Did Toyota Get the Shaft? Big 3 and White House Choose Biofuels Instead of Hybrids

Joint statement attributable to Chrysler Group president and CEO Tom LaSorda, Ford Motor Company president and CEO Alan Mulally, and General Motors chairman and CEO Rick Wagoner regarding the meeting between President George W. Bush and the CEOs of America’s domestic auto industry:

We appreciate the President meeting with us today on issues that are critical to reducing our nation’s gasoline consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. We had an open and constructive discussion on the use of renewable and alternative fuels.

All three companies conveyed to the President their support for reducing gasoline consumption in the U.S. A significant portion of such reductions can come from the continued development and use of biofuels. We reiterated that each company stands ready to make half of its annual vehicle production E85 flexible fuel vehicles (FFV) or capable of running on biodiesel by 2012. To capitalize on these commitments, we emphasized with the President the need for increased incentives to produce and distribute biofuels.

We briefed the President about the more than 6 million FFVs on the road today and we will add over a million FFV cars and trucks in 2007 alone. We explained to the President that if all these vehicles were running on E85, they would displace more than 3.6 billion gallons of gasoline a year. And even more compelling, if all the E85 capable vehicles on the road today – along with those that GM, Ford and DaimlerChrysler have already committed to produce over the next 10 years were to run on E85 – we could displace 22 billion gallons of gasoline annually. Also, if all manufacturers made a comparable commitment to make half their annual production capable of running on biofuels, we could increase the savings to 37 billion gallons of gasoline annually in 2017.

Furthermore, we pointed out the benefits of clean diesel technology and that if all diesel vehicles today were fueled with B5 (five percent biodiesel) we could displace 1.85 billion gallons of petroleum per year; and 7.4 billion gallons per year if B20 (20 percent biodiesel) were utilized.

In order to achieve these levels of petroleum savings, we asked the President to help provide Americans with reasonable access to these fuels at a price that is competitive with gasoline. Right now there are approximately 1,100 E85 pumps in the U.S. and 1,000 biodiesel pumps, out of 170,000 gas stations. We expressed to the President that we are willing to lead the way, but we need government and fuel providers to increase infrastructure before we can make a meaningful impact.

In addition, we discussed with the President that as part of an overall national strategy to fully tap the potential of biofuels to displace petroleum, vehicle production increases must be accompanied by continuing the incentives that encourage the manufacture, distribution, and availability of biofuels and the production of flexible fuel vehicles.

We updated the President that we are working on a wide range of advanced vehicle technologies that run on alternative fuels such as E85, biodiesel, electricity and hydrogen. Plug-in hybrid vehicles can play a significant role in our transportation future. Increased funding for domestic battery research and development can help accelerate bringing these vehicles to market.

Overall, we were pleased with the exchange that we had with the President and all parties came away with an understanding of the significant, positive impact that biofuels can make on the environment and in reducing our nation’s reliance on oil.

We welcome the opportunity to continue working with President Bush, his Administration, and the Congress in a bipartisan manner and to move forward on solutions to these issues while continuing to do our part to ensure America’s long-standing leadership in manufacturing and innovation.

Westside7th - 3/26/2007 2:33:06 PM

+4 Boost

Where is Toyota even mentioned in this article?

Agent009 - 3/26/2007 3:07:16 PM

+4 Boost

Toyota was not invited to the summit, and how many E85 vehicles does it currently have?

nvme - 3/27/2007 9:49:36 AM

0 Boost

this obviously is a malicious manoeuvre by the gouv to undermine toyota with the advance they have on the hybrid front! one fact is worth knowing: you'd have to turn Texas into one field exclusively producing, in fine, biofuel, in order to supply NY state with barely what it needs! besides, this doesn't solve the dependance issue, because instead of depending - having to make war to - on petrol countries, the US will in the wake of this policy - if you can call it a policy - depend on agricultural third world countries. moreover, the fuel chosen here is endorsed by petroleum companies, because they will still be able to make money with it since they own the distribution network, whereas Hybrid technologies will ultimately lead to non-fossil-fuel-type-market,in which they have no advantage whatsoever!
Next time you vote, please remember this and think about it!

drew630 - 3/26/2007 2:36:21 PM

+6 Boost

IMO, the President is simply trying to find a solution that will benefit Americans the most. Yes, hybrids reduce our demand for foreign oil, but that is it. E-85 vehicles reduce our need and also provide more jobs/work for Americans.

nvme - 3/27/2007 9:52:33 AM

0 Boost

read my post just above yours... the president cares only about a very select few!

Rupert - 3/26/2007 4:17:14 PM

-3 Boost

biodiesel = diesel with some bio in it.
It's still a fossil fuel, and E85 gets worse fuel consumption.
Biodiesel hybrid would be great.

Rupert - 3/26/2007 5:33:15 PM

-2 Boost

Oh yeah.
Wait I knew that!
My mind is switched off, sorry.

VinnyP - 3/26/2007 3:47:09 PM

+1 Boost

Toyota did get shafted, but as said before, how many Bio-Fuel cars do they have, GM is the only maker I know of with their Saab vehicles, I could be wrong there may be more.

But what is not to say that since Toyota was able to capitalize on the hybrid market, that it couldn't do the same for Bio-fuels. I say watch the battle ahead and you will see.

rg12345 - 3/26/2007 4:17:47 PM

-1 Boost

well MB, VW and some others are trying to enter the market with the bio diesel since a few years ago. Unless the batteries get a huge jump (in storage capacity) we won't see to many hybrids around. Just impractical sometimes (the cars). The current batteries are way to heavy with to little juice inside. And looks like nobody can do anything about that. Rumors about the batteries built on nano-particle technology that will keep a regular cell phone up to 5 years without a charge, but that's just rumors for now.

On the other side , the bio-fuels are here and it can be done a lot to improve the technology (easily). So why not jump on a fuel that will have no emissions(as tested by VW- no CO2)

It's up to US Government to choose the right solution (for USA of course); don't really trust them, but we should, right?

webguy - 3/26/2007 4:25:14 PM

+4 Boost

Not at all… Where does it say or even imply the White House chose biofuels INTSTEAD of hybrids? Hybrids aren’t made obsolete by alternative fuels, they compliment any source of fuel. The need for better mileage doesn’t vanish with the arrival of E85, and the concept of storing and reusing energy will still be a viable technology when we move beyond biofuel to fuel cell. (Though I think current hybrid technology still needs to evolve considerably.)

So Toyota might have to build FlexFuel hybrids now. I doubt they’re panicking. Is it any wonder why Toyota offered to compete in the showrooms but share in the labs?

VinnyP - 3/27/2007 3:04:23 PM

+1 Boost

Well...the goverment could give more incentives for Bio-fuels compared to hybrids...just like how in California there were more incentives are larger vehicles than for the electric car, which eventually killed the electric car.

rocker - 3/26/2007 4:34:05 PM

-2 Boost

Would biofuels create more jobs? Would need more corn and variious other crops to meet demand which would increase the amount of farming required and manufacturing processing. Oil industry would suffer but there are still a million and 1 uses for oil and it's buy products. Once the demand rose and more competition was formed, prices should come back down for things like E85.

rocker - 3/26/2007 4:38:42 PM

+2 Boost

And did Toyota get shafted? They are not a US company. Bush is not their government's leader. If Toyota collapses, it will affect the US but not like if GM or Ford went under. Why didn't thee article mention BMW, MB, Audi, VW, etc?

1970toyotamarc - 3/26/2007 6:04:09 PM

-1 Boost

Chrysler got invited, and they are not an American company

Agent009 - 3/27/2007 8:21:33 AM

-1 Boost

Toyota should have been invited IMHO, because of the sheer volume of vehicles produced and sold in the US. The are part of the overall fabric of the industry.

The lack of their input and the relative short supply of hybrids in the domestic inventory plus the relative availability to convert to E85 made it a slam dunk for the domestics.

It cost them less to convert to E85 than to develop hybrids so the deck was stacked in their favor from the start. Anything that uses fossil fuel is a stop gap to the ultimate solution, and all should be considered, not just what is easy and cheap for the domestics to make.

It was VERY short sighted not to invite Toyota.

OBSERVER1984 - 3/26/2007 4:51:57 PM

+3 Boost

If GM Ford and Chrysler can make cars with E85, wheres, the problem Toyota to make too!?!

There isn't any problem for Toyota!

Agent009 - 3/27/2007 8:22:48 AM

0 Boost

Toyota certainly can make an E85 car. But they have chosen Hybrids to focus on.

BigShow50 - 3/26/2007 7:08:11 PM

-1 Boost

Some(well at least one person) thinks that Hybrid is a temporary fix. True to a certain extent. I personally believe that Toyota is perfecting hybrid, then hybrid fuel cell, or hybrid diesel, assisted with Lithium-Ion technology,...etc, while they evolve in perfecting a "Full Electric Motor" behind close doors of coarse. Keep in mind this is "Corporate America aka lots and lots of OIL!" So Toyota is easing there way into the future with a non-fuel vehicle. Besides what does the domestic really have to say about hybrids? Not much at all since Hybrid is more complex system than Bio-Ethanol and the Big 3 don't have the deep pockets to conduct extensive R&D(why do you think other automakers have to merge, to only come out with a hybrid half as powerful as Toyota's?)...as for Toyota they are smart enough to stay hush-hush. While the Big 3 brown-noses the wrong character, that honestly may not care(if not at all) as much in the next 1 1/2 years and is just going with the flow...think about that.

chewy - 3/26/2007 7:30:04 PM

0 Boost

E85=No

Biodiesel is 4 times better.

kart1 - 3/26/2007 7:36:38 PM

+2 Boost

E85 isn't as great as some make it out to be. Basically it is the lazy way to become green, sorry YELLOW.

delan - 3/26/2007 8:02:59 PM

+2 Boost

I agree, and it is a little retarded. E85 is less efficient and costs more. Nice try, but lets see RevA to this plan. Unless they make it more attractive to the consumer they will fail miserably.

webguy - 3/26/2007 8:14:17 PM

+2 Boost

I don’t think "Green" is the aim here. It’s independence from foreign oil. That, along with "cheaper" is very attractive to the American consumer. Also, mass production will make for more efficient engines in short order, and the MPG gap will narrow significantly if not disappear entirely.

neutral - 3/27/2007 2:42:12 AM

+3 Boost

EVERYONE......

Algae biodiesel is the way to go. It is something like 5000 times more efficient per unit land of production (I'm not making this up). Go onto google and type in "algae biodiesel".

GodfatherSHM - 3/27/2007 6:54:09 AM

+1 Boost

Thanks to E85 we are paying higher prices for milk, poultry, beef and grains...the government already subsidizes farmers a lot to help with agricultural production, so our taxes are also paying for that...then the big three say that they need incentives from the government to produce clean burning fuels...which will come out of our tax dollars, and then they will charge 5 grand more per a car because "of the added cost of technology" which comes out of our pockets...does anyone else see the irony here that, we in essence are the ones paying for all of this "cleaner" technology, since when did it NOT become the big three's responsibilty to spend a little of their own money. And why should the government give the incentives anyway, if they truly care about the environment, then they would take on the task themselves and not ask for handouts...just be prepared to pay dollars higher prices at the grocery store and car dealerships, so we can save a 20 cents at the pump...

Agent009 - 3/27/2007 8:25:46 AM

0 Boost

So in effect is it double or triple taxation?

Subsidize the growth of corn via tax dollars.
Subsidize the use of E85 technology with tax dollars.
Tax the E85 per gallon to build roads.

hmmm?

XYZZ - 3/27/2007 11:17:03 AM

0 Boost

since we have the very BEST "democracy" that money can buy, the companies with big lobbying clout always manage to SHIFT whatever costs they can't pass on to customers, to us helpless taxpayers instead.

and often, they manage to double dip too!

quizz - 3/27/2007 11:31:26 AM

+2 Boost

Three reasons biodiesel is the answer (for now):
1. Renewable resource that ANY COUNTRY can sustain, and with the advent of algae biodiesel, the advantages can only increase
2. Any current unmodified diesel engine can use biodiesel, because biodiesel is nothing more than a cleaner burning diesel fuel. So you can put 100% biodiesel in your brand new Mercedes E320CDI with zero problems, and better yet, it's better for your engine than regular diesel.
3. And the best part? It's cheaper to produce than ethanol, although at this time, it is not yet cheaper than petroleum due to the small scale nature of this new technology. However, give it time and in 10 years, as production ramps up, it should be as cheap if not cheaper than current petroleum prices.

Hybrids was never the solution. All Hybrid does is reduce the amount of fossile fuel, but it still uses fossil fuel. Hybrids can be used with any engine, but is not a stand alone solution.

scott064 - 3/28/2007 10:39:13 AM

+1 Boost

Gas was expensive in it's early days but the more we depended on it and the better infrastructure, the cheaper it became. Just because E85 isn't perfect in it's most earliest stages doesn't mean it's not a viable solution. A transition is never painless, but as of now this seems to be the fuel that makes the most sense.