Toyota Global Cumulative Hybrid Sales Top 2M
04 September 2009
| Annual global sales of TMC hybrids. Click to enlarge. |
Toyota Motor Corporation (TMC) has cumulatively sold more than 2 million hybrid vehicles since the launch in 1997 in Japan of the Coaster Hybrid EV in August and the Prius in December.
As of 31 August 2009, cumulative sales of TMC hybrid passenger vehicles reached 2,014 thousand units and sales of commercial hybrid vehicles reached 2.7 thousand units, for a total of 2,016.9 thousand units. On May 31, 2007, the global cumulative sales of TMC’s hybrid vehicles had topped 1 million. (Earlier post.)
| Cumulative sales of TMC hybrid passenger vehicles by model. Click to enlarge. |
Cumulative sales of the Prius represent 71% of the global total, at slightly more than 1.4 million units. Camry hybrid is the second-most popular, with 8.3% of total sales, or slightly more than 167,000 units, followed by the RX400h/450h, with 7.3%, or more than 146,000 units.
In the US, Toyota has sold more than 1,041 thousand hybrids, and in Japan, some 615.8 thousand hybrids.
The news also coincided with Toyota Motor Europe’s (TME) report that cumulative hybrid sales in Europe have topped the 200,000 mark, with 50% of sales recorded in the last 24 months. TME has sold a total of 202,126 Toyota and Lexus hybrids since introducing Europe’s first commercial hybrid in 2000.
The third generation Toyota Prius, which is currently being launched in Europe, has generated more than 17,000 additional customer orders since June 2009. Lexus remains the only premium brand in Europe to offer three full hybrids as part of its range: the GS 450h, the LS 600h and the newly-launched RX 450h. Together, these models comprise more than 40% of Lexus sales in Europe, and as much as 52% in Western Europe alone.
Toyota has a global target of one million hybrid sales per year by the early 2010s, with European sales representing up to 10% of this target. In July, TME announced that it would manufacture a hybrid version of its C-segment hatchback, Auris, in the United Kingdom from mid-2010.
Pleasently surprised to see that Toyota sells 12 different Hybrids (HEVs) and that their total sales doubled from 1+ million in 2007 to 2+ million in 2009.
One could say that Toyota is a huge step ahead of all other manufacturers with high quality HEVs.
When will Toyota start mass producing and seling high quality PHEVs and BEVs? Will BYD beat Toyota with those two?
Posted by: HarveyD | 04 September 2009 at 08:30 AM
Had GM stuck patiently with the EV1, as Toyota has with the Prius, it would be a different world for them.
-
American business, in general, must learn this lesson of patience....quit looking for the quick buck and stick with a good plan thru thick and thin.
Posted by: danm | 04 September 2009 at 02:22 PM
China is currently building a pipeline that will bring water from the south central part of the country to the north. The amount of concrete being used to build the pipeline is equal to 1,000 Empire State buildings.
China is also building a 3400 mile pipeline to carry oil from Russia to the Pacific.
These two projects alone have a CO2 equivalent equal to every car in the US for 175 years.
I won't even mention how many Dams they are building.
Every car Toyota built could be a PHEV and it still would not make 1 iota of difference.
Posted by: JosephT | 04 September 2009 at 09:46 PM
Yes JosephT, if China, India, Brazil, Indonesia, Europe and Africa ever learn to polute as much as USA & Canada (avg of about 23 tonnes/per capita/per year) the world may very well be in a very critical situation.
Why wouldn't they be allowed to do exactly what we have already done?
Do reduce our pollution to their level, we would have to close 50+ % of our coal fired power plants and retire 70+ % of our gas guzzlers.
Posted by: HarveyD | 05 September 2009 at 01:04 PM
"These two projects alone have a CO2 equivalent equal to every car in the US for 175 years."
Water and oil pipelines do not consume that much energy to build, considering the huge amount of energy saving in diesel fuel consumed in the transportation of water and oil via tanker trucks, or even by trains otherwise, during the 50-year or greater lifespan of the infrastructure. Your statement is considered a complete exaggeration, unless you can provide credible reference for it.
"I won't even mention how many Dams they are building."
Again, Joseph, please think before you post. Dams provide hydroelectricity, which will displace gazillion tons of coals otherwise will be consumed during the lifespan of these dams, which may last a century, with maintenance.
Only a person working for Big Oil or Big Coal would have objection to these fossil-energy saving infrastructure projects, as well as the production of HEV's. Yes, if all vehicles are HEV's, there will be a huge oil glut, and oil prices will plummet...enough motive for smear campaigns against HEV?
Posted by: Roger Pham | 05 September 2009 at 06:16 PM
Harvey, 65%+ of the 'per capita' in China & India have never made a phone call, I do not consider them participating in modern society. The 30%+ 'per capita' that are participating in modern society pollute more than the US. The US is no longer the #1 polluter in the world, we are not even #2. Considering US GDP is double that of China and India and we pollute less than they do means that we are much greener than they are. It is also important to note that the US is going greener every year and China is going in the opposite direction.
If China and India do not change their ways it will not matter what we do.
Posted by: JosephT | 05 September 2009 at 11:34 PM
65%+ of the 'per capita' in China & India have never made a phone call, I do not consider them participating in modern society. The 30%+ 'per capita' that are participating in modern society pollute more than the US.
That is the most twisted logic I have ever come across on this site. "If you have not made a mobile phone call, you do not count as a citizen of this world" Why not use some other random criterion like television ownership, use of electricity, ability to read, life expectancy. Just some random choice to suit your argument.
And you lie too.
The Empire State building weighs 365,000 tonnes. So the pipeline costs 365,000,000 tonnes of concrete (let's for the moment forget that you are probably lying about that too). CO2 release from concrete use is around 1.5 ton of CO2 per ton of concrete. So the total emissions from this project will be around 500 megaton.
The US passenger car fleet consumes about 40% of the daily 20 million barrels of oil consumed in the US. That causes around 2 gigatons of CO2 emissions per year. As you can see, the pipeline emissions (related to concrete use) are equivalent to 3 months of US car emissions, not 175 years.
Care to show us where other 174 years and 9 months are coming from?
Remember that the US auto fleet consumes about 10% of all oil, so 175 years is equivalent to 17,5 years of TOTAL WORLD OIL PRODUCTION. For constructing 2 pipelines. Yeah, right.
Posted by: Arne | 06 September 2009 at 04:42 AM
Joseph,
I'm not yet ready with you.
I checked up on CO2 emissions from China and India. It seems together they emitted in 2006 7.6 gigatons of CO2. Their joint population is 2.5 billion people. If we use your hilarious, cherrypicked criterion that it is to be attributed to only 30% of the population, that comes to 750 million people. We forget about the other 1.75 billion, they do not watch tv, have no electric light, never take a bus, do not heat their houses, do not cook, actually they do not eat at all. They produce NO emissions.
So the 7.6 gigaton are in its entirety emitted by the "having made a mobile phone call part of the population". Per capita emissions is then 10 ton. US per capita emissions are almost twice that number. So even on that simple calculation you have got it wrong.
I leave it as an exercise to the reader how the numbers look when reducing the US population to only those that have eaten with chopsticks (as a measure of the level of participation in a modern society).
Posted by: Arne | 06 September 2009 at 05:16 AM
Some more fact checking. Mobile phone use as of July 2009:
China: 702 million subscribers
India: 479 million subcribers
Total: 1.2 billion.
As many mobile phones will be used by other people in the household, it is safe to say that the total number of people that have ever made a mobile call in India and China is more than 1.5 billion. This is >60%, not 30%.
Posted by: Arne | 06 September 2009 at 05:49 AM
Well said Anne.
CO2 per GDP $ does not mean that much when manufacturing has been transfered to other countries (China + India +++ etc.)
To be fair, the importing countries should add all the CO2 created to produce and transport all imported goods. If we did that, our per capita CO2 may be twice as much as we claim.
Of course, CO2 created to produce and transport exported goods should be substracted from the producing countries. That would further reduce China's and India's per capita.
A good example will be the future electrified vehicles. If built in China and India, they will create CO2 there but reduce CO2 in all countries importing those vehicles. Who would be the good and bad guys?
Posted by: HarveyD | 06 September 2009 at 08:10 AM
@Joseph
To add to what the others have said about your facts being wrong I would like to say your basic premise is wrong; If China and India do not change their ways it will not matter what we do.
Well of course it does. It matters in two ways:
(1) CO2 emissions are accumulative. Even if only one or the other of us reduces our output we at least slow down AGW.
(2) We lead by example. We led the world into AGW, it's our job to lead it out.
Posted by: ai_vin | 06 September 2009 at 09:24 AM
So a Renault clio, built in France, is shipped to Australia so a worker from Indonesia can get to work at the coal mine that supplies coal to China where a South African subsidiary ships electronic widgets to Brazil.
But thats the US's fault, right. Some of you are really out of touch. Oh, and there was an article on this very site showing that China pollutes more than the US. And China have been opening a new coal fired powerplant at a rate of almost 2 per week.
Posted by: JosephT | 06 September 2009 at 03:57 PM
JosephT
Of course, China with almost 4 times USAs population will eventually pollute as much and even 4 times as much.
As China flies beyond USA it may even pollute 5 or 6 times as much and have 4+ times as many vehicles etc.
China will most probably require 120+ to 220+ new Nuclear power plants and natural resources beyond its own border as did USA.
Canada may supply a good percentage of it, because Canada's very low 33 M population does not need all of it. Canadian Tar sands oils + Canadian + Uranium +++ will be going to China with 5 years.
China and USA will compete for natural resources from other countries but China with 4x the population may eventually require more.
Times are changing.....
Posted by: HarveyD | 06 September 2009 at 05:14 PM
"When will Toyota start mass producing and seling high quality PHEVs and BEVs?"
Either, 1) When they move away from NiMH batteries whose patent is controlled by Chevron, or 2) 2014 when this patent expires.
It would be super easy for Toyota to make a Prius where you program it for the battery to drain down to 30%, then you plug it in at home overnight and get 20 km range out of the batteries the next day. But they won't, because they can't.
The future concept Prius's are plugin but, no surprise, they use lithium batteries. In this respect Nissan is ahead of Toyota because they went straight to pure BEV's using lithium batteries whose patents are not held by an oil company.
Posted by: Mark_BC | 06 September 2009 at 06:42 PM
Marc_BC
There are more and more rumours that Toyota is SERIOUSLY looking at post-lithium energy storage devices for their mass produced PHEVs and BEVs.
This does not stop Toyota to develop the e-power trains + gensets + associated control systems etc for their future PHEVs and BEVs. A few hundred limited e-range Prius III 1/2 are good test beds.
Time will tell what the future e-storage units will be. Something close to EEStor ESSUs may be a possibility.
Alternatively, it may be another (new) lower cost battery technology or lower cost fuel cell.
We may have to wait for another 4 to 6 years to see it on the roads.
Posted by: HarveyD | 08 September 2009 at 03:26 PM