Topic: Toyota -- 600 million per year to make all Flex-Fuel????? (Read 1438 times)

1outlaw · « **on:** February 26, 2010, 12:16:25 PM »

Oh Sure

I believe Toyota just keeps losing credibility. AND- if it could possibly even cost $300 per vehicle with total engineering, parts upgrade, and warranty-- if all in a market have to have it then not only does the costs/unit go down but the selling prices even out totally negating the minimal added costs. Get with it Toyota before you lose what little consumer confidence you still have. OH- and BTW- what is your current problems going to cost you where you cut corners and influenced regulators while other manufacturers tried to "tow the line" with the higher costs of doing business as required while you stuffed your pockets and took advantage?

http://detnews.com/article/20100225/AUTO01/2250447/Toyota-concerned-flex-fuel-mandates-could-cost-it-$600M-yearly

Toyota concerned flex-fuel mandates could cost it $600M yearly
David Shepardson / Detroit News Washington Bureau
Washington -- Toyota Motor Corp. executives worried last summer about what it perceived as an emerging uneven playing field in the United States, and said new fuel requirements could cost it up to $600 million annually.

The concerns were included in the release by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee of what appears to be the complete, 28-page version of a now infamous memo prepared for the company's new North American president Yoshi Inaba in July 2009 -- on his second day on the job.

Other parts of that presentation became public earlier this week, and revealed the automaker as bragging about its success in avoiding or delaying costly regulatory actions, including widespread safety recalls.

The newly released pages reveal the depth of Toyota's concern over flexible-fuel vehicle mandates. Flexible-fuel vehicles can run on traditional fuel blends or E85, which is made of 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline.

Toyota said flex-fuel mandates could cost the company $200 to $300 per vehicle -- or $400 million to $600 million annually.

The presentation featured a photograph of President Barack Obama and included a quote from his campaign literature:

"Barack Obama and Joe Biden will work with Congress and auto companies to ensure that all new vehicles have FFV capability."

The presentation noted that Toyota had avoided the requirements so far.

It noted that Toyota had beaten back attempts to make last summer's "cash for clunkers" program apply to only North American-built vehicles. Toyota was the biggest beneficiary of the program that grew to $3 billion.

The presentation called the program a "conquest" for Toyota.

It also worried about the impact of a measure dubbed "card check," which would make it easier for workers to unionize. Toyota has managed to avoid unionization of its U.S. plants.

Delaying the legislation was chalked up in the memo as another "win" for Toyota.

Separately, Toyota's president Akio Toyoda and Inaba met with Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood for 30 minutes this morning at the department's headquarters.

The meeting, which included National Highway Traffic Safety Administration chief David Strickland, was "productive and focused on the importance of safety and working cooperatively to protect consumers in the U.S.," the department said in a statement.

One recommendation made by Toyota's Washington office, to accelerate decision-making in the United States, appeared to go unheeded. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration was critical of the inability of Toyota officials in the United States to make decisions, saying it often took too long to get decisions from Japan on recalls and other issues.

The Toyota internal presentation urged establishment of a "small senior exec. group in U.S. to make timely decisions," and initiate action on legislative and regulatory issues. It also noted the benefit of having engineers in Washington.

"Many issues require immediate (or near immediate) response," the presentation said. "Provide quick response based on daily communication with (Toyota in Japan) and ... to educate lawmakers to have reasonable legislation and regulation."

Toyota said this week it is adding more engineers in the United States and at least three new engineering centers.

Other newly revealed parts of the internal presentation explain the company's concerns about the $85 billion auto industry bailout.

"Government $ for GM/Chrysler," the presentation read. "Not a level playing field."

The presentation said there were "adverse implications" for Toyota of government support for bankrupt GM and Chrysler.

Ironically, Japan is considered one of the world's most closed markets for non-Japanese automakers.

The presentation noted that Ford Motor Co, Tesla Motors Inc. and Nissan Motor Co had received $7 billion in Energy Department retooling loans.

Toyota executives also were worried about "Buy American" attitudes being "on the rise," as well as import taxes, border tariffs and support for auto suppliers.

The company fretted over the impact of new consumer financial regulation on its lending arm, Toyota Motor Credit.

dshepardson@detnews.com (202) 662-8735

From The Detroit News: http://detnews.com/article/20100225/AUTO01/2250447/Toyota-concerned-flex-fuel-mandates-could-cost-it-$600M-yearly#ixzz0gfQdCJnb

Thumpin455 · « **Reply #33 on:** March 10, 2010, 11:35:05 AM »

The prius has a big button on the dash, and the key chain just needs to be close to the car for it to run, so no steering interlock like older cars. I dont know if it has and interlock preventing you from putting it in neutral or not but it would be stupid to prevent that as it has very little chance of being detrimental but could help in quite a few situations. Who knows though, I have never liked the engineering on Hondas and Toyotas, it isnt what I would call intuitive.

Maybe they are assuming that all cars would need exotic or stainless fuel systems and that is why the price is so high.

fleebut · « **Reply #32 on:** March 10, 2010, 11:24:11 AM »

So, modern safe auto's protects operator from starting car in gear, by demanding shut down sequence of :

1. Foot on brake
2. Gear shift selector in park
3. The safety software or mechanism then allows operator to shut off car, turn key and remove.

This is supposedly all to ensure car won't roll off as it's in park and when starting the car is park. Problem of unintended consequences, no fail safe to shut engine off upon auto malfunctions running down the road. I have to say, when the regulators trying to justify their livelihoods, high salaries, and costly education .....their getting too tricky for their own good. The regulations of auto industry is encyclopedic, thanks to the politics of Nader.

Dan M · « **Reply #31 on:** March 10, 2010, 10:12:13 AM »

Quote from: cessna on March 10, 2010, 08:31:05 AM

Just heard the 911 tape and the operator asked the guy twice if he could put it in neutral---he said no. Makes one wonder if he is qualified to drive.

Possibly the electronics locked it in gear ..due to whatever malfunction ?

rusty70f100 · « **Reply #30 on:** March 10, 2010, 09:25:17 AM »

Quote from: Obormot on March 10, 2010, 12:15:23 AM

usually steering column locking when you remove key, not when turn off ignition.

That's not how my Ford's work.

cessna · « **Reply #29 on:** March 10, 2010, 08:31:05 AM »

Just heard the 911 tape and the operator asked the guy twice if he could put it in neutral---he said no. Makes one wonder if he is qualified to drive.

HuskerFlex · « **Reply #28 on:** March 10, 2010, 08:06:12 AM »

I was thinking that the 911 operator would have the specific instructions on how to slow-down/stop the vehicle...

Obormot · « **Reply #27 on:** March 10, 2010, 12:15:23 AM »

usually steering column locking when you remove key, not when turn off ignition.

rusty70f100 · « **Reply #26 on:** March 09, 2010, 10:49:23 PM »

That could very well be. I certainly wouldn't want to test it while moving though.

TD · « **Reply #25 on:** March 09, 2010, 06:00:56 PM »

Isn't the steering column lock still dependent on the vehicle being in park (which requires the vehicle to be stopped)?

rusty70f100 · « **Reply #24 on:** March 09, 2010, 05:55:43 PM »

Yeah, he should have just shifted into neutral. All that would happen, is the engine would rev up and hit the rev limiter, and you could stop. You'd still have power steering, brakes, etc. Then when stopped, turn off the engine. It really isn't that complicated. I guess people either don't understand what to do, or are just so scared at the time that they can't think clearly.

You wouldn't want to turn off the ignition while the car is still moving, as most cars have a steering wheel lock tied to the key.

TD · « **Reply #23 on:** March 09, 2010, 04:22:24 PM »

The guy wanted to slow it to a safe speed so he wouldn't lose his power steering.

Last I heard, PS was only really needed a low speed.....

cessna · « **Reply #22 on:** March 09, 2010, 07:28:17 AM »

Just saw where another Prius wouldn't stop until a police car got in front to slow it down. My question is----can you shift to neutral when driving the Camry and Prius? If so, it seems if you can talk on your cell phone for a half hour, you should be able to remember to shift to N.

rusty70f100 · « **Reply #21 on:** February 28, 2010, 10:57:10 AM »

Quote from: fleebut on February 28, 2010, 07:52:14 AM

The $300 figure probably an oranges and apples comparison to what GM stated. The devil is in the details. My guess Toyota took an estimate of hardware, labor burden rate to install, and spread the entire cost of overhead to administer, engineer, R&D, and testing over a year or two of production. GM was referring to hardware only.

That's exactly the point I was trying to make. I wasn't trying to start any government discussion or anything. No reason to get all flustered, Dan.

SacramentoE-85 · « **Reply #20 on:** February 28, 2010, 10:39:12 AM »

Cessna, it's probably both. 1) Toyota screwed up and seems to have proudly tried to cover it up. 2) The government has its hands in the domestic auto industry and is taking advantage of an opportunity, much as business people normally do. Not saying it's right, but that's the normal outcome.

The REAL problem will be when we find out 3 years from now that GM has a HUGE problem with one of their parts (brakes, accelerator, air bags, etc.) and we find out that government officials worked with GM to cover it up as long as possible, causing lives. Very likely to happen with a conflict of interest like we have with the government being involved in private business matters.

Same is likely with banking, mortgages, and the like. Heck, we certainly HAVE seen it with mortgages...