Is the 250 the best size Landcruiser platform since the 40 series ? (2 Viewers)

[Jetboy]

I'm a bit skeptical that Ineos will succeed. Mostly because it's just so challenging to startup an auto brand and new product manufacturing. Price isn't inline with what the vehicle is for me. If there's enough margin in each unit to make it work at G-Wagon sales volumes, it is probably okay. But if they're thinking Defender, 4Runner, or LC70 type sales volumes I think they're overestimating the demand. I'd have a hard time making a case for one over a LC70 that is roughly half the price or a LC300/GX/LC250. All of which are probably going to perform better in most scenarios. And it's incredibly expensive to build a new vehicle like this. It'll be pretty challenging for Ineos to make this work. If nothing else it's always better to have new competition.

 

[desmocruiser]

I'm a bit skeptical that Ineos will succeed. Mostly because it's just so challenging to startup an auto brand and new product manufacturing. Price isn't inline with what the vehicle is for me. If there's enough margin in each unit to make it work at G-Wagon sales volumes, it is probably okay. But if they're thinking Defender, 4Runner, or LC70 type sales volumes I think they're overestimating the demand. I'd have a hard time making a case for one over a LC70 that is roughly half the price or a LC300/GX/LC250. All of which are probably going to perform better in most scenarios. And it's incredibly expensive to build a new vehicle like this. It'll be pretty challenging for Ineos to make this work. If nothing else it's always better to have new competition.

Certainly a steep hill to climb, funny though folks that own a failed startup still end up wealthy in the end. I guess lots have changed since the days of DeLorean!

I have always wondered how Land Cruiser as a stand alone brand would perform or at least as separated as Jeep is for Stellantis?

 

[Jetboy]

Certainly a steep hill to climb, funny though folks that own a failed startup still end up wealthy in the end. I guess lots have changed since the days of DeLorean!

I have always wondered how Land Cruiser as a stand alone brand would perform or at least as separated as Jeep is for Stellantis?

I think it depends on what you mean by a stand alone brand. I would say low or zero chance Land Cruiser could work as a stand alone brand in the sense of having separate dealerships. All LC models including LC300/LC70/GX/LX/Prado combine to less than 400k units per year globally. The Land Cruiser entire brand would be outsold by the Rav4, the Corolla, the Hilux, and maybe more models. I don't think that's enough sales to support separate dealerships or stand alone branding. Toyota could expand the LC nameplate to include a line of vehicles for sure. I think that may be coming. But I don't think there is enough interest or sales to do a stand alone brand like Jeep. Not unless Toyota was going to re-brand the entire SUV lineup from the Corolla Cross up to the Sequoia as "Land Cruiser" models. I think they're best off to just leave it as it is.

 

[M1911]

@M1911 Ineos should be around because they are hedging there bets on hydrogen and they are going to sell a s***tonne to NGOs who are replacing there range rovers. LC could bite into that strategy if it a solid product. Time will tell.

Hydrogen is a false prophet. It will never go anywhere. Hydrogen vehicles can be thought of as electric vehicles but with the equivalent of a terribly inefficient battery -- that is, they have about 1/2 the efficiency of a BEV. Yes, I know, they don't have batteries per se -- it is an analogy, but an effective one. The process to extract hydrogen is inefficient and energy intensive and the fuel cell is also inefficient.

Add in the fact that there are basically no hydrogen filling stations and a new hydrogen filling station costs over $1M compared to $3,000 per charger for a public battery charger, and the reality is that hydrogen will always be a very small niche.

I don't know of any NGO that uses Range Rovers. Every one that I've seen uses either low-trim Land Cruiser 200s (now 300s) or Series 70s.

 

[Smitty512]

Hydrogen is a false prophet. It will never go anywhere. Hydrogen vehicles can be thought of as electric vehicles but with the equivalent of a terribly inefficient battery -- that is, they have about 1/2 the efficiency of a BEV. Yes, I know, they don't have batteries per se -- it is an analogy, but an effective one. The process to extract hydrogen is inefficient and energy intensive and the fuel cell is also inefficient.

Add in the fact that there are basically no hydrogen filling stations and a new hydrogen filling station costs over $1M compared to $3,000 per charger for a public battery charger, and the reality is that hydrogen will always be a very small niche.

I don't know of any NGO that uses Range Rovers. Every one that I've seen uses either low-trim Land Cruiser 200s (now 300s) or Series 70s.

Toyota Thinks A Hydrogen Land Cruiser With Combustion Engine Makes Sense - https://www.motor1.com/news/695895/toyota-hydrogen-combustion-engine-land-cruiser/
Some might argue otherwise.

 

[M1911]

Toyota Thinks A Hydrogen Land Cruiser With Combustion Engine Makes Sense - https://www.motor1.com/news/695895/toyota-hydrogen-combustion-engine-land-cruiser/
Some might argue otherwise.

I know. But they're wrong.

Here's the issue: it takes a lot of electricity to separate hydrogen.

Both hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicles (HFCEVs) and battery electric vehicles (BEVs) have an electric motor that provides the motive power. The question is, if we start with 1,000 units of electricity, how much electricity do we wend up with at the electric motor? Since both vehicles require electricity as a feedstock (either directly in the case of a BEV, or indirectly in the case of an HFCEV), where the electricity comes from makes no difference, since it is the same for both types of vehicle. Furthermore, we don't have to consider the efficiency of the electric motor itself, since both types of vehicles use electric motors and the efficiency of the motors will be quite similar.

Let's consider two scenarios: 1) you use 1000 watt-hours of electricity to create hydrogen and put it in a hydrogen fuel cell EV (HFCEV) or 2) you use that same 1000 units of electricity to charge a BEV. How much of that 1,000 watt-hours makes it to the electric motor?

Hydrogen is extracted either by electrolysis from water (less frequently) or from natural gas (most common). This is around 80% efficient. So, neglecting the input stock of water or natural gas, that 1,000 watt-hours of electricity turns into 800 watt-hour equivalents of hydrogen. We then pump this hydrogen into tank of the HFCEV. This process is around 90% efficient (it takes a high pressure pump to fill the tank, so we lose some energy in the process). So now we have .9 * 800 = 720 watt-hour equivalents of hydrogen in the tank. Finally, we use the fuel cell on board the vehicle to convert the hydrogen to electricity at the electric motor. Fuel cells are about 50% efficient. So now our 720 watt-hours becomes 360 watt-hours at the electric motor.

Note that since HFCEVs mostly use hydrogen extracted from natural gas, the process of creating hydrogen emits carbon.

Now consider the BEV. We can take that very same 1,000 watt-hours and charge the vehicle's battery. Battery charging is about 90% efficient. So we now have 900 watt-hours in the battery. We then extract the energy from the battery to the electric motor. That process of extracting from the battery is also about 90% efficient, so we have around 810 watt-hours at the electric motor.

So, in the end the BEV provides 810 watt-hours at the electric motor versus 360 watt-hours at the electric motor for the HFCEV. 810 >> 360.

I completely despise Elon Musk, but he's right on this issue: HFCEVs are dumb. The infrastructure isn't there and would require trillions of dollars to create. In contrast, anywhere we have electricity we can install an electric vehicle charger. For those who say "but we don't have enough energy production for BEVs", well, that's true, but we would need TWICE AS MUCH energy production for a fleet of HFCEVs -- hydrogen doesn't come for free. And, as previously mentioned, the cost to build hydrogen filling stations is prohibitively expensive.

There is one advantage that HFCEVs have over BEVs -- they refuel quicker if you are within range of one of the less than 167 filling stations in the US. That's it for the advantages.

 

[Corbet]

Getting way off topic but for what it's worth.... CARB approval in place.

Semi-Trucks in California Can Now Run on Hydrogen Thanks to Toyota

Toyota's hydrogen fuel cell conversion kit is designed for Class 8 heavy-duty vehicles like semis and busses.

www.roadandtrack.com

 

[carboncycles]

Hydrogen is probably one of the most feasible alternative fuels that could displace gasoline in that it has the highest energy density of all the fuels. Unfortunately, it goes back to utilization and storage (not to mention a lack of infrastructure). The Office of Energy Efficiency (how many freaking gov offices do we really need and have?!?) has a nice little blurb explaining H2 as an alternative energy source:

Hydrogen Storage

Hydrogen storage is a key enabling technology for the advancement of hydrogen and fuel cell technologies in power and transportation applications.

www.energy.gov

 

[desmocruiser]

Hydrogen is probably one of the most feasible alternative fuels that could displace gasoline in that it has the highest energy density of all the fuels. Unfortunately, it goes back to utilization and storage (not to mention a lack of infrastructure). The Office of Energy Efficiency (how many freaking gov offices do we really need and have?!?) has a nice little blurb explaining H2 as an alternative energy source:

Hydrogen Storage

Hydrogen storage is a key enabling technology for the advancement of hydrogen and fuel cell technologies in power and transportation applications.

www.energy.gov

Exactly why we shouldn’t be pushing so strongly on just EV’s, they are only part of the solution.

As we are more properly pacing EV usage into proper households and business use, we should continue development of other alternative fuels.

To be very subjective, we could see a 50-25-15-10 break down of new vehicles between ICE(including hybrids)-EV-HFCV-other in 15-20 years and I bet most people would be satisfied.

Of course at the current state of things, we will drain the EV government assistance to the bottom and then start focusing on something else (HF) to make an entirely different set of Politicians wealthy!

 

[M1911]

I think for most folks, hybrid vehicles are a better solution than BEVs or HFCEVs. This is true whether it is Toyota's full hybrid system (THS 5) or its partial hybrid system (iForce Max).

 

[desmocruiser]

I think it depends on what you mean by a stand alone brand. I would say low or zero chance Land Cruiser could work as a stand alone brand in the sense of having separate dealerships. All LC models including LC300/LC70/GX/LX/Prado combine to less than 400k units per year globally. The Land Cruiser entire brand would be outsold by the Rav4, the Corolla, the Hilux, and maybe more models. I don't think that's enough sales to support separate dealerships or stand alone branding. Toyota could expand the LC nameplate to include a line of vehicles for sure. I think that may be coming. But I don't think there is enough interest or sales to do a stand alone brand like Jeep. Not unless Toyota was going to re-brand the entire SUV lineup from the Corolla Cross up to the Sequoia as "Land Cruiser" models. I think they're best off to just leave it as it is.

Well by stand alone in this instance would be to carve out the top ~30% of Land Cruiser selling T dealers and add/subtract for proper area representation and allow those dealers who want to properly represent in their existing showroom, but invest in proper sales and technical training etc. to offer and service the product that would consist of the 300/250/70 series Land Cruiser line as each already share that nameplate.

We all feel it is a special vehicle, unfortunately not all Toyota dealers felt the same, granted some of those were geographically and/or demographically challenged when offering a ~$90k AWD vehicle, however lowering the number of offering dealers would likely raise the level of service and ultimately sales of the line.

All being said, as we currently stand the 250 alone will probably do just fine at a large majority of the existing dealers. I am just looking for an imaginary viable plan to get the rest of the line to the US!!!

 

[Jetboy]

Well by stand alone in this instance would be to carve out the top ~30% of Land Cruiser selling T dealers and add/subtract for proper area representation and allow those dealers who want to properly represent in their existing showroom, but invest in proper sales and technical training etc. to offer and service the product that would consist of the 300/250/70 series Land Cruiser line as each already share that nameplate.

We all feel it is a special vehicle, unfortunately not all Toyota dealers felt the same, granted some of those were geographically and/or demographically challenged when offering a ~$90k AWD vehicle, however lowering the number of offering dealers would likely raise the level of service and ultimately sales of the line.

All being said, as we currently stand the 250 alone will probably do just fine at a large majority of the existing dealers. I am just looking for an imaginary viable plan to get the rest of the line to the US!!!

All Toyota needed to do was sell the LC products at the same trims and prices as they do in Japan. Almost every dealership would love to have inventory of LC300's if they could sell them from a $45k base model to a $75K GR Sport on the showroom floor. Those trims at the international pricing levels would sell really well I think. Dealers didn't want a $80k vehicle that took 250 days to sell. If they could sell em, they'd have stocked them. I doubt there is a single Toyota dealership in the USA that doesn't sell 4Runners or won't sell LC250s.

The Toyota dealership model would be a move in the exact opposite direction Toyota has gone in the USA. Toyota is choosing to offer the fewest possible LC models and trims. A LC brand would require Toyota to offer a full LC lineup and expand the offerings. I'd love to see that. But it seems to be exactly the opposite of the corporate view of the USA market.

If we could get the full lineup - I'd be all for it. I just don't think Toyota seems to be interested in going that route at all given how little effort they put into the USA market BOF vehicles in general.

 

[mkennedy009]

If Hydrogen is not in the future, how about the Toyota Ammonia engine?

 

[desmocruiser]

Yes imaginary or at a minimum an opinion from experience, but zero influence on their decision!

Tariffs still play a part in US pricing

 

[Oakleyguy]

If Hydrogen is not in the future, how about the Toyota Ammonia engine?

Since you mentioned it!

https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/articles/potential-roles-ammonia-hydrogen-economy

 

[Jetboy]

Import tax on passenger vehicles is 2.5% according to google. Not sure if that's correct. It's not nothing. But $1,250 on a $50k vehicle isn't a huge deal breaker I don't think. And probably another $600ish for ocean transport vs domestic production. I think even adding $5k to the Japanese market MSRP would be accepted without much complaint in the USA market. A 50% bump is harder to accept.

 

[Oakleyguy]

Chicken tax.

 

[desmocruiser]

Import tax on passenger vehicles is 2.5% according to google. Not sure if that's correct. It's not nothing. But $1,250 on a $50k vehicle isn't a huge deal breaker I don't think. And probably another $600ish for ocean transport vs domestic production. I think even adding $5k to the Japanese market MSRP would be accepted without much complaint in the USA market. A 50% bump is harder to accept.

I think that is correct for cars.

However, isn’t the 25% still in place for trucks and SUVS?

 

[Jetboy]

I think that is correct for cars.

However, isn’t the 25% still in place for trucks and SUVS?

As best I can tell it only applies to light trucks and 2 door SUVs that are considered light trucks = basically vans like the Ford Transit or Sprinters in the commercial configurations. I think all 4 seat or more SUVs are exempt from the higher taxes. As are cab and chassis trucks. So you can import an LC79 so long as it doesn't have a factory bed on it and then add a flatbed here. The LC79 bed would not meet FHMV safety standards anyway - can't have the tie down hooks on the outside of the bed rail or anything else with a sharp corner on the outside.

 

[mkennedy009]

@Oakleyguy I was referencing Ammonia as a Fuel and not storage for Hydrogen. It is a ICE that uses Ammonia in place of gasoline.