All your points are valid, and great questions. Here is my take on why Toyota is trying to replace the Crysta with the Hycross.
I think the main reason why Toyota is doing this is impending stringent emission regulations which are going to kick-in not just in India, but in global markets as well. For any OEM it doesn't make sense having an outdated high CO2 emitter on one market, and a more advanced one in another international market. They would rationalize for economies of scale.
There is also some strategy involved. When Toyota has invested upwards of 2000 crore on the Hycross, they would not have an older Crysta completely cannibalize on the Hycross! My take is that when the Crysta Diesel returns to sale next year it will be pretty highly priced at par or above Hycross full hybrid so as to dissuade customers from going for a diesel.
The world is moving away from diesel, and all OEM have jumped on the bandwagon. Even Hyundai which will continue to offer diesel engines post RDE emission norms has stopped development of ALL NEW diesel engines. This has been announced in several media articles.
In order to satisfy the impending stringent BS6 Phase II RDE emission norms more equipment might have to be put into diesel engines, driving up the price. I wont be surprised if the Hycross full hybrid is priced very competitively with the diesel.
The petrol Crysta ofcourse might not be preferred in large volumes, due to its relatively lower fuel efficiency, and due to the psychological barrier that petrol will burn a hole in the pocket for such a heavy vehicle! A BOF on petrol! Scary for many even without logical reasoning.
Another major factor going against all BOFs is their heavy kerb weight. Higher kerb weights consume more fuel/energy, and in turn more CO2 emissions in any vehicle be it IC engine, hybrid or EV. Monocoques are 200 to 300 kg lighter compared to BOFs leading to higher fuel efficiency. The sweet spot is to be around 1500 to 1600 kg kerb weight in this market segment, in order to meet emission norms in today's level of regulations. And let us remember kerb weight is calculated "with fluids" i.e. kerb weight includes fuel in the tank, engine oil, transmission oil and coolant. So we are looking at stringent weight targets to meet.
It is a myth that monocoques could be less sturdy than BOFs. Monocoques can take as much abuse as a BOF. The XUV500 which is a monocoque is a good example. But the suspension parts in the XUV500 monocoque were made very sturdy and vehicle had a kerb weight of close to 1900 kg if I am not mistaken. So it could all boil down to "Weight". Also, we have to be aware that there are lighter but stronger alloys that could be used in suspension system parts of monocoques, ofcourse with a higher cost. But fact remains that monocoques can be made as sturdy or sturdier than BOFs.
You have many monocoques in the world that can take abuse from the stables of Landrover, Jeep etc. that have kerb weight around 1500 to 1800 kg that can take a good amount of abuse! I mean they can even do offroad, due to which bad roads wouldn't be a problem. For that matter for all that I know a Renault Duster monocoque at 1200 kg was very tolerant to bad roads. Gem of a vehicle!
Monocoques usually have much better handling and dynamics, due to lower unsprung mass i.e. lighter suspension components. But not sure if that can be termed as "fun to drive". W.r.to ground clearance GC you have a lot of components even BELOW the frame/chassis of the BOF, and as far as I know is just the distance between the lowest part in the vehicle and the ground. You could even create a higher GC in a monocoque when compared to BOF.
With respect to Hycross/Crysta segment, the product is positioned as a MPV people carrier with passenger comfort as a key attribute. Crysta had a very good balance between ride quality, being rugged and handling. But generally speaking BOFs have a poorer ride quality when compared to monocoques, or the suspension has to be improved with advanced tech like frequency dependent damping etc as you see in Scorpio N. More cost and complexity!
So an OEM might decide on monocoques due to cost and weight considerations! When Toyota transitioned from older Innova to Crysta by hiking up the price significantly, by then their focus customer had been upgraded to include chaffeur driven luxury customers as well (just few notches below premium segment).
Atleast catering to rural off-road customer profile is not their utmost priority right now.
However, it remains to be seen how the taxi segment perceives the HyCross. The taxi segment might be asking the same set of questions you've put across. But it looks like Toyota hasn't positioned the HyCross for taxi segment. That was their intention when they upgraded to Crysta, but it still made business sense for Crysta to be operated in taxi segment. Not sure what will happen with the HyCross in taxi segment.
Having said this, I totally respect your thoughts on the Innova Crysta and Hycross comparison and I'm a big fan of Crysta too for the practicality it offers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Livnletcarsliv I am just wondering about the following
Crysta is a BOF vehicle that is built to last longer and for rugged use (meaning more abuse) compared to a monocoque. How is this Hycross (a monocoque) platform will be as abuse friendly as a Crysta? Isn't it a clear advantage for the Crysta in this space where the road infrastructure in India is always a pity state?
Generally, the ground clearance of a BOF vehicle is way more than a monocoque vehicle. Again, how is it almost similar for both Hycross and Crysta? Even if it is so, how can this raised monocoque be fun to drive compared to the Hycross?
Crysta is also available in a 2.7 NA petrol powertrain. This Hycross comes with a 2.0 NA petrol and 2.0 NA hybrid-petrol powertrain. So apart from the looks (subjective though), probably easy driving (monocoque vs BOF), and features is there anything that is significant enough to replace the Crysta? Going by Toyota India's pricing approach so far, this Hycross will most likely be priced higher than Crysta petrol. I don't see this price increase as appropriate.
And while the Hybrid is going to cost significantly higher than even the Hycross non-hybrid variant, how does this price increase make sense (economically and environmentally) even if it is delivering the claimed fuel efficiency?
Additionally, if this Hycross is bigger in dimensions than a Crysta, how is it supposed to be more fun to drive with its disproportionate tires/wheels (smaller)? |