Toyota Sold 1.5 Million Electrified Cars In 2017, But Less Than 51,000 Plug-Ins

Blue Toyota Prius Prime driving


2017 Toyota electrified vehicle sales (cumulative monthly – annualized)

Toyota announced that electrified car sales reached 1.5 million annually last year (+8% year-over-year) – three years ahead of its target (2020). The cumulative number now stands at nearly 11.5 million, but how many plug in? 

Toyota Prius Plug-In (Prius Prime)

When we double checked the progress of Toyota’s electrified car sales we found that it’s almost entirely hybrid and only a tiny fraction are plug ins.

And we must remember that the Japanese company introduced a lot of hybrid models to achieve the 1.5-million mark set last year.

Sales of the Toyota Prius Plug-In (aka Prius Prime in the U.S.) amounted to 20,936 in the U.S. in 2017 and some 26,734 in Japan (according to EV Sales Blog), so with a low number of sale in Europe added, plug-ins barely exceeded 50,000 (or just over 3% of Toyota’s total electrified basket).

Just be wary of those electrified claims. They often include very little in the way of plug ins.

“When it comes to global environmental leadership, the number of vehicles that customers buy around the world have a greater impact than the number of concept cars launched at motor shows. Toyota Motor Corporation (Toyota) announced today that it reached a major milestone in annual sales of electrified powertrains in 2017 with over 1.52 million sold worldwide. The figure was an increase of eight percent over the prior record set in 2016, marking back-to-back years of growth and accomplishing one of Toyota’s Environmental Challenge 2050 targets, selling more than 1.5 million electrified vehicles in a single year, three years in advance of the original target set for 2020. Additionally, cumulative sales of electrified vehicles now exceed 11.47 million, which represents a reduction of more than 90 million tons of CO2 compared to sales of equivalent conventional vehicles.”

Shigeki Terashi, executive vice president, Toyota Motor Corporation said:

“In just over 20 years, we have seen electrified new vehicle sales increase from under 500 sales to more than 1.5 million sales. This is a testament from our customers to the quality, durability and reliability of our electrified powertrains, and, thanks to them, has led us to establish a solid and sustainable foundation for mass producing a more diverse portfolio of electrified vehicles across our range moving forward.”

Category: SalesToyota

101 responses to "Toyota Sold 1.5 Million Electrified Cars In 2017, But Less Than 51,000 Plug-Ins"
  1. Benz says:

    In 2012 almost twice as much as in 2011.

    What happened in 2012?

    1. ItsNotAboutTheMoney says:

      It’s not 2012 that was a big jump it was 2011 that was low for special reasons: March 2011 was the Fukushima quake which affected supply.

      Then by 2012 the Prius v/alpha was being produced and December 2012 the Prius c/aqua, which had a huge waiting list in Japan so started off with large sales.

  2. Michael G says:

    I think the real key is not how many plug-ins sold. The key criterion is what was the gas consumption *avoided*?

    If Toyota sold 10 million hybrid cars that got 2X the mileage of non-hybrids, that is equivalent to selling 5 million ‘regular’ cars and 5 million that used zero gas. The net consumption of gas is the same in either case.

    Since plug-in infrastructure is only starting to come on line now, by selling hybrids all these years before the infrastructure was available they got ahead of the curve.

    The key is what is the effect on the environment – GHG emissions, etc.

    I look forward to the end of the ICE but we have to respect the necessary transition.

    1. trackdaze says:

      Good points though some of their hybrids are terrible gas gusslers and get nowhere near 50% of a standard car.

      Average might be closer to 20% less.

      New Camry hybrid seems to break out though.

      1. Michael G says:

        Varies a lot. We’ve had a number of Prius sedans and always averaged 50 MPG. I’ve got a Prius V now which feels like a Honda CRV. I always get 45 MPG between fill-ups while the CRV got roughly half that.

        The Camry has been more like 1.5X until this year’s. I agree, the Lexus “H” models haven’t been as good except for one small one.

        1. All-Purpose Guru says:

          If the “small one” you refer to is the CT200h, which is the same car as the Prius under the sheetmetal. Most other Lexus hybrids have much larger engines and are tuned for performance rather than economy.

  3. Get Real says:

    Well trying looking at the sliver of good news here.

    Those 51,000 PEVs are an order of magnitude more then the number of wildly inefficient Fool Cell scam cars they pawned off on people and society.

    1. Prsnep says:

      Who here is tired of reading the same “Fool Cells” moniker over and over again? If there is a point to be made, it can be done so without resorting to name calling.

      It was amusing the first time when Elon said it, I’ll give you that.

      1. DJ says:

        They’re sheep, better get used to it.

      2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

        It will be time to stop calling out the scam of marketing “fool cell” cars, when they stop selling them. It will also be time to stop calling out those companies and organizations promoting the “hydrogen economy” scam, when taxpayer money is no longer going to support it.

        If Big Oil wants to promote a “hydrogen economy” or “hydrogen highway” scam in order to divert attention and resources away from development of practical EVs, then they can at least do so using their own money — not ours!

        And it’s not just American taxpayer money, either. The Japanese government subsidizes fool cell cars at nearly $20,000 per car! Or at least they did in the recent past.

        1. Benedikt says:

          I am a chemical engineer and researcher. I have worked on sodium ion batteries and hydrogen fuel cells. I worked in 5 different research groups at 4 different institution up to now.

          None of the fuel cell projects I worked on was funded by “big oil”. They are funded by the universities, car manufactures and catalysts producers. And even if there were funded by oil companies, shell and bp invests in wind energy – is wind energy also a scam now?!

          I can’t hear the term “fool cell” anymore. You putting down the work of so many hard working researchers to provide an alternative to fossil fuel based transport and long term energy storage. Your comments on this side under various articles indicate that you have NO CLUE whatsoever about the technology and the reason why its funded and people much smarter than you working on it.
          Funded much less by the way compared to battery research or anything related to oil, gas and chemical products that have a market.

          Do you know that there are month in Europe, like in Germany January 2017, where renewable ornery produces on average 5 GW compared to the installed 90 GW? Do you have any idea how much batteries you would need to store that amount of energy if the society would solely rely on wind and solar? Its about 30000 GWh. Assuming a battery lifetime of about 50 years and a cost of 100$/kwh – That would be 66 billion dollars a year just for the storage. And I am using very favourable numbers for batteries.

          And about transportation, don’t you see the option that electric vehicle might not get mass adopted? That the battery cost will not fall enough? I can tell you one thing – we are so close to the thermodynamic and chemical limits in batteries, that all the advancements coming to the market are due to scale and more efficient production.

          I could go on, but I want to stop here. There is a chance greater than zero that electric vehicles will not mass adopted. And what do you do then? Rely on fossil fuels, do biodiesel, use horses again?

          Most research groups work on fuel cells and batteries at the same time. Because its both electrochemistry. There is no mocking involved and no hate. The same should be the case among proponents for a sustainable future.

          If you don’t see fuel cells as a possible option that is fine. But stop mocking all the people that work for a sustainable future in case lithium ion batteries will not fulfil all the needs of our future society. That would be greatly appreciated.

          1. john1701a says:

            This group will eventually figure why fuel-cells will come to co-exist with the EV. Right now, they are still finding challenges overcoming the early-adopter phase.

            Initially, it’s easy to embrace the plug. The lack of diversity presents a simple path to follow. The situation becomes quite complex as you try to move beyond that though.

            The perfect example is the dead silence that comes from facing the reality of a multi-plugin household. The effort to supply enough electricity to that first charging location is thwarted by the need to add a second. It’s much more difficult to find a convenient place for the second charger and there simply may not be enough amps available without major rework.

            It’s unfortunate they don’t recognize the problem yet, but it will emerge as a very real barrier at some point… as will other unforeseen challenges related to mainstream penetration.

            1. Benedikt says:

              I hope you are right! I came to this website to inform myself about the latest developments in electric cars (That includes fuel cells from my point of view). Just to see the same uninformed biased comments of some commenters and contributors towards fuel cells thats other have against electric vehicles in general. Maybe that changes in the future…

              Just adding to your point: In Europe 40%-70% of people live in flats with street parking. There is simply no way for them to charge a car! Adding a charger to every street lamp would not be cheaper than putting up a hydrogen infrastructure I would presume. I myself live in Copenhagen now and asked my friend why he doesn’t get the VW Golf GTE (not available in the US) instead of the GTI. His commute is 12 miles, he is not a great fan of biking though… Well besides electricity rates of about 0.4 $/kwh there is simply no option for him to charge. And I have my doubts there ever will…

              Secondly most friends of mine, myself included don’t have a car and use public transport or biking. I have been living in the Bay Area, but even their public transportation system does not come close to most of that in European cities. We only would need a car to go on vacation, skiing in the alps, etc… Besides not being able to do home charging we would need to rely on fast chargers on our longer journeys. Their electricity rates make an electric car almost as expensive as a gasoline car. Besides the worse electric efficiency of fast chargers…

              Which cheap gasoline and diesel I have not much hope right now for either battery or fuel cell vehicles to gain significant market share.

          2. guillaumef says:

            Research is a thing, application of this research is another thing. I just wouldn’t want to see all these bomb cars spurting water in freezing condition on roads. Also, I wouldn’t want to own a car with an expiration date, like current hydrogen-powered cars.

            Also, the current infrastructure of H2 is insufficient, but the money needed to build a thin one could power oh, so many electric cars.

            It’s not the research per se that’s scaring people, it’s the application. If someone finds the way to fix all those problem, while being more efficient than an electric car, without involving the big oil, then maybe. And that could only be solved by more research.

            1. Benedikt says:

              1. You refer to hydrogen fuel cell cars as bomb cars, while all the tests and research shows that they are safer than gasoline cars. Hydrogen has the nice property to escape upwards in case of a failure for instance. It does not form fumes on the ground like gasoline does. Hydrogen is produced and stored in incredible large quantities, we know how to handle it!

              2. The exhaust water from fuel cell cars – really? The fuel cell stack operates at 80°C and I am pretty sure that if that would be an issue just collect it and dumb it when you are home…

              3. Why do you think we are able to buy usable battery electric cars? Because lithium ion batteries could mature for 30 (!) years in consumer electronics.
              There is so little money going in the application of fuel cell incentives compared to so much else… This really should be a none issue.

              And by the way, I would not recommend to buy any fuel cell car right now. Not even leasing it. The infrastructure is too thin as you say and it does nothing better than a conventional gasoline car yet.

              1. Benedikt says:

                I am sorry, I meant to say 20 years for the Li-ion batteries.

                1. Get Real says:

                  Well Benedikt,

                  I do think that H2 is suitable as seasonal energy storage for electricity generation but because of its inefficiency it will never be competitive as a widespread light-duty transportation fuel.

                  This because for the same amount of energy, you can drive a BEV 3 TIMES AS FAR!

                  also, besides the costs of producing the H2, the costs of compressing and cooling that hot compressed H2 and transporting and dispensing it also would cost far more IN ENERGY AND MONEY then just making some electrical upgrades to the grid that is ALREADY THERE.

                  Obviously recharging arrangements for apartment dwellers will take more work and will probably be a combination of DCFC stations and adding some parking lot/street charging positions.

                  Also, probably within 10 years, fully autonomous cars will start to be able to drive themselves to chargers that will also be autonomous.

                  And there is plenty of oil companies pushing
                  H2 as a transportation fuel for their future business model:




                  1. Benedikt says:

                    First, you are totally correct in that hydrogen fuel cell vehicles are not as efficient as battery electric cars. And they never will.
                    But as I mention in another comment, they don’t need to be. They just need to be environmeantal better than gasoline and diesel cars. And they are.

                    Your claim about battery electric vehicles being 3x more energy efficient than fuel cell cars is valid under this presumption:
                    Electrical Energy (Solar/Wind) -> Grid (90%) -> Charger (95%) -> EV (95%)
                    Electrical Energy (Solar/Wind) -> Electrolysis (50-60%) -> Compression (60%) -> HFCV (50-60%)
                    These are just ballpark efficiencies.

                    But as you mentioned – H2 is important for seasonal storage: So you get the Electrolysis part for free, since the excess renewable energy would have been wasted otherwise.

                    Seasonal storage:

                    Electrical Energy (Solar/Wind) -> Electrolysis (50-60%) -> Fuel Cell (50-60%)

                    So the only thing you safe is the compression part if you have gas caverns at your disposal. In case seasonal storage will be a thing: HFCV will be only 30% less efficient than a battery EV!


                    And even if the hydrogen is produced by steam reforming: It removes local pollution and does not produce sulphur, NOx and particular matter.

                    The transport issue could be addressed by a pipeline network. Parts of Germany and the US have quite big H2 pipeline networks in areas of refineries and chemical industries. But this would be a hydrogen economy which is of course way into the future. Actually I would be very happy if BIG Oil would get behind fuel cell vehicles… Unfortunately no big oil company has opened a big network of hydrogen fuel cell stations…

                    But do not do the mistake to build a vast network of chargers for battery electric vehicles will be cheap either! Chargers are much cheaper than fuel stations but they can only service so many cars!

                    There will be a mix of the two technologies, but no reason to call it “Fool Cells”.

              2. guillaumef says:

                regarding your point #1, I was wondering: if the gas moves upward and I am stuck in the car after an accident, what happens to me if I’m sitting on the tank ?

                for #2, it could be hard to collect that water on a highway. (you stop at every km, i guess ?) I have seen that the mirai has a dump water button, but if the reservoir is too full, it’s going to empty without your approval or push of a button. The problem is not for one H2 car in the network, but let’s say 80% of trucks and car run on H2, every small dump of H2O will eventually start to be drops everywhere. In -30°C, the drops will freeze right away, compromising security. Even if this is in gas form, it will cristalise pretty quick and still end up on the road. Freezing rain conditions are one of the worst road condition, now living this all winter would be harakiri.

                1. Benedikt says:

                  Ok lets do some back on the envelope calculations: Consumption of H2 of a car: 1kg/100km. 1kg H2 / (2 g/mol) = 500 mol H2 -> 500 mol H2O * (18 g/mol) = 9 kg H2O -> 9 l H2O/100km
                  Thats actually more than I expected. I am sure this can be solved somehow but my expertise is a bit more fundamental.
                  Maybe some can be evaporated off, since we are at 80°C, but I don’t think much when its freezing outside.

                  1. Benedikt says:

                    Regarding a hydrogen leak:
                    This is all based on the designs I have seen and got explained during presentations:
                    Hydrogen from the fuel cell system cannot enter the cabin. It would go around the car and would not even have time to mix with air sufficiently to form more an explosive mixture.
                    It is very unlikely the tanks rupture and even if – the gas would escape through one point and don’t form an explosive air hydrogen mixture, maybe a flame if ignited – due its high pressure.
                    In underground parking structure with no ventilation hydrogen could collect on the ceiling and maybe ignite. But since hydrogen detection is easy and standard the tank valves would shut off immediately.
                    The only danger I personally could think of, is when a truck (cars don’t store enough hydrogen) has a severe accident in an underground parking area and its tanks rupture and release the hydrogen.

            2. Benedikt says:

              4. A fuel cell car will NEVER be more efficient than a battery electric car. It just needs to be more energy efficient and less polluting than a gasoline car, which it is. If transportation would be about efficient, nobody should drive SUVs or even the Tesla Model S.
              What a fuel cell car can do is provide the same kind of usage pattern people are used with cars now. New technology has to be cheaper or add value to a service. Being more efficient and in case of battery electric cars is unfortunately not enough, maybe the price argument kicks in sometimes…

              The perfect car in my opinion would be a car with a 20 kWh battery and a fuel cell stack. Daily commute with the battery, charged at home or workplace, longer commute with the fuel cell. No local pollution.

              Even if the hydrogen would be produced by steam reforming (which is 95% efficient) – the pollution would be just CO2 (which is good compared to what else is produced during combusting Coal, etc.)

              Currently 50 million tons of hydrogen are produced per year. 4% of that amount are even already by water electrolysis.
              With excess renewable energy in a couple of years one would solve the main issue with renewable energy on the go.

  4. David Murray says:

    I’m not sure, exactly, the point of this article. I mean, what’s wrong with the claims Toyota is making? I’m pretty sure they still sold more plug-ins that most manufacturers. And considering the number of hybrid models they have, how do you think their fleet fuel economy compares to somebody like Chrysler?

    1. Viking79 says:

      This site lately seems to be promoting that the only way to help the environment is with a plug-in with 25 mile range or more. If everyone drove vehicles as efficient as the regular Prius we would probably not have any issue in fuel consumption. When you get up near 50 mpg gas vehicles will be as low CO2 as grid powered vehicles in most places.

      The real issue is what you can do to get your 20 mpg vehicle to pollute similar to a 50 mpg gas car. People buying a Prius Prime while trading in their Prius aren’t really having much impact, if any. Mitsubishi Outlander PHEV and Pacifica Hybrid are two examples of vehicles that could have a very large impact being PHEV.

      1. zzzzzzzzzz says:

        Toyota sells few minivan hybrids too, but not in the US.

      2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

        “This site lately seems to be promoting that the only way to help the environment is with a plug-in with 25 mile range or more. If everyone drove vehicles as efficient as the regular Prius we would probably not have any issue in fuel consumption.”

        You’re not looking at the big picture. When India, China, and other developing nations are adding hundreds of thousands of new cars every year to their fleet, the paltry 1-2% of drivers in first-world countries who convert from gasmobiles to PHEVs every year is not even a rounding error.

        The way to actually reduce total global burning of fossil fuels, is by auto makers making and selling cars which have zero emissions and will actually compete with gasmobiles. We need to actually start shifting away from gasmobiles towards PEVs with long EV ranges in all countries, not just first-world nations plus China.
        That’s not going to come from tiny-EV-ranged PHEVs which are, mostly, merely gasmobiles with a minimalist amount of EV tech tacked on; it’s going to come from cars designed from the ground up to be fully functional, compelling PEVs. PEVs which will actually compete with, and replace, gasmobiles.

        In the last extensive IEVs discussion of the benefits of PHEVs, just a day or two ago, people were bragging that they had reduced their gasoline consumption by 25% or 45%. A few PHEV drivers reducing their personal consumption by that amount while hundreds of thousands of new drivers start spewing poison into the atmosphere from their gasmobiles every year… That’s not a win for Planet Earth or the human species.

        We need compelling zero emission vehicles, and we need them NOW. Or better yet, yesterday.

        Half-a-loaf or even quarter-or-eighth of a loaf PHEVs with <26 miles of EV range… are not helping nearly enough. The resources used to make those cars would be far better spent on making compelling BEVs, or at least PHEVs with a range of 45+ miles. Even if that meant fewer PEVs produced, there would still be a net gain in reducing air pollution and CO2 emissions.

        Down off my soapbox now.

        1. BenG says:

          The goal is reduced emissions. Toyota has reduced emissions a lot with their hybrids.

          Your rhapsodizing about zero emissions vehicles ignores the problem of power-plant emissions.

          1. Get Real says:

            BenG’s rhapsodizing about fossil fuels ignores the fact that electricity production is rapidly going to renewable energy which as no emissions.

            1. BenG says:

              Up to 10% now. So rapid!

    2. Tom says:

      Because Tesla.

    3. will says:

      Any new videos on i3 or your volt?

  5. Viking79 says:

    The issue is Toyota’s hybrid market is collapsing in the US. The last 3 years their hybrid (electrified) vehicle sales have gone from 186,001 in 2015, 181,680 in 2016, to only 159,220 in 2017. A drop of almost 20% in 3 years.

    Only the Rav 4 hybrid is showing signs of improvement, but not enough to cover losses in Prius sales. The Prius Prime appears to have saturated the market too, so I wouldn’t expect much improvement there and most of its sales seemed to have come from regular Prius buyers (not getting much of a fuel savings going from Prius to PP).

    1. CCIE says:

      For a long time they were innovators and the only game in town when it came to HEVs. They stopped innovating at least 10 years ago and haven’t even managed to be “fast followers” in the PHEV or EV segments.

      All of that means that there are now equal or superior options from from other automakers, causing Toyota to bleed HEV market share.

      1. David Murray says:

        Exactly. I suspect much of the decline in hybrid sales has to do with people moving to EVs and PHEVs from other manufacturers.

        1. will says:

          And ugly styling and limp AER gor thier plug-in, plus the car market is now CUV and mid size SUV, sedans and compacts are dead

      2. john1701a says:

        Turning a blind-eye to what you don’t consider innovative is more of the same old rhetoric, a clear effort to mislead & undermine is each discussion topic about Toyota…

        Innovate = to introduce something new; make changes in anything established.

        Delivering extremely low-cost way of offering EV drive doesn’t qualify.

        Delivering high-efficiency electric-only cabin heating doesn’t qualify.

        Delivering carbon-fiber for a lighter weight hatch door doesn’t qualify.

        Delivering aero-glass for higher efficiency and wiper elimination doesn’t qualify.

        Delivering a collection of safety features standard on all vehicles doesn’t qualify.

        Rolling out hybrid systems to all vehicles for a simple path plug-in offerings doesn’t qualify.

        Transitioning hybrid systems from NiMH batteries to lithium doesn’t qualify either.

        1. Viking79 says:

          Aero glass hatch window – 1990s CRX.
          Electric cabin heat – Leaf
          CF Hatch – Mass production in 2014 BMW i3
          Nothing you really mention in your list is novel or unique to Toyota. Truth is that Toyota’s US hybrid market is collapsing. They missed the market somewhere. The Rav4 hybrid prospects look good.

          1. zzzzzzzzzz says:

            US market has much lower fuel taxes than most of the world, and with oil prices back to normal for a while hybrids have tough time breaking even financially. Not everybody cares about fuel economy when gas is $2-2.5/gallon.

            Hybrid market is getting stronger elsewhere though. E.g. it jumped in Europe after dieselgate.

            1. BenG says:

              Yep, and while Toyota kinda missed with the 4th gen Prius in the US, they are still the biggest and best car company in the world.

              The upcoming replacement for the Prius V, redesigned as a CUV, should be a hit, and should be an easy and efficient conversion to plug-in.

              Don’t cry for, or under-estimate, Toyota and their path forward on electrified cars.

        2. CCIE says:

          John, no buyer about any of that. Plus, Toyota was late to the game on most of those things you list.

          I’m not saying Toyota is bad or makes bad cars. They just seem to have lost their way at some point in the last decade. Hopefully they realize that 200+ miles EVs are the name of the name now, and that they should be working on 300+ mile EVs with sub-10 minute recharge capabilities.

          I do go out of my way to post on msot of these Toyota articles because I really feel bad for anyone who gets stuck with a Prime. Hopefully someone reads my comments and does enough research to see there are much better options.

          1. fotomoto says:

            What’s wrong with a Prime?

            1. zzzzzzzzzz says:

              Cars like Prius are very annoying to Tesla fanboys as they demonstrate silliness of their cult narrative that 100 kWh batteries with 17.5 ton manufacturing emissions are saving the world somehow.

              1. says:

                So suddenly you care about emissions? Did you get high on hydrogen or something?

                1. Get Real says:

                  Fool cell shill and serial anti-Tesla troll zzzz doesn’t care about emissions.

                  He only cares and is probably paid about about trying to delay the inevitable transition to an economy based on RE and sustainable transportation based on PEVs.

              2. CCIE says:

                I’m actually partial to GM. Once Teslas are reliable and can be easily serviced by a DIYer, I’ll take a look at them.

            2. CCIE says:

              It has a small battery, yielding low electric range. It’s acceleration is terrible. And, it costs a lot since it doesn’t qualify for the full federal tax credits, or full state credits in many states.

              Anyone considering the Prime, should at least test drive the Volt. It costs about the same, but has double the electric range and very good acceleration. It’s actually fun to drive.

          2. john1701a says:

            Same old rhetoric. Toyota is supposedly late, but there’s nothing to actually support the claim. Plug-In sales haven’t even moved beyond the initial subsidies yet. That means there are no automakers yet facing the real competition: traditional vehicles. When we see plug-in offerings on the showroom floor facing that direct competition with gas guzzlers, then it will be time.

            That’s why Toyota is delivering hybrid options for each of their vehicles. It sets the stage for very easy transition to plug-in vehicles… for everyone… ordinary consumers, as well as dealers eager to sell them.

            1. CCIE says:

              There isn’t anything supposed about them being late and dragging their feet. Mass production of EVs and PHEVs started in 2010. Toyota still doesn’t have a product that can equal those products from 2010. So, they’re 8 years late, and counting.

              Maybe if they’d accept that foolcells are a waste of time, and release some 40+ mile PHEVs and 200+ mile BEVs, they’d get some respect around here.

              1. fotomoto says:

                Your reasoning is similar to an F350 owner dissing an F150 while ignoring the fact that there’s a huge market for the 150 whose owners are quite satisfied with their choice (and lower costs).

                1. CCIE says:

                  If the Prime cost less than the Volt out-the-door, you might have a point. But, in reality, the Volt costs the same or less and has double the EV range and is fun to drive.

                  1. Hitssquad says:

                    The Chevy Volt starts at $20k?

      3. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

        “…there are now equal or superior options from from other automakers, causing Toyota to bleed HEV market share.”

        Yup. What PHEV is creating lots of discussion and excitement over on the InsideEVs Forum? The Honda Clarity PHEV! Not anything from Toyota.

        The Clarity PHEV also has an EPA rated EV range of 47 miles, not much less than the top-rated Volt with its (currently) 53 miles. Is it a coincidence that the one new PHEV getting the most attention is the one with the longest EV range?

        I don’t think so! 🙂 Not only does such a (relatively) big battery pack give it more EV range, it also gives it better acceleration and top speed in EV-only mode.

  6. Mark says:

    I would guess their hybrid sales collapsing has more to do with how ugly the Fish looking new Prius is compared to the last generation.

  7. Another Euro point of view says:

    Toyota seems to have a design problem. So many rather ugly cars.Is it bad taste to design sexy cars in Japan ?

    1. Jason says:

      Completely agree. I’ve never been a fan of Toyota styling. The Honda version of every car looks much better (Accord vs Camry, Civic vs Corolla, etc.)

    2. Tom says:

      Hyundai/Kia is hot on their collective Hybrid and EV tail. They simply benchmarked the Prius, made it less ugly, and called it an Ioniq. Then Kia took that vehicle and put a hatch on it and called it Niro and marketed it as a CUV. Simply brilliant. As they are able to ramp up production capacity Kia/Hyundai is a company to watch.

      1. silversod says:

        Yes I went for the Kia Niro hybrid because it ticked most of the boxes I needed, It’s a great compact crossover vehicle with lots of cabin room, I looked at the Nissan Leaf but it was way too expensive to lease from my local dealership here in the UK.
        I’m saving an absolute fortune on petrol compared to my old ICE car.

        1. Tom says:

          It’s a very solid offering and just right to appeal to the European tastes for wagons. The recently introduced PHEV version is a mere triviality of a leap from an expense and complication level. Their PHEV features aren’t as advanced as a Volt (for instance the heating) but kudos for getting a far simpler and economical design to market which will (similar to the Prime) allow it to roll right along without subsidies. Prius Prime shares that aspect. They are effectively subsidy proof.

  8. ModernMarvelFan says:

    “Electrified” is such a marketing spin.

    Non-plugin hybrids like the Prius are still 100% gasoline vehicles that are powered by energy that is generated from gasoline 100% of the time (yes, the regen portion still originated from gasoline propulsion).

    Sure, it is better than non-hybrid that doesn’t have regen. But the term “electrified” is just spin.

    PHEV is really electrified hybrid (dual energy source) here.

    1. Viking79 says:

      Yes, PHEV is dual energy source, but really, what is the difference in the car? For many hybrids the difference is nothing besides an on board charger and a larger battery.

      1. ModernMarvelFan says:

        Just an onboard charger and bigger battery?

        That is like saying that what is difference between a Tesla and a Lexus Hybrid, just a bigger battery/motor and no exhaust.

        1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

          No, it’s not even remotely like that.

          The difference between, for example, a Prius PHEV and a non-plug-in Prius HEV is merely a matter of degree, and not much additional savings on use of gasoline.

          Contrariwise, the difference between a Lexus hybrid and a Tesla car is the difference between a gasmobile with a mild amount of EV tech shoehorned in, and a car that’s designed and built from the ground up to be a compelling all-electric car. A Tesla car is one that makes people — lots of people — want to drive an all-electric car! The Lexus hybrid? Not so much.

  9. Tom says:

    Chart is labeled wrong.

  10. john1701a says:

    The perspective of “less than” doesn’t take the big picture into account.

    Worldwide rollout… that’s 3 major markets… Japan, Europe, North America… all in the first year is much more than most automakers.

    The introduction of carbon-fiber and aero-glass at the same time for the same vehicle shouldn’t be understated either.

    1. CCIE says:

      It does make me smile every time you bring up the glass, carbon fiber, and magic heat pump.

      I guess since the car has a sub-par battery and accelerates slower than a 1st gen corolla, you need to find some pluses to mention…

      1. john1701a says:

        Smile all you want. That’s what enthusiasts do. They enjoy their niche.

        Ordinary mainstream vehicles are quite different, as are their owners.

        1. BenG says:

          The problem with the Prime as a mainstream market option is the restricted seating and reduced cargo area.

          Hopefully the Prius V replacement will fix that.

        2. CCIE says:

          Only an enthusiast could love a Prius or Prime, given how ugly both of them are. So, your argument once again falls flat.

          1. BenG says:

            Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

  11. Dan says:

    They need to make Sienna a plugin hybrid ala Chrysler Pacifica hybrid.

  12. Tom says:

    So gen. Prius Plugin sold about 73000 in 5 years. So it`s not so bad at all.

    1. john1701a says:

      The first-gen was only a mid-cycle update and only rolled out to 15 states.

      It was a real-world test vehicle for learning about the market and adapting to what plug-in driving draws.

      Toyota studied carefully and found a means to deliver what ordinary consumers would find well balanced for an affordable price, without any tax-credit dependency.

    2. CCIE says:

      The original Plug-in-Prius was so awful that even diehard Toyota fans had trouble defending it with a straight face. The Prime is a step int eh right direction, but it’s still far form the leaders. Hopefully in another couple years Toyota will be able to equal what others were doing in 2010.

  13. trackdaze says:

    Seeing massive sales increases in Europe from the switch from diesel.

    Some of the stuff (read Lexus Suvs or highlanders) is particularly useless in saving fuel.

    New Camry is a better prius than the prius.

  14. Kdawg says:

    If the sales are cumulative, how does the chart go down at some points?

    1. Tom says:

      Because the chart is labeled wrong. It’s not cumulative. Look at the labels of the right axis. The graph is clearly yearly and not cumulative.

  15. ekutter says:

    I’m not quite sure why Hybrids are in any way lumped in with “electrified” vehicles. All of their propulsion still comes from gas originally. I absolutely love my 2010 Prius but most of the fuel savings has very little to do with the hybrid aspect and a tone to do with being an extremely efficient vehicle. This can be seen in how good both the gas and electric efficiency numbers are with the Prime. I get my best mileage (60mpg) when I try to minimize how much the battery gets used by minimizing braking. Better to drive smart and minimize braking as braking only gets you back about 25% of the energy it took to accelerate. The hybrid also has zero impact on freeway driving.

    You really want to get your kwh from the wall, not the fuel tank!

    1. Elooney Muskey says:

      Hola Regen braking! The basis of all copy cats\ cars powered by toothbrush batteries.

    2. BenG says:

      If you want to be so holier-than-thou I hope you have solar panels on your roof? Or maybe you are lucky enough to live in a region with a low carbon grid?

      Where I live, a new Prius hybrid is as clean or cleaner than the grid.

      1. ekutter says:

        Hay, I’m not knocking the prius. You really didn’t read my comment. I love my prius and it’s fuel efficiency. My main point is that most of that efficiency (not all) is because of the efficient design of the car, not the hybrid. Unless you have a car that provides both hybrid and non-hybrid models, you don’t know how much benefit comes from the hybrid. Most that offer both, only get a 2 to 4 mpg better in the hybrid, and that is often because of other changes like no rear windshield wiper. The Prius is an awesome efficient car. And it’s a way more awesome and efficient car as a plug-in. I bet it would still get in the upper 40’s without a basic hybrid engine.

  16. Elooney Muskey says:

    Yeah, so? What’s the problem bud?
    Hybrids are the best. Don’t need charging stations, don’t need to feed on tax payers. Don’t need to wait hours to charge. DOn’t need to burn up electric outlets.
    Save money AND save the planet.
    Bud, you should be cheering this too, not jeering at it! Cheers 🙂

    1. says:

      You were dropped on your head as a baby, weren’t you?

    2. ekutter says:

      Basic hybrids are just slightly modified gas cars that get ALL of there energy from burning gas. Sure they are slightly more efficient because of regen. Until you can plug it in, it just an gas car with a little effort towards efficiency. I’m a big proponent of PHEV’s, even minimal range ones like prius Prime.

    3. Get Real says:

      I think that the Elunatic idiot maybe swallowed a toothbrush battery when he was dropped as that could explain his constant and incoherently babblings regularly here on InsideEvs against EVs.

  17. Don Zenga says:

    Congratulations Toyota on selling 11 million electrified vehicles.
    A vehicle the size and weight of Prius with 5 doors will hardly go 35 MPG, but equipped with hybrid system, Prius goes 52 MPG which is 50% extra mileage or put it the other way, it consumes 33% less gas.
    (35/52*100) = 67% gas used and 33% saved.

    Since Toyota invested a lot in hybrids with nickel battery, they don’t want to move beyond hybrids. But a lot changed last year when Prius-Plugin sold 50,000 units and ended in Top-3 I believe. The pressure from other automakers will eventually force Toyota to sell more plugins.

    1. john1701a says:

      Toyota already has moved on. The gen-4 Prius uses lithium. The base model of Camry hybrid does too. And the Prime model of Prius demonstrates how easy of a next step it will be to offer a plug on a wide variety of vehicles. So there’s no pressure. The transition is in progress.

      1. CCIE says:

        They’re only 8 years late to the game. And still wasting their time with foolcells.

        1. john1701a says:

          We’re still waiting for that affordable Volt.

          Remember the “nicely under $30,000” target for MSRP that GM set?

          Toyota delivered that with the $27,100 Prius Prime.

          1. CCIE says:

            Check out actual sale prices of Volts. It’s very easy to get one in the $25-30k range, plus you get the full federal tax credit and state credits.

            So, in reality, the Volt costs the same or less than the Prime.

            1. john1701a says:

              Mixing up COST with PRICE is a common problem… and very short-sighted.

              Reality is, Toyota has a massive advantage over GM in terms of high-volume potential, since the COST of their plug-in system is much lower.

              1. Get Real says:

                The cost of their plug-in is lower because they put in half the battery and therefore it is a much weaker PEV too.

                Now my father in law has one and likes it but to me who drives a Volt and Bolt, the PP is weak sauce as a PEV although better then straight ICE or HEV obviously.

              2. CCIE says:

                First you say that the Prime is more attractive to mainstream buyers (where price is a major factor). Then you say that manufacturer cost to build is why the prime is better.

                Both of those are untrue. But, seriously make your mind on what mode of misdirection you;re going to use.

                The bottom line is that the Prime and Volt have about the same out-the-door price. And, for that same price, the Volt provides twice the electric range and is fun to drive (good acceleration and handling).

                Anyone who does their research, and drives both cars, would be a fool to buy the Prime.

  18. James says:

    Love my RAV4EV. Just paid it off, trading it for Model 3 when my reservation comes due around August. Your loss Toyota.

  19. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

    “Toyota electrified vehicle sales (cumulative) – 2017”

    Note to InsideEVs staff: Whoever wrote that caption does not understand what “cumulative” means in this context. The graph very clearly does not show cumulative sales; it’s impossible for cumulative sales to ever go down.

    1. ffbj says:

      It’s annualized. Cumulative sales for every year compared. Not all years added together to express cumulative sales. I think.

      1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

        Then it should say “annual” sales, not “cumulative” sales. Charts labeled “cumulative sales” always show the sum of total sales over time.

      2. Tom says:

        I don’t know what you were smoking that day in class but I want some. It’s obviously mislabeled.

  20. John Christian says:

    Toyota stood at the threshold of greatness, they could have owned the BEV world and possibly made Tesla insignificant. But, like a sad SNL skit, they just said Nah.
    I am not a big hater. But, Toyota you have, and continue to, disappoint me.

    1. john1701a says:

      That’s rather short-sighted. We’re still very much in the early stage (tax-credit dependency) and high-volume is very much not a reality yet. There are infrastructure shortcomings too.

      The market cannot be sustained by a monopoly either. Hybrid penetration overwhelmingly proved it. Every automaker must offer something to replace traditional vehicles with.

    2. CCIE says:

      Exactly. It’s just sad how badly Toyota dropped the ball. And they still refuse to admit their mistakes and get with the program.

Leave a Reply