouldn’t have done the same, and in fact, the United States Government DID p!ss away God-only-knows-how-much on the “supercar” initiative with the Detroit 3 under President Clinton (the lefties hero extraordinaire), and got – vaporware and emptied checkbooks out of the deal.

If I were a taxpayer in ANY given country, I’d rather see my tax monies at least being given to a company competent enough to bring dividends back to the nation rather than seeing it evaporate into nothing.

But the statement both by Toyota and the Japanese government is that there was no money. Whether this is true or not, is kind of moot, given the fact that we KNOW the US government did exactly the same thing for the Detroit 3.

As for choosing the specific “hail mary pass” fuel for the future, I suspect that there isn’t ONE fuel for the future, as we’ve had for the prior 80 years, with coal being king for some while before that (for motive force in trains).

I very, very strongly suspect that only the healthier, currently profitable companies – such as Toyota, Honda and Hyundai-Kia – with resources to spend on multiple fronts – will actually survive the next 3 decades of turmoil in the auto industry. I’m not even certain that Nissan-Renault will survive, to be honest.

I also think that if some of the larger regional players, such as Peugeot-Citroen – and worldwide players with only regional extreme strength – such as Suzuki and Mitsubishi – want to actually survive and flourish, they need to consolidate if they want ANY chance.

In fact, Peugeot and Mitsubishi do work together now, and Suzuki would be a good complementary company to join in to a conglomerate company(being the #1 SELLING MAKE IN JAPAN doesn’t hurt, as well as #1 in India – Maruti-Suzuki).

Toyota has proven they can handle money responsibly. The domestics are nowhere in the same league in that regard. Who would you rather give money to, a company that will invest it responsibly in R&D that ends up actually pushing vehicle efficiency forward or a company that will blow the whole thing on booze and hookers?

kph :

That’s 300 *million* not 300 thousand. It may not be in the billions but 300 million is still a decent carrot.

You can also argue that our government’s policies have actually discouraged development of fuel-efficient vehicles in the past. Foreign car companies have focused more of their efforts in markets with high fuel taxes, allowing them to better weather the change in consumer tastes in America now.

But you can’t deny the fact that the japanese government gave them the money to develop the first hybrids.

And may be doing so now… even when Toyota is swimming in money.

Having passed through this issue a while back and actually found out that the USA govt also supported the big three back then, and all the public got was one or two prototypes, isn’t it a little late to Cry MAMA

In spite of that, Dr. Toyoda offered to let the HSD technology be available to any carmaker who desired it. A pretty obvious play at creating a standard, but then the ICE is old by now, and we should probably just settle for some alternatives.

The fact that Toyota has the resources to look into a range of technologies should be a good thing – particularly as they are also considering distances to be traveled and distances from charging stations, as well as the necessity factor of the load carried. (Ambulances have other requirements than do vehicles used to pick up a six-pack of beer; and interstate transport vehicles have another set of requirements altogether.)
Toyota’s Sustainable Mobility program has been well underway for over ten years now – Bob Lutz discovered the need a few months ago. However, both GM and Ford have been lobbying gov’t for money to do what they should have done a long time ago.

I’m not an expert, but I suspect the fact that Toyota makes and sells cars people want to buy has something to do with their full R & D coffers. I have no idea how much money Toyota receives from the Japanese government, but I’m sure it’s making good use of it. The depressing truth is that a mismanaged company like GM just pisses away money regardless of where it comes from.