2021 Toyota Mirai

[wbradley]

The pricing on the next gen Mirai shows that the fuel cell tech is slowly becoming less expensive. Unlike hybrids, the cost reduction could not be attributed to volume at this point.
Environmentally, less battery is better. The only question is whether the fuel cell will be reusable at end of life for the vehicle or not. That would be a big plus if the cell was essentially a removable/reusable appliance.
I had read a few years ago that researchers in South Korea had built a fuel cell that was catalyzed with carbon tubules. The cost was expected to be far less than using precious metals. Not sure if this or other revisions have reduced the fuel cell cost.
Provided hydrogen continues to prove itself safe to store in a vehicle, fuel cell tech makes a lot of sense when range and refuelling times are important.
Tesla has the lead in premium green vehicles, but I see great potential for the Mirai. The metals used in hybrid batteries could become more costly and scarcer over time. Fuel cells, afaik dont lose their power output ability in a few year like batteries.
Not knowing the lifespan of a typical fuel cell system, everything else is very compelling and it seems like the infrastructure for hydrogen production could easily be incorporated to many existing refuelling facilities.

[Spuds]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

This is true for full charging, but this isn’t the typical behavior of most people who use Superchargers. Like Dadhawk said, the advantage goes to the EVs because people can charge at home. The average person drives 30 miles or less a day, which is within the means of recharging each night on a 120v system. If people use the 240v, 48amp Tesla wall charger then they can do a full charge overnight.

Most people using Superchargers aren’t needing a full charge from a depleted battery, nor are they fully charging the car. Maybe they have 15 minutes to kill, so they charge half a charge. And of course, it is getting faster and faster to charge these cars, but hydrogen charging is fixed.

Meanwhile, home charging is plentiful, Supercharging stations are plentiful, Superchargers at the Supercharging stations are plentiful. 3rd party fast chargers and slower destination chargers are even more plentiful. They are cheap to install, relatively speaking. Many cities are integrating chargers into malls and business parking structures. In short, the difference is stark.

San Diego has one hydrogen fuel station. How many gas stations? We have more gas stations in Sonoma County and maybe within a 15 mile radius than all hydrogen fuel stations in California. Currently it is estimated that California has 10,266 public fuel stations, so hydrogen has far to go. Meanwhile, there are over 16,320 Superchargers in California, many other fast chargers and over 50k level 2 chargers, not counting home chargers.

The other thing is hydrogen fuel stations are more expensive than charging stations, and they are investing more in charging than hydrogen. It’ll be good to have both, but it is clear hydrogen is in a huge deficit.



https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.gre...infrastructure

If the average person drives 30 miles a day, then a 312 mile range Mirai would have to spend 5 minutes fueling once every 10 days.
Less if you consider that it has a small battery pack that could also be charged directly.

You know, that's exactly what I want to be doing with my spare time. Finding a charging station to add a few miles to my range. . Also, hydrogen fill time isn't a huge concern, but I'm sure if there were any incentive someone could invent a faster pump.

Supercharging stations are plentiful because Musk threw other people's money at it for the last decade. Tesla is a furnace into which people feed dollar bills. If Hydrogen had that kind of enthusiasm we would probably all be driving hydrogen cars by now.

But is a hydrogen fueling station more expensive than 18+ supercharger stations (assuming the same number of plugs as pumps)? To match the capacity of fueling stations you do have, many of which are in places you don't go to spend an hour waiting to move on, you need more than 180,000 charging stations if they all had the same amount of superchargers as pumps at the gas stations. You would need over a million level 2(?) charging stations. Now, do you really need the capacity you actually have, no, but if you really want to compare capacity against fueling stations as a metric, those are the numbers you are looking at.

Cost of a supercharger station from wikipedia:

Cost estimates per station range from US$100,000 in 2013[42] to US$270,000 in 2015, depending on the number of stalls and other circumstances.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_Supercharger

Cost of a 4-pump hydrogen station from dadhawk's article:

Stephens said each of the three new True Zero stations will cost about $700,000 to $800,000 to construct and hopes to have them ready for customers by the end of next year or early 2022.

My phone is dying, hopefully I got to everything. Please wait while I find a charger...

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Spuds

If the average person drives 30 miles a day, then a 312 mile range Mirai would have to spend 5 minutes fueling once every 10 days.
Less if you consider that it has a small battery pack that could also be charged directly.

You know, that's exactly what I want to be doing with my spare time. Finding a charging station to add a few miles to my range. . Also, hydrogen fill time isn't a huge concern, but I'm sure if there were any incentive someone could invent a faster pump.

Supercharging stations are plentiful because Musk threw other people's money at it for the last decade. Tesla is a furnace into which people feed dollar bills. If Hydrogen had that kind of enthusiasm we would probably all be driving hydrogen cars by now.

But is a hydrogen fueling station more expensive than 18+ supercharger stations (assuming the same number of plugs as pumps)? To match the capacity of fueling stations you do have, many of which are in places you don't go to spend an hour waiting to move on, you need more than 180,000 charging stations if they all had the same amount of superchargers as pumps at the gas stations. You would need over a million level 2(?) charging stations. Now, do you really need the capacity you actually have, no, but if you really want to compare capacity against fueling stations as a metric, those are the numbers you are looking at.

Cost of a supercharger station from wikipedia:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_Supercharger

Cost of a 4-pump hydrogen station from dadhawk's article:


My phone is dying, hopefully I got to everything. Please wait while I find a charger...

Finding an electric charging station shouldn't be a problem. The charging station is your garage I plug my car in to trickle charge my Braille battery. Same effort. I plug in my phone. I plug in my laptop. If the parking structure at my work had chargers then my car could be charging 23.5 hours most work days because my commute is 3.5-5 miles one way to work. If the average person drives 30 miles a day and takes two hours to do that because of bad traffic then there is the potential to charge for 22 hours. That is more than enough to serve the 30 miles a day at 120v and then some. Obviously if someone has access to a gen 3 wall charger at their house or destination then they could add potentially a maximum of 44 miles per hour of charging, which is a full charge from a full depleted battery in a typical night. This is the advantage with EVs; there are plugs everywhere and fast chargers are just an option and a means of traveling far, but not necessary for the majority of people on a daily basis.

Even if someone wanted to use a Supercharger, unless they were on a long road trip, the Supercharger would only be needed to make up the difference. For instance, if someone wanted to fully charge the car then cool, but if they just wanted to add more miles than a night of charging because they were doing a longer drive the next day into the city or to visit a friend in the next town then 5 minutes on a V3 Supercharger could add 75 miles. Add that to a slower home charger, and the example above would have added over a hundred or more miles in the worst case scenario with five minutes of effort.

https://www.motortrend.com/news/tesl...harger-tested/

Because of the above, you can't try to make an apples to apples comparison between hydrogen refueling and EV refueling. The behavior and means of charging is completely different. The fact is that if all cars where hydrogen then we would need 10,266 fuel stations converted to hydrogen or new stations built, and we are far away from that. Are they retrofitting any old stations to save cost? That could be an option, but often times it is cheaper to build new then renovate a structure because of building codes. For EVs, most people only occasionally need a supercharger. The problem is surge usage during holidays and other times.

Your cost analysis is off too. The price of the EV stations is largely the cost of the land and other logistics. They can be built relatively cheaply if there is careful planning. Read the link for a full cost breakdown of what the EVs cost to build and maintain. I think if you research what a hydrogen fuel station costs to maintain and build then you will see there is a big difference. Level 2 charging stations are super cheap. They can put them up for super cheap. Building a parking structure? Plan ahead and add refueling stations at each port. This is already happening. It dramatically brings down the cost of these installs.

There is also a wide variation in cost for installing DCFC. In the EV Project, the cost to install over 100 dual port DCFC units ranged from $8,500 to $50,820 with an average installation cost of $23,662. The lower installation costs ($8,500-$20,000) were generally for sites that were able to use existing electrical service. Figure 9 shows the distribution of EV Project DCFC installation costs, by cost tier. The WCEH had an average installation cost of $40,000 for the DCFC. The higher DCFC installation costs for the WCEH compared to the EV Project is partially due to many WCEH installations taking place in rural locations that required electrical service upgrades. The WCEH project had rigorous design and construction standards that required a deep concrete foundation. The EV Project focused on taking advantage of existing electrical service infrastructure to drive down costs.

The Orlando Utilities Commission (OUC) installed five DCFC units in Orlando with installation costs ranging from $4,000-$9,000 each (OUC 2014). They were able to minimize costs through careful selection of site locations such that minimal trenching or boring was needed to connect the DCFC to the electrical service. OUC also conducted a competitive bidding process that included training electricians on how to install EVSE.

https://afdc.energy.gov/files/u/publ...eport_2015.pdf

Besides the problem of finding a hydrogen fuel station near or needing to drive far to get to a fueling station (44 miles for the closest fueling station to me), the other issue is finding fuel at this time. They can build a lot of fuel stations, but they also need to work on making more hydrogen. Being low on fuel is a big problem right now, and they don't even have many hydrogen cars on the road. Check out the stations, and you will see for yourself.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by wbradley

The pricing on the next gen Mirai shows that the fuel cell tech is slowly becoming less expensive. Unlike hybrids, the cost reduction could not be attributed to volume at this point.

Environmentally, less battery is better. The only question is whether the fuel cell will be reusable at end of life for the vehicle or not. That would be a big plus if the cell was essentially a removable/reusable appliance.

I had read a few years ago that researchers in South Korea had built a fuel cell that was catalyzed with carbon tubules. The cost was expected to be far less than using precious metals. Not sure if this or other revisions have reduced the fuel cell cost.

Provided hydrogen continues to prove itself safe to store in a vehicle, fuel cell tech makes a lot of sense when range and refuelling times are important.

Tesla has the lead in premium green vehicles, but I see great potential for the Mirai. The metals used in hybrid batteries could become more costly and scarcer over time. Fuel cells, afaik dont lose their power output ability in a few year like batteries.

Not knowing the lifespan of a typical fuel cell system, everything else is very compelling and it seems like the infrastructure for hydrogen production could easily be incorporated to many existing refuelling facilities.

It seems the fuel cell is recyclable. I don't know how much of it is recyclable though. The life of the fuel cells seems to be 150,000-200,000 miles. I don't know what the life is on the carbon fiber fuel tanks either. Battery life for EVs, or, at least Tesla's, is pretty good. The losses are not that bad, and the new batteries are suppose to last 500,000-1,000,000 miles.



I think fuel cell vehicles are an eventuality once the infrastructure has time to catch up like stations and fuel production, but I think that future is much further away than an EV future, and it probably depends on materials for batteries being scarce, for battery technology to plateau and costs per kWh to plateau higher than is likely. If the cost of batteries continues to fall, the rate of charging continues to increase, the weight of batteries drops, etc. then hydrogen passenger cars might find a small audience. This is especially the case if the performance stays on par with the Mirai: 0-60 in 9.1 seconds!

The fuel is a big part of this whole thing. Right now, 95% of hydrogen fuel comes from fossil fuels. We are investing in wind and solar, but I don't know if we are investing in electrolysis because the energy from electrolysis will need to come from wind and solar and other renewable sources to be clean. So, we essentially need to develop electric production probably before we develop green hydrogen production. Then there is the cost of the fuel at the pump. There is a reason Toyota is offering $15,000 in free fuel. This is because most people might have some shock at the pumps. For instance, the Mirai has fuel tanks with a capacity of 32.3 gallon, but hydrogen fuel is sold by the kg, and the capacity is roughly 5 kg, and the average cost of hydrogen in California is $16/kg, so it will cost $80 to fill up the Mirai if it gets maximum miles. Price could be closer to $100, but it is "free" for 3-5 years, so this point is mostly off the table.

This is a cool article.

https://fuelcellsworks.com/news/new-...nder-the-skin/

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by beltax90

Mirai review by Doug

Thanks for posting. The external of the car is pretty bland to me, and the nose is too long, but maybe that's just the angle of the external view.

Sadly, no Mirai for me anyway since I live on the wrong side of the country for that option.

As a reviewer, Doug is growing on me, although I still have to just listen and not watch when he does external shots and is doing his impression of a goose trying to take off after getting it's leg trapped.

[mav1178]

Late replies...

Originally Posted by DarkPira7e

Nobody is going to call them out for the seriously tacky name? I'd expect it from Kia and Hyundai, not Toyota...

Edit: for those not in the know, Mirai means future

Why not? It's Toyota's gamble on the future after all. They're invested in hybrid + FCVs moving forward, not battery.

Originally Posted by Sasquachulator

I read that the mirai started off as the next gen Lexus GS project before that car was dropped completely, and then this just got repurposed as a Toyota Mirai.

There are some Lexus cues in it (Especially the instrument binnacle area...looks straight out of Lexus) and the fact that the Mirai started off as an oddball looking FWD stretched Prius tank and all of a sudden did a complete 180 on a RWD platform with proper RWD size and proportions and relatively good looks makes that rumor believable.

First gen Mirai is built on a modified Prius platform, hence the odd shape and size. The car also had part of the fuel cell stack mounted in the passenger cabin so there was always odd noises coming when the car was running, my friend's dad has one. Just starting it in the garage and you hear all sorts of random crap for a car that was supposed to be future tech.

Originally Posted by Spuds

They managed to reduce stack weight by 50% and increase power. But then increased vehicle weight by 200lb? Possibly due to the increased size or fuel tank layout/capacity?

The main reason for the weight increase was the use of the Lexus LS RWD platform (instead of the lighter Priux XW30 platform).

Originally Posted by Spuds

You actually don't need as many hydrogen stations as chargers for the same amount of cars. To fill an empty hydrogen car is what, 5 minutes?

That's my number one reason for wanting a fuel cell vehicle as my next true non-gasoline car. Once you have enough stations set up, you can go anywhere...

If there's enough range for me to drive to Mammoth Mountain and back without refuelling (currently ~600 miles from my house) then that is the one I'll buy.

Originally Posted by wbradley

The pricing on the next gen Mirai shows that the fuel cell tech is slowly becoming less expensive. Unlike hybrids, the cost reduction could not be attributed to volume at this point.

More efficient manufacturing, if nothing else. The platform is more cost effective since it wasn't so heavily modified, and plus they were able to fit the actual fuel cell stack under the hood for a change.

Still, the tiny trunk is very disappointing, as well as the oddly large transmission tunnel.

[DarkPira7e]

Originally Posted by mav1178

Why not? It's Toyota's gamble on the future after all. They're invested in hybrid + FCVs moving forward, not battery.

For exactly that reason- it's the future now, but in 40 years it'll be some prehistoric tech that started something possibly worthwhile.
Imagine if Nintendo or someone named their next ground breaking console "Mirai".

I'm not saying they can't, just that the word dates whatever it's attached to immediately

[Spuds]

Originally Posted by DarkPira7e

For exactly that reason- it's the future now, but in 40 years it'll be some prehistoric tech that started something possibly worthwhile.
Imagine if Nintendo or someone named their next ground breaking console "Mirai".

I'm not saying they can't, just that the word dates whatever it's attached to immediately

Mirai is a test vehicle. My guess is they are planning to move the more recognizable nameplates to hfcv and retire the Mirai name until the next big thing. It's actually brilliant because now they own that name for a car. If fuel cells/ vehicles are successful, which I am certain they will be, it's a great marketing move to get people on board with the next big technology shift.

But I suppose they could have did what Ford did and name their first bev cuv after their muscle car, which is named after a plane which is named after an even older transportation technology...

[DarkPira7e]

Originally Posted by Spuds

Mirai is a test vehicle. My guess is they are planning to move the more recognizable nameplates to hfcv and retire the Mirai name until the next big thing. It's actually brilliant because now they own that name for a car. If fuel cells/ vehicles are successful, which I am certain they will be, it's a great marketing move to get people on board with the next big technology shift.

But I suppose they could have did what Ford did and name their first bev cuv after their muscle car, which is named after a plane which is named after an even older transportation technology...

Makes sense for a test name. Owning the name is a good move, you're right. Last thing we need is GM owning it and assigning it to their vehicle with built in microwaves to align with a pre-cooked food strategy for fast food chains.

[FR-S2GT86]

Originally Posted by DarkPira7e

Makes sense for a test name. Owning the name is a good move, you're right. Last thing we need is GM owning it and assigning it to their vehicle with built in microwaves to align with a pre-cooked food strategy for fast food chains.

GM sucks! They are nailing their own coffin shut and I refuse to ever purchase another one of their vehicles. Need proof? See here:

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by FR-S2GT86

GM sucks! They are nailing their own coffin shut and I refuse to ever purchase another one of their vehicles. Need proof? See here

Not saying this doesn't suck on the part of GM, but I guess you are saying you think this tactic is a GM only one? At one point or another every manufacturer has faced similar issues and not owned up to them.

Let's take one I have experience with the 2003 Honda Accord. Not only are the transmissions known to slip and basically lose 2nd gear (so much so that Honda faced a lawsuit and extended the warranty but most problems didn't occur until AFTER the mileage in the extended warranty). The problem is bad enough the transmission cannot be repaired, it has to be replaced. They also have self-peeling clear coat on them that starts coming off usually about the time the car hits just above the paint warranty. The only remedy is a full repaint.

[ichitaka05]

Originally Posted by beltax90

IDK why ppl watch him review cars. Seeing in person PLUS watching some review clearly don't know what he's talking about nor bother reading the spec info GIVEN to him.

[ichitaka05]

Originally Posted by beltax90

i just think its cool when he points out "quirks and features" and easter eggs and automotive innovations of cars i'll never sit in, especially minivans.

had no idea a lot of minivans now come with built in vacuum cleaners and loud speakers to speak to kids in back.

also would have never known about hyundais cool gauge cluster where the tach and speedo screens turn into the views from the cameras mounted on the side mirrors.



stuff like that keeps me interested in his videos. he's pretty good at pointing out what's trending in the industry

it took a while for me to appreciate his vids and yes he's kinda cheesy sometimes but you kind of have to be if you're really into little "quirks and features" of like every car as an enthusiast. plus on his second channel he's pretty good at explaining his reasoning for buying his own personal cars and it's pretty sound.

of course people shouldnt just rely on watching a video to make a purchase, but it can definitely be a tool in your overall decision.

I see what you mean with quirks and features... just as a car journalists, he's a ****. Here's an example. He went to Supra event. Yes, he didn't get a VIP invite by Toyota, so prob he bought the ticket & hotel out of his pocket. In the morning journalists get quick presentation and afterward drive the Supra from the hotel to the track. Fucking 8am in the morning (maybe it was 9), he was near yelling at the Toyota staff that he "needs" Supra by himself and don't need other journalist to drive with him, because he came to this event by himself. Toyota staff planned to have all car journalists to have equal amount of time w the Supra. FYI Staff gave EVERY journalists a time to track, drive (on the street) and have an one-on-one with it without any hesitation. Hell, I went on extra track lap to test few assist features for the hell of it. Of course, if you want specific color Supra to use for the review, that's a different story (cuz they only had 1 color each). I could keep going, but prob not a good idea. lol

*disclaimer* I was in the same boat as him for the Supra event, cuz I didn't get Toyota VIP invite and they told me to I need to fly in and stay out of my pocket. Which I was willing to do. But thankfully there was a spot opened up plus Tada-san request, I got the VIP invite.

[FR-S2GT86]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

Not saying this doesn't suck on the part of GM, but I guess you are saying you think this tactic is a GM only one? At one point or another every manufacturer has faced similar issues and not owned up to them.

Let's take one I have experience with the 2003 Honda Accord. Not only are the transmissions known to slip and basically lose 2nd gear (so much so that Honda faced a lawsuit and extended the warranty but most problems didn't occur until AFTER the mileage in the extended warranty). The problem is bad enough the transmission cannot be repaired, it has to be replaced. They also have self-peeling clear coat on them that starts coming off usually about the time the car hits just above the paint warranty. The only remedy is a full repaint.

You've made some accurate statements, but they aren't enough and I'm still not swayed.

At least Honda had the decency to extend their warranty voluntarily on those and a few of their other transmissions, as well as some of their turbo-charged, direct-injected engines.

You still haven't convinced me otherwise to NOT buy anything else from this version of GM.

I remember the melting dashes on the second generation Toyota Solaras that Toyota, via a TSB, would replace through an extended warranty claim program. That was a very expensive repair for Toyota, but true to their words, they took care of their customers.

GM blaming the failure of their 8-speed transmissions and the cracking of their C8 Corvette rims on "design flaws" and not "defects in material and workmanship" in order to cop out on the manufacturers' warranty, instead of owning up to the problem and taking care of their customers is simply despicable.

Instead of admitting the fact that they simply built and sold junk (as some of their most expensive vehicles, mind you) and then attempted to cover it up and blame THEIR OWN DESIGNERS while fooling their customers with legal language should prove to anyone that this company doesn't deserve to do business here.

This isn't even the same company as it was prior to the bankruptcy and bail-out THAT WE ALL HERE IN THE US PAID FOR.

So in my mind, if a company builds junk, sells junk, and their warrantys are junk, then that company deserves to fail. I would rather purchase any of Toyota's lowest-quality 20 year-old used vehicles before I ever purchased one of GM's newest, and highest-quality vehicles. Period.