MAR2023: My Experience Driving 1,367mi Down Into California and Back

Just drove down into CA and back home on a road trip with my family of five.
- Drove 1,367mi total.
- Used TESLA Superchargers mostly.
- Average TESLA Supercharger price: $0.40/kWh (MIN: $0.34/kWh | MAX: $0.48/kWh)
NOTE: I pay an average of $0.08353/kWh to charge at home, so paying $0.48/kWh is an abomination!!!
- Longest TESLA Supercharger Charge Time*: 50min (Est.) @ 250kW
- Longest non-Supercharger Charge Time*: 2.5hrs @ 8kW (32A)
- Spent $176.96 total on charging**.
- Total trip cost ICE equivalent (24mpg): $209.15 (Est. @ $3.67/gal)

* Charging sessions where we actively sat and waited, not counting charging passively at the hotel, etc.
** Charged FREE overnight at one hotel and paid a flat $10.00 twice to slow charge at an RV park in BFE.

Takeaways...

We have driven this trip and this specific route many times over the years, and it normally takes about 10.5hrs (in our ICE vehicle @ 24mpg) including stops for fuel and restroom breaks; plus, we lose 1hr going to CA and gain 1hr coming home (due to the time change). Heading to CA in our TESLA Model Y took us 15.5hrs, including time spent charging and restroom breaks, etc. There was substantial range anxiety on the way to CA, especially, because the normal route we would take was beyond the actual range of our TESLA (but not beyond the rated range). Our Model Y is rated at 321mi of range, but our first TESLA Supercharger was 254mi from our home (we left our home with 100% SOC). After much stress, we found an RV park in BFE (about 45min from the first TESLA Supercharger along our route) that allowed us to charge using my NIMA 14-50 TESLA Mobile Connector @ 8kW (32A) for a flat $10.00. Our SOC was very low, so we charged up there to about 15% SOC before heading on to the TESLA Supercharger, but by the time we arrived at that first TESLA Supercharger 45min away, we had -4% SOC. (Not kidding! NEGATIVE 4% SOC!!!) Not only did this stress us out immensely (we thought we weren't going to make it), but I feared that going below 0% may have damaged our battery pack. (It still may have damaged it and we don't even know it!) While at that first TESLA Supercharger along our route, we charged 81kWh in about 35-45min. My Model Y supposedly only has a battery pack that is 78.3kWh, so explain that one to me!

Why didn't you just enter your destination and follow the on-screen GPS and charge accordingly, you ask???? Well, because we always go that route, for one thing. Plus, the route that the car wanted us to follow was going to take us 2hrs in the wrong direction, which made no sense to me. I track my normal TESLA driving efficiency using the TezLab app, so I figured that I should be able to travel the 254mi from a 100% SOC if I go slower (I normally speed, going 10-15mi over the speed limit). I then drove 55mph and 60mph the whole way until our first charge, which seemed to help little or not at all. Tractor trailers were getting mad at me, passing me ASAP along the two lane highway.

Once we were near civilization and were able to use ALL TESLA Superchargers, it was a breeze and wasn't stressful at all, although it definitely added time to our drives. We knew we could charge for $10 at that RV park along our normal route on the way back, so that is what we did. Unfortunately, I did not know that you cannot install a software update while charging (or while driving) the TESLA, so shortly after I began charging @ 8kW (32A) at the RV park, I started the software installation, which promptly cut off my charging session, which fact I did not realize until about 25min into the install, which installation took about 35min total. We made sure to charge up to 100% SOC at that last TESLA Supercharger before heading to that RV park toward home. (This was the first TESLA Supercharger on our way to CA.) We had a 78% SOC when we arrived at the RV park, and we charged up to 95% SOC before heading on for home. We had 3% SOC when we arrived home. It was MUCH less stressful driving and charging on the way home than it was on the way to CA, but it still was not stress-free.

We learned the hard way on the drive home (after seeing the "red steering wheel of death" about 3x) that if you manually exceed the MAX speed TESLA allows for auto-steer (85mph), then that feature will be disabled for the rest of the drive. So, we kept having to pull over while driving on a two-lane highway; put the TESLA in PARK; open the driver door briefly; and then pull back out onto the highway to regain the use of this feature. Maybe I'm spoiled, but driving for hours and hours on a two-lane highway WITHOUT auto-steer sucks! (NOTE: Our HONDA Odyssey has lane keeping, which works well on a road trip, although it is not as good as TESLA's Autopilot.) We also experienced several instances of phantom braking that was most unpleasant. Our HONDA Odyssey has never once done this, and it has adaptive cruise control. It seems like Autopilot gets scared as the TESLA approaches the top of a ridge in the road.

Also, while we love how much storage our Model Y has, it really makes things fairly tight, as some of the rear storage space is deceptive and cannot fully be utilized while allowing the rear lift gate to latch shut. You must leave about a 6-8in gap between where the rear lift gate appears to close and your luggage or cooler, or else the rear lift gate will not close. I also did everything I could to avoid placing stored items on top of the rear shelf, but it could not be avoided on the way home, as we purchased some bags of merchandise. The frunk was fully utilized and so was the lower storage area below the rear cargo space (as well as the rear cargo space).

One other strange thing that occurred is that twice while I was charging at a 250kW TESLA Supercharger, steam or smoke started to rise from the passenger side, seemingly from underneath the hood of the car (under the frunk). This only lasted about 30sec or less, and both times it happened while it was colder and raining outside (maybe 47°F). Because it was wet out, it could have been steam from the thermal realities of Supercharging, or it could have been smoke. There were also a lot of clicks and a few thud noises that occurred while I was Supercharging.

I have estimated (pretty accurately, I might add) that we saved about $32 driving the Model Y on our road trip, as opposed to our ICE minivan that gets 24mpg and is much larger and more comfortable for the passengers. Was it worth it? I am unconvinced, even though I love driving my Model Y. However, my family all said that they wished we had taken the minivan.

I think the main takeaway is that until charging can be done even more quickly than it is today and until fast-charging locations are more prevalent than gas stations are today, then road trips in an EV for periods longer than 4-6hrs are not worth it, IMO. We would normally drive this route with a full tank of gas when leaving home and would have to stop once to fill up along the way, which is also our main potty break and food stop. This would add about 30min to our drive. Until EV's can do likewise, I am not sure that it makes sense to drive an EV on such a long road trip instead of an ICE vehicle. We hope to get a CyberTruck soon, but no one really knows how large and comfortable (or not) that EV will be. TESLA doesn't really make any large/r sized vehicles. The Model X is smaller than our HONDA Odyssey, which minivan is reasonably comfortable on a long road trip. (We drove it about 5,000mi on a 2.5wk road trip last summer and we were decently comfortable.) I could not imagine driving our Model Y on the same 5,000mi road trip. Also, I am utterly disappointed with the lack of savings from charging while driving our TESLA Model Y on road trips. My home electricity price per kWh is amazing, but I think it's ridiculous that I should have to pay 5x that price OR MORE to charge up on a road trip. That's the whole point of owning an EV! I've already paid damn near double to purchase this vehicle, so I should be getting more savings over ICE than a mere 15% at the Superchargers! (NOTE: My state also charges an additional $154 per year for my TESLA auto registration because it's an EV and I don't pay the fuel tax.)

"Tesla Model Y Dual Motor Solid Black (1)" by Damian B Oh is licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0.
Admin note: Image added for Blog Feed thumbnail

 

[Konicom04]

Yes, but that's almost entirely just lane keeping assist and adaptive cruise control. I consider it a game changer (my neck and shoulders are very thankful), but it's something that we should expect from most cars in the very near future.

So then - it is a game changer. All other automakers are still scrambling to catch up. They're all late to this game.

 

[Konicom04]

"We need better general public education about the use of EVs."

The EPA is the place to start. Their apparently unrealistic estimates generated under ideal conditions is the first source of the "general public's" misinformation.

I bought my MYLR last month with the understanding that the actual range was somewhere close to EPA's tested range of 330 miles. I knew EPA testing procedures were likely optimal so I was guessing 290-300 was the actual summertime number on a flat road not driving into a bloc headwind. From this thread it looks like the real world number is closer to 225 miles.

Under the conditions I just described, what are people's experience when starting a trip with a full charge?

Well - someone once said - EV's are so efficient every additional load takes toll on milage per charge.
Think cabin heat - ICE cars aren't really affected exactly because they're so inefficient. In fact - winter is the only time an ICE car benefits from such lack of efficiency.

I see substantial loss of range during my day to day commuting. This is because the car is stopped and started ( heats and cools ) several times a day. We pioneers of EV shift still insist on looking at mile per charge count.
If you reset the miles per gallon meter in an ICE car each time you fill up, you will certainly see a huge hit on your range per tank as well. Especially if you preheat. In fact - the chance that you will ever see the EPA stated efficiency on an ICE car is slim to none
So - a 30 Mpg ICE will suddenly become an 18 MPG car.
Not a theory - thoroughly tested. I dare anyone to try it

 

[T061]

mmm, what? no.
Burning 1 gallon of gasoline = 132 MJ of energy. If 25% of this energy makes the car move and the rest (75%) goes to thermal waste, it is 132*0.25 = 33 MJ of energy spent on moving the car. If the force resisting the car motion is doubled (load, wind, etc.), then you need 33*2 = 66 MJ of energy to move the car. If your waste over the same time remains the same as before, it is 132*0.75 = 99 MJ. In total you need 99+66 = 165 MJ instead of 132 MJ, which is a 25% increase in consumption, not 100% increase in consumption.

A 90% EV, needs 33/0.9 = 37 MJ to make the same work instead of 132 MJ for a car. If the useful work is doubled, it will be 66/0.9 = 73 MJ + 4 MJ of waste =77 MJ needed for an EV. 77 over 37 is about double the total energy.

This is wrong.

If your waste over the same time remains the same as before, it is 132*0.75 = 99 MJ. In total you need 99+66 = 165 MJ instead of 132 MJ, which is a 25% increase in consumption, not 100% increase in consumption.

Why would the "waste over time" be the same? That's a false assumption.

For example the extra load comes from the fact that you'll need additional energy to overcome work done by the road friction on the trailer and additional aerodynamic drag. Or you're driving up a hill.
This extra energy to do so comes from the car burning additional gas.
The additional energy obtained was a result of the process that's only 25% efficienct (your number, not mine).

Consequently, your work doubled and you'll need to expend twice the energy (at whatever the efficiency rate is).

I hope that helps clarify some of the confusion.

This is not correct. Yes, the wasted energy will depend on the power load, I agree. However, it is not a linear function with slope of 1.

We used 25% as reference because that's the number you assumed/provided. The efficiency of the ICE is indeed dependant on a lot of variables such as speed, load, ignition timing, so it may not be a linear function, but that is a separate matter not at all relevant to the discussion.

Edit: A LOT of combustion engine losses are largely independent of the load at all such as some pumping and internal friction loses.

Not sure what you're trying to say here. Maybe rephrase.

So you say you would need 165 MJ of total energy to move the car the same distance in the 2x load in the ICE example. If you had 165 MJ of total energy, only 25% of it would be useable = 41.25 MJ, which isn’t enough.

Your calcs say your useful energy doubles, but your wasted energy remains constant between the light and heavy load scenarios, which doesn’t make sense? Wasted energy is always going to be 75% of total energy, or 3x of useful energy.

It's Basically what Cosmacelf said.

 

[JB47394]

I've been looking for efficiency loss numbers for towing for electric trucks versus gas trucks in a test having any resemblance to the scientific method. I finally found it.

Tow Test! Ford F-150 Lightning EV vs. Old-School Trucks | Edmunds

Edmunds pits the Ford F-150 Lightning EV against three traditional gas-powered trucks in a towing test. Can the hot, new all-electric pickup handle heavy towing? We find out.

www.edmunds.com

Truck	Price as tested (including destination)	Max towing capacity	Gross combined weight (GCW)	EPA-estimated efficiency (unladen)	Measured efficiency	Efficiency shortfall compared to EPA	Energy cost for 215-mile test (CA prices)	Time spent refueling along the route	EPA-estimated driving range (unladen)
2022 Chevrolet Silverado 1500 ZR2	$72,770	8,900 lbs	12,717 lbs	15 mpg combined	13.6 mpg	9.3%	$93.76	none	360 miles
2022 Ford F-150 Lightning Platinum Extended Range	$93,509	8,500 lbs	13,846 lbs	51 kWh/100 mi	64.6 kWh/100 mi	26.7%	$59.62	1 hr 42 mins	300 miles
2022 Ford F-150 XLT PowerBoost 4x4	$62,285	12,400 lbs	12,741 lbs	24 mpg combined	15.1 mpg	37.1%	$80.28	none	734 miles
2022 Ram 1500 Limited Turbodiesel 4x4	$75,620	12,560 lbs	12,798 lbs	24 mpg combined	17.6 mpg	26.7%	$69.05	none	624 miles

The towed load was identical for each vehicle at 6,975 pounds. Note the time they spent charging the electric truck. To Edmund's credit, they faulted the infrastructure for the delays, not the truck.

 

[Cosmacelf]

I've been looking for efficiency loss numbers for towing for electric trucks versus gas trucks in a test having any resemblance to the scientific method. I finally found it.

Tow Test! Ford F-150 Lightning EV vs. Old-School Trucks | Edmunds

Edmunds pits the Ford F-150 Lightning EV against three traditional gas-powered trucks in a towing test. Can the hot, new all-electric pickup handle heavy towing? We find out.

www.edmunds.com

Truck	Price as tested (including destination)	Max towing capacity	Gross combined weight (GCW)	EPA-estimated efficiency (unladen)	Measured efficiency	Efficiency shortfall compared to EPA	Energy cost for 215-mile test (CA prices)	Time spent refueling along the route	EPA-estimated driving range (unladen)
2022 Chevrolet Silverado 1500 ZR2	$72,770	8,900 lbs	12,717 lbs	15 mpg combined	13.6 mpg	9.3%	$93.76	none	360 miles
2022 Ford F-150 Lightning Platinum Extended Range	$93,509	8,500 lbs	13,846 lbs	51 kWh/100 mi	64.6 kWh/100 mi	26.7%	$59.62	1 hr 42 mins	300 miles
2022 Ford F-150 XLT PowerBoost 4x4	$62,285	12,400 lbs	12,741 lbs	24 mpg combined	15.1 mpg	37.1%	$80.28	none	734 miles
2022 Ram 1500 Limited Turbodiesel 4x4	$75,620	12,560 lbs	12,798 lbs	24 mpg combined	17.6 mpg	26.7%	$69.05	none	624 miles

The towed load was identical for each vehicle at 6,975 pounds. Note the time they spent charging the electric truck. To Edmund's credit, they faulted the infrastructure for the delays, not the truck.

I might have to report you to the mods for introducing real World data into an argument, is that even allowed .

Anyhoo, looks like the EV is broadly as inefficient as the gas guzzlers under load. The problem with real world tests, of course, is that they stress unintended things as opposed to a theoretical exercise where you vary just one variable out of dozens. For instance, the EV, having the highest combined weight, would naturally fair poorer than the others if the route had a lot of elevation change. Also the tested efficiency was compared to EPA numbers, as opposed to doing an unloaded run with each vehicle. We kinda already know that EVs rarely hit their EPA numbers, whereas ICE vehicles are more likely to.

But great article, interesting reading. Btw, note the EPA unladen estimated range of the bottom two trucks. Theres a reason they have such huge gas tanks, and it’s because they have a much higher towing capacity, meaning they need that unladen range because when towing that 11,000 pound horse trailer, range drops off a cliff.

 

[Rocky_H]

Two extra thoughts:

This Winnemucca route on U.S. 95 is one of the handful of major pain in the ass routes in the country. I will do that when I am by myself, because I think the challenge and sense of accomplishment is interesting. But to subject one's family to it when they just want to do a family vacation is a solid way to create resentment and aggravation among them toward any electric vehicles.

My wife and I will do trips from Boise to Salt Lake City or to Portland and will take the Tesla, but when we went to Reno a couple of years ago, we took the Honda Civic instead, because I knew she wouldn't want to deal with the risky and annoying factors that would come into play on that route.

Second thing is on the trucks/towing that this has shifted to. Comparing the efficiency while towing isn't really the interesting thing. Sure, they all become terrible with that extra load. That chart had 9 columns of data but left out the single most interesting and important data point!! Range while loaded! The main difference between the gas and the electric ones that is that it's like one has a 3 gallon tank while the other has 30. The liquid fuel trucks can hold such a massive amount of fuel that people can still drive a comfortable amount of time and distance between stops even with the terrible efficiency.

 

[Konicom04]

Two extra thoughts:

This Winnemucca route on U.S. 95 is one of the handful of major pain in the ass routes in the country. I will do that when I am by myself, because I think the challenge and sense of accomplishment is interesting. But to subject one's family to it when they just want to do a family vacation is a solid way to create resentment and aggravation among them toward any electric vehicles.

My wife and I will do trips from Boise to Salt Lake City or to Portland and will take the Tesla, but when we went to Reno a couple of years ago, we took the Honda Civic instead, because I knew she wouldn't want to deal with the risky and annoying factors that would come into play on that route.

Second thing is on the trucks/towing that this has shifted to. Comparing the efficiency while towing isn't really the interesting thing. Sure, they all become terrible with that extra load. That chart had 9 columns of data but left out the single most interesting and important data point!! Range while loaded! The main difference between the gas and the electric ones that is that it's like one has a 3 gallon tank while the other has 30. The liquid fuel trucks can hold such a massive amount of fuel that people can still drive a comfortable amount of time and distance between stops even with the terrible efficiency.

so in the end - the important point here is that EV's are only a practical choice for commuters due to the charge time limitations.

My long term transportation electrification theory is that the economies will soon be using EV's for general population, while heavy transport and equipment will be on hydrogen fuel cells.
Unless of course we soon come up with more time reasonable charging.
What about capacitors instead of batteries? Not an electrician, but for some reason this option always intrigued me.

 

[Cosmacelf]

so in the end - the important point here is that EV's are only a practical choice for commuters due to the charge time limitations.

My long term transportation electrification theory is that the economies will soon be using EV's for general population, while heavy transport and equipment will be on hydrogen fuel cells.
Unless of course we soon come up with more time reasonable charging.
What about capacitors instead of batteries? Not an electrician, but for some reason this option always intrigued me.

The problem with capacitors is that they have high energy leakage. Ie. You charge them up and hours later you have half your charge left. So they are used for things like ICE vehicle red lights stop/start (because they also don’t wear out like batteries do), but that’s about it.

All you need is bigger batteries for EVs that will be towing. Just like ICE trucks that tow are given bigger fuel tanks. They are coming. The just announced RAM EV has a huge battery, and the Cybertruck is also rumored to have a large battery option.

Afterall, if you can have a laden semi with a 500 mile range, then batteries aren’t a limiting factor.

 

[JB47394]

That chart had 9 columns of data but left out the single most interesting and important data point!! Range while loaded!

That's not the most interesting bit for me because I want to know how their efficiency changes. That allows me to look at another vehicle (like the Cybertruck) and estimate its tow range. To be fair, though, I'd want to see more data. For example, show me the vehicle efficiency as a chart over the route taken. Show it with different loads. Which trends are linear and which are not?

What you're talking about is a practical consideration when looking to buy a truck for a specific towing scenario. That's what most people who do these comparisons are focusing on, which is why it was so hard to find even this much data. If you trust Edmund's numbers then the towing range can be calculated against the EPA range numbers.

Calculated highway ranges
Chevy Silverado	326 miles
Ford F-150 Lightning	220 miles
Ford F-150	462 miles
Dodge Ram Turbodiesel	457 miles

Those are dry-tank ranges, of course.

Here's some more data for towing with the Lightning.

2022 Ford F-150 Lightning Platinum Towing Test
	Forest River R Pod RP-153	Coachmen Freedom Express 246RKS	Grand Design Imagine 2910BH
TRAILER WEIGHT	3,140 lb	5,260 lb	7,218 lb
LENGTH	17 ft	28 ft 2 in	33 ft 11 in
APPROXIMATE FRONTAL AREA	77 sq ft	88 sq ft	89 sq ft
MT ROAD-TRIP RANGE	115 mi	100 mi	90 mi

It doesn't line up with Edmonds numbers. I don't believe that "MT" means "Mountain". Perhaps "Michigan Test" or some such thing. I have to assume that they pushed it to 0%, meaning that there was still the reserve in the battery, but the F-150 doesn't have a 50% reserve.

Another YouTube video set the Lightning's tow range at 130 miles with a claimed 8500 pound tow.

shrug

 

[Rocky_H]

so in the end - the important point here is that EV's are only a practical choice for commuters due to the charge time limitations.

Uhhh, no. That is the opposite of what I said. I've done 3,000+ and 5,000+ mile road trips with my electric car, and they were no problem at all, because they were on interstate highway routes that DID have charging coverage. They did not include this particular route that has a 250+ mile gap that makes it extremely difficult. The problem is not with the cars at all. It's a problem with lack of charging station coverage, which is an infrastructure issue. Interstates were done first, but we're at a point where these U.S. and state highways still need some work.

 

[outdoors]

so in the end - the important point here is that EV's are only a practical choice for commuters due to the charge time limitations.

First. Many overestimate the ability to drive long distances in short periods. Why? Most aren't long haulers. Drive the box so to speak each day.

I literally laugh when I read these type of commuter only statements.

I drive 1000 miles in a Tesla in a day. Think I have done it over 30 times. All by myself. Sometimes my dog. Can be in Montana from just about any state in two days.

Yep it's a commuter car only.

This is what I envision when I think of a commuter car. GM Commuter Concepts Predicted 238-Mile Chevy Bolt
Not a Tesla Model S with lines of beauty.

 

[Konicom04]

Uhhh, no. That is the opposite of what I said. I've done 3,000+ and 5,000+ mile road trips with my electric car, and they were no problem at all, because they were on interstate highway routes that DID have charging coverage. They did not include this particular route that has a 250+ mile gap that makes it extremely difficult. The problem is not with the cars at all. It's a problem with lack of charging station coverage, which is an infrastructure issue. Interstates were done first, but we're at a point where these U.S. and state highways still need some work.

I did that as well and loved it. The reality however is that it adds hours to the trip due to frequent stops and time it takes to charge.
Weak argument for ice loving population.

Daily driving - no brainer. Come home, plug in and before you leave in the morning the "tank" is full miraculously

 

[Cosmacelf]

The EV market is still very immature. Very few choices (or no choices) for many common usage scenarios.

In the pickup truck segment, there are many people who tow more often than they drive without towing. Those people buy extra heavy duty pickups with large gas tanks that are specifically designed for towing large loads. There is no EV on the market designed for this ... yet.

The EV market has been cherry picking the larger market segments one by one. The heavy duty pickup truck segment will get filled soonish. It just isn't here yet.

 

[Konicom04]

The EV market is still very immature. Very few choices (or no choices) for many common usage scenarios.

In the pickup truck segment, there are many people who tow more often than they drive without towing. Those people buy extra heavy duty pickups with large gas tanks that are specifically designed for towing large loads. There is no EV on the market designed for this ... yet.

The EV market has been cherry picking the larger market segments one by one. The heavy duty pickup truck segment will get filled soonish. It just isn't here yet.

Totally agree. Being the gear head that I am, I am baffeled that it takes so long for EVs to flood the market. They're just so much better - every person should drive one.

At the same time - there's gotta be a better way of storing the energy and recharging than what we use today.
I doubt "bigger is better mentality" will prevail ( i.e. pickup trucks simply need bigger battery). It will take some other form / technology that I hope will soon become obvious

 

[outdoors]

My long term transportation electrification theory is that the economies will soon be using EV's for general population, while heavy transport and equipment will be on hydrogen fuel cells.
Unless of course we soon come up with more time reasonable charging.

"Once you realise that all local trucks are going to be BEVs, along with anything doing up to 500km a day, the infrastructure for electric long distance trucks is much easier to envisage."

A good read for the folks that think hydrogen solves many of the issues.

The Clean Hydrogen Ladder [Now updated to V4.1] - liebreich

OK my lovelies, here by popular demand is Version 4.0 of my Clean Hydrogen Ladder. If you’re new to this, it’s my attempt to put use cases for clean hydrogen – whether it be green, blue, pink, turquoise or whatever – into some sort of merit order, because not all are equally likely to succeed...

www.liebreich.com

 

[Konicom04]

View attachment 925942
"Once you realise that all local trucks are going to be BEVs, along with anything doing up to 500km a day, the infrastructure for electric long distance trucks is much easier to envisage."

A good read for the folks that think hydrogen solves many of the issues.

The Clean Hydrogen Ladder [Now updated to V4.1] - liebreich

OK my lovelies, here by popular demand is Version 4.0 of my Clean Hydrogen Ladder. If you’re new to this, it’s my attempt to put use cases for clean hydrogen – whether it be green, blue, pink, turquoise or whatever – into some sort of merit order, because not all are equally likely to succeed...

www.liebreich.com

Thanks for bringing this into discussion .

What is Toyota thinking then? I know they're part of the legacy, but they seems to have things figured out and aren't influened by politics much like GM is in my opinion.
Why does Toyota insist on hydrogen so much

 

[Cosmacelf]

Thanks for bringing this into discussion .

What is Toyota thinking then? I know they're part of the legacy, but they seems to have things figured out and aren't influened by politics much like GM is in my opinion.
Why does Toyota insist on hydrogen so much

All of us here at TMC are just as baffled as you are wrt Toyota. The only explanation I can think of is that Japan allows their CEOs wide latitude to screw things over.

 

[JB47394]

Why does Toyota insist on hydrogen so much

Imagine the loss of face after nearly a decade of working on hydrogen fuel cell vehicles and insisting that they are the future. There could be all sorts of internal politics going on among the keiretsu that just didn't allow backing off of Toyota's hydrogen plans. There could also be a kind of intellectual stubbornness that prevents them from moving to electric, which is a tectonic shift in the industry. Look how long American auto makers sat on their hands even as Tesla was getting it done in a garage down the street.

 

[Rocky_H]

What is Toyota thinking then? I know they're part of the legacy, but they seems to have things figured out and aren't influened by politics much like GM is in my opinion.
Why does Toyota insist on hydrogen so much

I think it's really a two-pronged attack. They are the undisputed leader in hybrids. They have been doing commercials disparaging battery electric cars to contrast with encouraging people to stick with their hybrids. But as hybrids are getting long in the tooth, and they don't want people moving to BEVs because they don't offer any, what can they do? The second tactic is to promote that they have the next future thing of hydrogen, which should be coming along aaaany decade now, and until then, you should just stick with our hybrids, because you wouldn't want to be stuck with a dead-end intermediate thing, like BEVs, right? /sarcasm

 

[outdoors]

Why does Toyota insist on hydrogen so much

Imbedded costs. Lost art of Japanese innovation and lack of R&D as a country as a whole.

As some have said stubbornness. Well sometimes it takes a lifetime in Japan to change a company. So I will go with the only thing that will change it. Progress one funeral at a time. Science really does advance one funeral at a time, study suggests Usher out old thinking and in with new ones and managment. Good luck.

That and a few more births might help.