Toyota Mirai’s Request Portal For California Opens July 20th

JUL 15 2015 BY MARK KANE 72

2016 Toyota Mirai Fuel Cell Sedan

2016 Toyota Mirai Fuel Cell Sedan

Toyota Mirai landed in California!

Customers in California will be able to order request their own Mirai starting on the 20th of July.

Those lucky enough to pass the selection process should be able to get the cars in October from one of the eight dealers.

“In just one week, on July 20, California trailblazers can request their very own Mirai by visiting  All requests will be made through  Eligible customers will ultimately choose one of the eight authorized California dealers for Mirai delivery.  After placing a request, potential Mirai drivers will be contacted directly by a Toyota representative to explore the possibility of Mirai ownership. “

The Japanese fuel cell hydrogen car is rated at 312 miles of range and 67 MPGe fuel economy. The price was set at $57,500 or $499 per month/36 month lease option, with $3649 due at lease signing.

Including $13,000 in incentives, the price could go down to some $45,500. That’s still a lot, so Toyota additionally covers hydrogen costs and scheduled maintenance:

“And ownership does have its privileges.  The Mirai comprehensive, ownership experience offers a range of world-class services, including three years’ worth of complimentary fuel [1], three years of 24/7 customer call support, 8-year/100,000-mile warranty on key fuel cell vehicle components[2] and much more.

Let the countdown to the future begin!

[1] Complimentary fuel for 3 years or $15,000 maximum, whichever comes first. Fuel program starts after receipt and activation of fuel card; fuel card is nontransferable.  Fueling must be done at approved SAE certified stations.
[2] Covers normal factory scheduled maintenance and is valid only at authorized Mirai Fuel Cell dealers in the continental United States. See dealer for details and exclusions.”

Production for Japan, US and Europe is limited to total 700 Mirai this year, 2,000 in 2016 and 3,000 in 2017.

Categories: Toyota

Tags: , ,

Leave a Reply

72 Comments on "Toyota Mirai’s Request Portal For California Opens July 20th"

newest oldest most voted

Hum..”Complimentary fuel for 3 years or $15,000 maximum, whichever comes first.”

At what cost have they evaluate the stuff that nobody have been marketing at any price6

Devil are in the details.

the mirai is clearly *not* being promoted as a mass production vehicle; they make it clear in the video that this is a built to order car.


Ever seen what happens when a car full of gasoline catches on fire. Gasoline has more energy density than hydrogen therefore a much bigger explosion and hotter burn rate when burned. I don’t see anyone calling today’s gasoline cars even though they are. It’s only because we grew up with them that we don’t see them as dangerous. Yet anything new brings out the skeptics and nay sayers.

How is one supposed to evaluate that maximum $15K of fuel if you don’t know the price of the fuel?

a)if you can afford to shell out nearly $60k for this, the price of hydrogen is probably not going to be much of an issue; b)it’s not like there is a hydrogen refilling station on every corner, so this is going to be a limited area of use vehicle, in which case $15k worth of hydrogen is probably adequate for local driving.

You Mean “THE Price of “FOOL”,,…Who Buy The Bomb on wheels

Yeah, I’m not sure how they are calculating that too, as hydrogen pricing right now is about as clear as mud. However, early reports say it is about $13-15/kg, so that gets you ~1000kg of hydrogen over three years or about 67000 miles of driving.

The price for fuel is $13.99 per KG

67 miles EPA per Kg (GGE) is 20.9 cents per mile with $13.99 hydrogen.

I drive my Tesla for about 5 cents per mile. No 10,000 psi tank strapped under my ass. Not tethered to a dozen refueling places.

“I drive my Tesla”, since when? I missed when you snagged a Model S.

How are you liking it?

Yeah, that did not go unnoticed here either Josh. Kudos to drive the finest Tony.

I absolutely love the Model S. It is a far greater machine than the sum of its parts.

I picked it up from Fremont exactly three weeks ago. It now has 2800 miles, with 30 of those miles on the track at Laguna Seca (I got 3rd out of about 20 in the Production GT class).

Still have the Mercedes B-Class ED and Toyota RAV4 EV.

So, running on hydrogen is 2-3 times more expensive than gasoline? Yep, that’s a winner right there…

Hydrogen Is A Clean Burning F00L….In a Severe Collision When The Car Blows Up like A Hydrogen Bomb….,The Hydrogen Will Not Pollute the air , 0nly the burning car will…

but can you recharge you tesla in 5 minutes? that basically tells you the attribute that makes FCEVs of interest. i don’t see any other reason why people would consider them but it is an important attribute because people with ICEs are used to a 5 minute refill cycle. even if you maxed out to a 500kWH level 3 EVSE, it would probably take 15 minutes to recharge a battery to achieve the kind of range that a mirai can get in a 5 minute refill.

I don’t think those 10,000psi tanks are really getting full in 5 minutes. But, certainly a “gasoline” like experience.

But, that speed is the singular hydrogen “advantage” for the consumer. It’s not an advantage to me, or the overwhelming majority of EV owners, who spend ten seconds to plug and another ten second to unplug in the morning.

On the road, my total time at Tesla Superchargers or CHAdeMO is certainly longer than what a hydrogen car might need, but my TOTAL time spent performing charging is probably less than what a hydrogen or gasoline driver might encounter.

According to reviews I’ve seen it takes 10-15 minutes to refuel the Mirai from empty

what i’ve seen promoted is a 5 minute refill. in any event, 15 minutes is still a lot better than the 1 hour that you would spend at a tesla supercharger station, or the hours that you would spend at a level 2 EVSE.

but if 10-15 minutes is indeed the refill time of an FCEV, then it would seem that a level 3 EVSE could theoretically achieve the same time. it is still worth doing FCEV research instead of putting all of the auto industry’s eggs in the BEV basket, but for FCEV, you would have to build out an infrastructure, and for level 3 DCFC, you would also have to build out an infrastructure but, at least theoretically, the BEV infrastructure would be better than an FCEV infrastructure in my view assume equality of recharge time versus refill time.

While you might spend an hour at a SuperCharger, odds are you will not. Typically 20-30 min will get you a couple of hours of driving and enough range to get to the next SC. The only time I consider filling-up at an SC is to get additional range to get to my destination. However, most days, I don’t go anywhere near any kind of charger at I charge at home, at night, and a 90% charge (230 miles) easily handles most of my daily driving needs.

Because of the lack of density of FCEV fueling stations and the inability to fuel at home, odds are an FCEV fueling stop is a detour from where you happen to be going, so you need to factor the time burned in the detour on top of you “5 min” fill up time.

If there happens to be another FCEV in line behind you, they also need to factor in the 20 min or so the H2 pump needs to get ready to fuel another vehicle.

That very last advantage will vanish when megawatt level charging at 6000 volt comes along through automatic secured ground and under the car specific contacts. Even the standard present superchargers are not yet at the end of their improvement since from 135 KW they will go to 250 KW, perhaps even 500 KW. Beyond that, higher voltage will be required and the system described above will take over. That will be aditional though, since the cable charging will remain on the car too.

You can actually with battery swapping. But I think 5 minute refill is overrated. People are happy with superchargers as they are now (esp. given they are free) and they charge “only” 170 miles in 30 minutes (at 120kW peak).

At 500kW peak the time goes down to 7 minutes for the same. Throw in some efficiency improvements on the car and changes to taper (so it maintains peak power for a bit longer) and it’ll be at 5 minutes. Given in the real world “3 minute” refueling for hydrogen cars are more like 15 minutes, there is practically no difference in that scenario.

However, even if quick charging technology is stuck at the current supercharger state, I think people would still be happy with it once they experience it.

Realistically I don’t think we will reach 500kW unless we go with very high voltage batteries, dual connectors, or a connector that is not human connected (similar to a bus, but perhaps under the car instead of overhead). With a connection cable 250kW had been achieved back in 2007, and I suspect quick charging will hover around that area when fully developed.

the “happy” people to whom you are referring are people who have bought tesla’s. while the number of tesla’s might be large in you view, within the context of the automobile industry, tesla sales are small potatoes. that’s the problem. most people aren’t EV enthusiasts; their primary interest in their cars is as a way to get somewhere and as a way to express their personality (that includes attempts to acquire some measure of status). such people are going to look at the 5 minutes that they currently spend refilling an ICE at the nearest gas station to the 30-60 minutes of recharge time at a supercharger station 20 miles away; and those people are going to say: no way.

you cannot recharge a battery from empty all the way to full at full rate, at least not with current battery technology. when i was referring to a 15 minute recharge at a 500mW EVSE, i was assuming a 100kWH battery such that you could fast charge up to 80kWH within 15 minute.

i do agree that it might be a bit dicey to have human-operated 500kWh EVSE.

That’s why battery swapping is there. It’s to address the people who insist 5 minute refill is necessary. But once they experience supercharging I think they will change their mind.

i think the problem with tesla’s version of battery swapping is that it comes with so many strings: you have to find a way to swap back the battery that you got with the one that you originally had or else you are looking at a fee of several thousand dollars. i’d prefer the supercharger too if that were the battery swapping proposition put before me.

There is by the way still the BMW i3 solution to have a small rex on board, so that you can still make a standard refill fast if you really are in a hurry. The rex will evolve to such a compact package shoebox size in the future that it will be a kind of accessory in a car like a spare tyre. So many people are likely to take that option in the future but running on renewable bioethanol.

By the way shoebox sized direct free piston generators have a future on their own to replace all the obsolete giant Caterpillar generators. Caterpillar generators are yet another of those long established dynosaur systems that will be replaced by disrutive technologies, namely direct free piston generators.
I said it to the Belgian Caterpillar representative but he didn’t understand the free piston technology.

then there is the even better solution that is the Chevrolet Volt. the advantage of EREV and PHEV vehicles is that they can replace almost all gasoline usage for local driving. plus, they offer flexibility and convenience of ICE vehicles for unanticipated driving scenarios.

the disadvantage of the EREV/PHEV approaches is that you can end up using gasoline if your driving profile doesn’t meet the assumptions of the EREV/PHEV. what FCEVs do is allow for long distance, emissions-free, driving while, at least purporting, to offer the convenience of ICEs when it comes to refilling.

Yea, Fill Up In 5 minutes …1st.If U can Find A station ..2nd if U don’t Get In a severe accident & Get “BLOWN UP” to Smithereens,on way there to find 0ne…U See…These Contraptions Have NOT Been Crash Tested.& Did U ever Hear of The Hydrogen BOMB? That Is Basically What U’ll be Driving Around IN…>>>>>>>>>>……

jimjam, you’re showing your ignorance on the subject of hydrogen and “hydrogen bombs” First of all, Hydrogen bombs are atom splitting bombs. Hydrogen simply looks for Oxygen to bond with to form water. Hydrogen dissipates extremely quickly and only burns or explodes when exposed to flame. Last, the tanks have been tested in every way possible including getting shot with bullets. If the bullet is strong enough to pierce the tank, the hydrogen simply escapes. Gasoline is actually much more dangerous than hydrogen. Apparently a closed mind not capable of grasping new ideas is even more dangerous than any fuel in the world.

It only takes 30seconds to charge a Tesla and most EV’s.
And in most of the country, you can’t even fill up a H2 FC car.
So a FC cars range is only 140 miles from the station.
And you don’t mention the time to, from the few H2 station.
A Tesla can cross the country now. Can a FCH2 car do that?
H2 costs $10/gal e

price ?

it seems like toyota is trying to do something equivalent to the BMW activeE program.

I can’t decide who has the worse looking front-end: BMW i3 or the Toyota Mirai.

The Toyota is clearly the fugliest of the two.

I’m actually pretty happy about that. 🙂

Do they loss carb credits if the desing is beautiful? What a flugly car, i3 a little better do.

Unlike the i3 I don’t see the Mirai winning any design awards.

I wonder if they intentionally made it as ugly as possible in order to limit sales?

Ways to limit sales with examples:

Propose very limited colors and mostly weird ones like purple. Prius1.

Make it a seating 4 so you eliminate at least 20% of the buyers that are families with 3 children. Volt, BMW i3.

Provide weird doors: BMW i3, even unintentionally Model X.

Introduce an evident lack like a super short ev range without a rex: Leaf, Zoe. Or a rex with no tank: BMW i3.
Make it look weird: Leaf, BMW i3.

“Those lucky enough to pass the selection process should be able to get the cars in October from one of the eight dealers.”
I needed something funny to lighten my day. This quote did it.

Wondering if they do background checks to see if you’re politically or religiously radicalized, etc.?

Blowing up a car with two 10,000 psi hydrogen tanks would surely make international news…

I pray to Allah, that they choose wisely. 😉

The hydrogen advocates that frequently visit EV forums have told me that, “not to worry… just because Toyota had to get a safety exemption from the U.S. government, and is outright banned from Type 4 10,000psi tanks in China, and hydrogen is one of the MOST flammable things in the universe, it’s perfectly safe.”

“All the performance of a floored Prius– until it explodes.” 😉

That makes me think that, in the end, there could be an advantage to the Mirai with 700 bars tanks.

It could be equipped with hydrogen adapted superdraco rocket engines to allow safe recovery in case of off cliff driving.

Something that could have saved 2 Model S drivers, but is it worth the extra investment.

That could also be useful in case of imminent unavoidable collision. If you are on a narrow road and on a hill top you can’t see a front coming fast moving car. The Mirai could fire its hydrogen fuelledsuperdraco to raise above the other car and so avoid the deadly collision. Perhaps there are many other scenarios like that, so perhaps superdraco on the Mirai could be interesting.

Obviously you have no concern for burning the cars below you to carbon dust.

Oops, we will have to fix that!

your anti-islamic “joke” is GROSSLY INAPPROPRIATE. contrary to the drivel that you have apparently been seeing on fox news, you’re got a lot more to worry about from tim mcveigh-types than you do from muslims.

Those lucky enough to pass the being fool selection.

Lease, maybe. Purchase, are you kidding me? Anyone who buys one of these outright has more money than brains. I’m surprised it’s even an option on a test model like this. Seems like it should be more of an Active E type program.

Either way, my money is on these landing in the crusher a few years from now. Perhaps they would make a good platform for EV conversion?

i believe the lease is in the $500/month range. as i recall, the los angeles car dealer who was promoting this vehicle mentioned that he expected most of these cars to go on lease. the car is clearly a testbed so you have to wonder why they are even treating it as a “sale” because the sales process is not your standard sales process; it’s more of a screening process. for all intents an purposes, this is somewhat like the BMW active E program.

Toyota itself is saying they expect 9 out of 10 cars to be leased. But I applaud them for offering it for sale too. It takes a bit of guts to do that on a car Toyota no doubt is losing lots of money on (Hyundai chickened out).

MOST FLAMMABLE …PERFECTLY SAFE …..ISN’T THAT AN OXYMORON???…& That Makes Sense? TO The Lucky F00LS That Are Selected/… L M A O…They’d Have To Pay Me VERY HANDSOMELY To get into that Highly Potential FIRE BOMB………A Disaster Waiting To Happen……

FOOLS RUSH IN WHERE WISE MEN NEVER GO….fUEL CELL f0R FOOLS…A Bomb wheels ….U Better Not Puncture That Hydrogen Tank..0r it’s ..KKKKKKAAAAAAAAAA BBBBBOOOOOOMMMMMM.f0R YOU !!!…..With N0 Chance To Escape To Save UrSelf…….

Why would someone buy a car that has no crash test data available.


The Volt just caught on fire three weeks after the crash testing and it caused enough turmoil to shut down the Volt assembly line. Bob Lutz himself had to get on Faux Nooze and tell them how dumb the hysteria was.

Now, imagine a tank pressurized to 700 atmospheres. It’s not even safe to test with the tank pressurized.

“Those lucky enough to pass the selection process should be able to get the cars in October from one of the eight dealers.”

Define “lucky”… 😉

“Toyota Mirai landed in California!”

Well, there goes the neighborhood.

…and so the story of the Toyota Mirai enters its final phase… where Toyota learns that hardly anyone wants this car. It won’t last long after that. I am sure they don’t want a multi-billion-dollar boondoggle with paid-for H2 infrastructure all over the place and lots of car models introduced; they will figure it out with just the Mirai, which ironically enough Toyota will learn means, “NOT THE FUTURE.”

the reality is that no *EV is “winning” in the market right now. my sense is that automakers are considering FCEVs because they don’t believe that BEVs are going to be economically viable for them. it’s far from certain that FCEVs are going to be either but the expectations in the market are set by ICEs and automakers are looking for a way to preserve the best attributes of ICEs (from a consumer perspective) in an *EV.

Wrong viewpoint. Auto manufacturers are paid by their governments massive research dollars to develop FCVs. The governments in turn are strongly influenced by oil company lobbyists. Oil companies do not want to loose business to EVs, but will be content to sell hydrogen. Best of all the oil companies have got governments convinced that they should fund the many $B for infrastructure so the oil companies can sell hydrogen at reasonable prices.

No one request one.

Is that an order or an observation?

Yes sir, there’s no doubt about it, any car whose fuel presents a significant fire hazard will never be acceptable to the general public, regardless of any other advantages it may have:

“Ninety-three percent of reported vehicle fires and 92% of vehicle fire deaths involved highway-type vehicles such as cars, trucks, buses, recreational vehicles, and motorcycles. The term “highway vehicle fires” is used to describe the type of vehicle, not the location of the fire. During 2003-2007, the 267,600 highway vehicle [fire]s reported per year caused an average of 441 civilian deaths, 1,326 civilian fire injuries, and $1.0 billion in direct property damage. On average, 31 highway vehicle fires were reported per hour. These fires killed one person a day. Overall, highway vehicles fires were involved in 17% of reported U.S. fires, 12% of U.S. fire deaths, 8% of U.S. civilian fire injuries, and 9% of the direct property damage from reported fires.” From … d-patterns

How have we _ever_ survived this far?

GRA, thank you for this reality check.

Are “fool cell” vehicles “perfectly safe”? Of course not. No car that carries enough energy in some form to push it down the highway can ever be completely free from any danger of fire.

But FCEVs carry only about 1/3 the energy in their tanks as gasmobiles, not to mention the physical properties of hydrogen vs. gasoline make hydrogen powered cars safer.

“Fool cell” cars are a dead-end technology, for many reasons. But the hazard of fire isn’t one of those reasons.

Nobody is arguing that gasoline is safe. But, I would suggest that just one 10,000 psi hydrogen tank that is compromised in an accident or terrorist act will be horrific on a scale that will be quite sobering.

Don’t give ISIS any ideas.

Can we stop smack talking fuel cell cars the way gearheads smack talk evs?

We all saw the failed attempts of people pretending Teslas and EVs are fire risks. We all were upset people would be so dumb to spread misinformation like this.

Now I go to an EV side and read the same crap from EV people about fuel cells. Terrorist fuel cell attacks and what not. How short is your memory???

I drive an EV and am skeptical about fuel cell cars. But I won’t make up BS like some people here. Talk about energy efficiency problem of FCEVs, talk about the awesomeness of night charging for EVs, talk about complexity, talk about infrastructure. But please don’t make up BS and don’t use scare tactics. As EV owners we ought to know better.

Tony, as owner of three EVs, I would have imaged you out of all people would know better. Cut the BS.

I agree that we shouldn’t use these FUD tactics. I wouldn’t have a problem driving a FCEV from a safety standpoint, though I still expect that they are less safe then an EV.

However I don’t think it’s wrong to keep referencing the economic issues with FCEVs. Obviously the tech will improve and the costs will reduce but it seems reasonable to assume they they will always be behind EVs.

They actually make things worse for fuel cells by picking the wrong market of cars instead of a coach, long haul semi trucks and boats where at least they would have some chance thanks to the favorable scale effect on large tank in regard to both the acquisition cost and the much lighter weight. For instance a semi truck with batteries has to take 7 tons of batteries for a long distance, but less than a ton in hydrogen tank weight. Those 6 tons directly translate in less wheel weight and more revenue generating freight weight.

i suspect that very well may end up being the primary use for FCEVs, but the applications that you cite tend to be commercial applications; people tend to be a bit less willing to be “ambassadors” for stuff when there are dollars on the line. by contrast, in a consumer area, all you need is a few enthusiasts.

so it actually does make sense for toyota to target a consumer application with the FCEV mirai.

Warning: hydrogen fuel cells will mean a fuel that con be controlled by corporations, whereas electric power can recharge vehicles from whatever source the car’s owner has available — like solar panels that do NOT require constant paying to a corporation. Vehicles, panels, all we have to pay for — but the power is potentially FREE after that.

Also, the production of hydrogen is a climate problem of its own, not clean like sun rays hitting your roof’s solar panels.

I suggest this site put these hydrogen-powered cars in a separate category from electric ones. Thanks for the good work.