Of course ICEs are here for quite some time, but it will not be big V8 that will be needed, however good they are or how much we like them.
The way many analysts see ICEVs vs BEVs is IMO ( interest or preference?) biased and flawed. This [automotive] disruption (overused business strategic buzzword) is more likely to be a transition or shift than an outright disruption. Unlike electronic devices which a affordable and functional in most conditions, cars are expensive (second most expensive product in a household after private property) and BEVs depend on infrastructure -- both public and private -- to be used without inconveniences.
When we look at previous disruptions in electronic devices, they were really fast (digital cameras, cell phones, smartphones), and the sudden changes hurt companies. Analyst claim car makers to face the same troubles. From my study of innovative disruptions, I conclude that they are like accidents, thus unpredictable, yet mitigable. Products are classified as consumer products and business/professional products, the needs are different, but in some cases the products even when very specific can takeover the other group. In consumer products depending on the infrastructure and disposable income, where BEVs are not viable ICEVs (HEVs/PHEVs) will continue selling till the right conditions for BEVs are met. In business products, cars will have similar conditions, but buses, trucks, tractors, and other industrial equipment will develop independently.
So ICEVs vs BEVs, it would be more like CD and .mp3 and streaming (possible thanks to telecommunication network infrastructure with 3G and 4G, equivalent to charging or hydrogen fueling infrastructure), rather than total replacement of feature phones by smartphones (also thanks to infrastructure) with some companies taken by surprise like Nokia, with "wrong" operating system (comparable to wrong alternative fuel, think hydrogen fuel cell vs lithium-ion battery).
This means the the car manufactures to come out as winners will be those that will be able to balance between the different market demands, ICEV(PHEV) and BEV while maintaining market share and profitability.
With gasoline I4 and V6 engine, both turbocharged and naturally aspirated + hybrid, so as BEVs and as side development yet HFC, TMC is very well positioned. In Europe TMC is doing very well (relatively) without many diesel engines, and it will be always tougher for diesel. As for the professional products (SUVs, pickups) Toyota does have diesel engines, which are good due to their reliability. I believe V8 engines are a waste of resources. For the next Land Cruiser/LX, a 4.2l I6 diesel based on the 1GD 2.8l I4 of the Hilux would be all diesel needed.
.
