Toyota Mirai Fuel Cell Sedan – Images & Videos From 2014 LA Auto Show

NOV 24 2014 BY MARK KANE 24

The recently unveiled Toyota Mirai raised a lot of discussion on InsideEVs (well over 100 comments) and in the broader media too.

We will look further into the fate of hydrogen fuel cell powered cars in the future, but for now let’s just see how Mirai looks on the stage at the 2014 LA Auto Show.

Toyota presented a cutaway of the car, which shows us how much space the fuel cell components consume (no chance for a frunk like in the Tesla Model S).

Below we attached images and a few of the latest videos on the Toyota Mirai.

Toyota Mirai

Toyota Mirai

Toyota Mirai

Toyota Mirai

Toyota Mirai

Toyota Mirai

Toyota Mirai

Toyota Mirai

Categories: Toyota

Tags: ,

Leave a Reply

24 Comments on "Toyota Mirai Fuel Cell Sedan – Images & Videos From 2014 LA Auto Show"

newest oldest most voted

Its a wonder it didn’t blow the place up.

I’m sure you’ll understand when you grow up.

By the time I grow up fuel cells will be a bad memory.

We can all hope. (I’ll leave it to you to decide what I mean.) The problem with FCVs isn’t the hydrogen storage. A CNG tank was recently shot with armor-piercing bullets and it didn’t explode, and they’re not as strong as the hydrogen tanks. The problem is the hydrogen creation. If they fix that problem, FCVs will be a good (but possibly unnecessary) option for drivers.

Don’t be too hopeful! And keeps his comments, to showcase the intellect of its visitors!

Considering that they leave your troll posts around, it is clear that insideevs is pretty tolerant.

“That’s their car?”

Looks like this generation fuel cell stack takes up as much space as the battery in a leaf or e-golf.

Yes, my thought too. But then the range in this fuel cell vehicle is supposed to be 3 times longer, so there are upsides. So far atleast. But, there is very little future potential in hydrogen compared to batteries, when it comes to range. To increase range in a FCV there are only these three (unique) factors to change: 1. Increase the volume of the tanks. -Causes a few problems. The obvious is that you take space from other stuff, like the trunk. But the less obvious is that when you make a larger tank you need to make the thickness of the walls much greater (due to laws of thermodynamics), so you end up not gaining that much usable volume after all. 2. Increase the pressure. -You probably know that it takes energy to pressurize gas, and that energy is lost. If you would inrease the pressure of the H2 in the tanks, the pesky laws of physics would make you loose even more energy. (Maybe though there could be a system that acutally would convert the pressure to usable energy, just like airpressure driven cars. But it would complicate stuff.) 3. Make the fuel cell more efficient. 60%… Read more »

It’s absurd to talk about increasing the range of fuel cell stack, since a 300 mile fill-up is just 3 minutes. Barely enough time for most people to take a bio break. You don’t have to eat and wait next to rest stop for an hour, as in the case of a certain well-known long-range EV.

I was pleasantly surprised, that it costs just $30 to fill up for 300 miles. This is cheaper that what I pay for gas.

Most fuel cell fill ups I’ve seen take lik 10 minutes. And consider ing the severe lack of H2 stations, having longer range is important.

There is this basic point that I didn’t meantion. The price of electricity is (less than) half of that of hydrogen, and that ratio will stay for several decades to come. So that would mean you would spend twice as much money just by driving a FCV compared to an EV.

As I just stated there is a huge potential in every aspect of an EV, charging time included. Already today there are electric buses and ferries that are charged with 600 kW-1 MW. As batteries improve also cars will get charged with that kind of power. The charging time will be less of a problem when the EV’s are doing 500+ miles per charge in a not too distant future, since more the car can be charged while parked during night or when not used.

Yes, there are benefits with hydrogen compared to gasoline. But the benefits of EV’s will overtake just about all those benefits of the FCV. It is just a matter of time. Ultimately the user cost will be the judge.

The single benefit of not having to go find a hydrogen, or gasoline, station, for the vast majority of the time, is perhaps the most understated BEV convenience of all.

80 mile BEVs may prove too short, but somewhere between this and Tesla’s falling $25,000 batteries, it’s game over.

$30 for 300 miles where? I was under the impression that since hydrogen dispensing was in its infancy, until they get the metering very accurate they are just going to give the hydrogen away for free.

You need to see to the video above, that has a pretty girl in red. That’s what prompted me to see the video.

Yes, free, in my area actually (Boston). The CNG stations are virtual tombs. I imagine H2 will join them, perfectly.

Toyota’s candle burn has already begun. They will spend a mere fraction of their 1.3 billion in quarterly profit, to produce all this H2 “smoke”. Then, they are already running spots against EVs/PHEVs, while heavily advertising “Hybrid, the way forward”.

Even if the engineers are gung-ho, the board room knows exactly what it is doing. They know the business fail of hydrogen distribution and pricing, but feel they can guide perception, and milk just a few more cows, first.

Go Toyota!

ext to them, sponsored perhaps entirely by Toyota. ~400 cars nationally? They’ll remain tombs.

They had a very elaborate display explaining how the car works but no pricing information.

It is cheaper than the cheapest Model S, which only has a range of 208 miles. Including incentives, it is half price.

So you are saying it is half of 63,570? Thats 31,785. Your math isn’t working here. I’m not surprised.

Underneath the huge brake intakes and slab-shaped sides– is a pretty car, TRYING to get out… 🙁

I think they vents are primarily for supplying oxygen to the fuel cell so that the reaction with hydrogen can occur to generate electricity. Oxygen supply is a significant constaint to the output of a fuel cell.

No, you don’t need a freakishly large air inake on any hydrogen vehicle. If your statement were true, then EVERY HYDROGEN VEHICLE would have a similar design, because of it. And they don’t.

It’s just a styling fad Toyota’s using, that needs to STOP.

I thought “yeah, cool. FCEV’s are like a 300 mile Leaf!” But wait, I have to strap my daughter onto a bomb? Don’t think so.

There’s a reason I make hydrogen while it burns in my old C10. I refuse to store it because it is incredibly dangerous to do so. I don’t care if you have a multi-laminate air-tank that is DOT rated. It is not safe. That’s the elephant in the room and it is bigger than even the environmental impact.

Armor piercing bullet-tested tanks mean nothing to me. Can they take a shot from a pickup at an intersection? How about the hoses and valves?

On the positive side, doctor bills would be completely unnecessary. Though the coroner may charge extra for all the clean-up.

Before any FCEV fans get too upset, “gas deflagration” if the fear I have more so than a brown’s gas-related “explosion.” A tank leaks, some idiot lights a cig, and everyone around gets burned before they understand what happens to them. You could be 30 yards from a filling station, never knew there was a leak (no smell) and torch the better part of a parking lot and everyone in it.

Arguing that NASA does a great job handling hydrogen is invalid because I can guarantee you most of my neighbors aren’t qualified to have a fireplace in their homes. Yikes.