4 banger LC, thoughts? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter r71
- Start date
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.
- Status
Agree. The LX makes very little sense in the USA. It's too luxury limo to be an off-road model and too off-road model to be a luxury limo. It just doesn't end up doing either super well compared to dedicated vehicles. It's beautifully crafted. Wonderful vehicle. It's just the wrong platform to compete with the purpose built models.
And it's a midsize SUV. So it really isn't in the same class as the full size models. I think the TX will do very well although also not really full size, it's a lot bigger
I think Toyota would do really well with a full size and mid size GA-L platform SUV. Basically an LS in SUV form. That's the right place to start for a luxury/performance SUV for the USA and Europe markets.
I agree with your point on the LX versus dedicated luxury vehicles, with the caveat that Range Rover is fairly short wheelbase and certainly sells well around here, even though it is small on the inside. I think the RR is a direct competitor with the LX.
People should stop calling this powertrain a hybrid, it's a mild-hybrid and that has nothing in common with a regular hybrid of a Prius or Rav4.
A regular hybrid is a parallel architecture of the 2 engines and can give this feeling of being disconnected because the speed of the ICE is somewhat independent of your acceleration input and speed of the vehicle.
A mild-hybrid is a serial architecture of the 2 engines, it really is a starter motor always connected to the ICE and that not only help the engine to start but also to accelerate (so not so different from any ICE that has a starter). The ICE will always move accordingly to your acceleration input and speed of the vehicle, it can't disconnect.
Mild-hybrid also has a far smaller battery and electrical motor, the total effect of the electrical drivetrain is a very small compared to the ICE.
If you were to be put behind the wheel of a mild-hybrid vehicle without knowing it, you would not notice it's a mild-hybrid instead of a regular ICE, you would only think the motor is slightly more powerful than it is really.
Not sure of the legislation in the US, but in the EU mild-hybrids are not legally considered as hybrids/EV. They don't benefit from any of the tax breaks, sale bonuses, or advantages (like access or free parking in some cities).
In conclusion, you can hate EV and/or hybrids and still have the right to like this Land Cruiser without giving-up on your beliefs
Oh no...the TRD Pro with the mild-hybrid was very apparent. During start-up, there was zero engine noise...damn thing was silent. I first thought I had failed to start it or that it was having electrical problems.
NTTD
Lurker
I may have misunderstood your statement. What It appeared (to me) that you were saying is the J300 is not in the US market and then started talking about the new LX.
Yes they are brothers, but more, I'm saying there more like identical twins with different haircuts and clothes.
Instead of one leaning towards the "luxury" end and one leaning towards the "off-road" end they're sort of both and also neither.
Given how close the price point was they're basically going for the same market and the decision comes down to style choice.
Prudent, that's a great vehicle with one of the best engines Toyota has ever mad and that's saying a lot.
I've been trying to figure out what you mean by "MB". I'm sure I'll slap myself in the forehead once you say it but it escapes me.
I don't this kind of hybrid directly compares to to the RX. Also I think part of the "disconnected" nature is due to it being a Lexus and they tend to focus on quiet and smoothness.
I think this compares better to the new Sequioa and those owners don't seem to be complaining about the feeling of it.
OMG the grill on the LX is just absurd.
2 things:
- BMW screwing the pooch on the G8X doesnt really make your point, IMPO. The F8X was 500 lbs lighter.
- The 300 series is ~300 lbs lighter than the 200.
Mercedes Benz. He's probably talking about their EV lineup.
Way too many possibilities for why with CAFE Standards probably being the first. The minimum is moving upwards at a quick clip and they cannot continue to push out vehicles in the 16-20MPG range and hope to meet the standard. I don't particularly like hybrids and am completely adverse to the PHEV which way over complicate a powertrain, but they all have their place. I'll add that traditionalists are generally not representative of target customers though a manufacturer might lead you to think that.
In a similar vein the forceful removal of the incandescent bulb from the market was lauded by the government as saving consumers billions of dollars (just like EV's will!). I like the light cast from an incandescent bulb and do not care what electricity costs in order to have that light. LED's don't offer the same level of light so I have stockpiled a lifetime supply of incandescent bulbs, much like those of us here who do not care about the price of gas and are holding on to our ICE vehicles.
Incandescent->LED and ICE->EV...the common denominator is the government and not the consumer. I have no doubt EV's (or some other solution) will overtake ICE, but it will be a long time and the consumer should be the one to make it happen and without the tax credit handout going to people who do not need it in the first place.
Had to revise the post to note the current administration has proposed a new rule to force heat pump water heaters on everyone starting in 2028. Another example of taking away a simple device whether electric or gas and replacing it with someone that costs more and is significantly more complicated which of course means it will cost more.
The days of simplicity are long gone which is what happens when the government gets involved.
Last edited:
NTTD
Lurker
I don't think it's so much MPG as it is emissions.
The Sequoia is a great example of that. Still not that great mileage but you get the specs (or better) of a V8 with emissions that satisfy regulations.
You just can't get a NA ICE that will fit the bill within the regs. It's this or nothing.
BTW What's a "Heat pump water heater". I know what a "heat pump" is (localized AC/heater).
Perhaps you're conflating "electric water heater" and "heat pump" or is it something else?
I do know they're trying to force an "all electric future".
I don't see that happening for a while. For a new neighborhood sure, but the existing infrastructure can't support it. Your average house has a 100 or 200 amp panel. All electric appliances and two (or more) electric cars could easily draw more than that during normal usage. Not to mention the power lines to the neighborhoods, and the existing supply etc.
We're going to need to make some big and expensive changes for that to be any more than a talking point.
LazarusTaxa
SILVER Star
lol there is a very healthy amount of big government fear mixed in with a fair amount of conspiracy in this thread.
Wait till I tell you guys how awesome our rivian is. And get this.. I actually CHOSE to buy it.. it wasn't even "forced down my throat" (at least consciously).
Wait till I tell you guys how awesome our rivian is. And get this.. I actually CHOSE to buy it.. it wasn't even "forced down my throat" (at least consciously).
There is plenty to like about electric vehicles, from performance to simplicity and likely much less maintenance over a vehicle’s life. I have a number of friends who love their electric vehicles. The issue is they are being forced on the public through CAFE, and subsidized by other peoples money via tax credits, when they are doing very little in emissions reduction when the build and recycling impacts are included.lol there is a very healthy amount of big government fear mixed in with a fair amount of conspiracy in this thread.
Wait till I tell you guys how awesome our rivian is. And get this.. I actually CHOSE to buy it.. it wasn't even "forced down my throat" (at least consciously).
I don’t knock anyone for buying one, especially if they get tax breaks for doing so. The scam is pretending the dollars spent on incentives is a good use of money in reducing emissions. Electric cars are a green focus for virtue signaling, not meaningful reductions in CO2. Meanwhile US emissions have gone down in large part due to the switch from coal to natural gas in power generation as a result of fracking, which the green lobby hates.
Last edited:
LED bulbs and other energy efficiency programs are good examples of situations where the benefits are non-linear and only exist if substantially all users change behavior. They reduce grid energy demand significantly. Especially during peak demand periods in some areas. And the benefit of that is a lot more than just the immediate savings of a few kwh of energy use. It also saves significant fixed costs by reducing everything from the size of transmission lines to the generation fleet. And that translates to a lot more savings than the immediate few cents of variable energy savings. But those big savings only exist if everyone switches. The water heater is another good example. If you want to be part of a society, sometimes that requires some give and take for the common good.
With respect to the engines - it's more of the classic tragedy of the commons. I'm not sure there's a nonlinear feedback at some high rate of use. But there's really no way I'd choose a legacy v8 over a TTV6 with Toyota build quality. Look at how well the supercharged v6 and v8 Toyotas have lasted. They've been pretty solid. The new tundra engine is miles better in terms of power deliver than my 5.7. The turbo 2.4 might even out perform it at low rpms. What I personally don't like how Toyota packaged it for serviceability. It was a mistake not to allow for easy access to the important parts. Either removeable fenders or more space to access. Both of which are pretty easily doable at the design stage and weren't done. Toyota did exactly that on the ttv6 diesel (turbo on top, EGR cooler easy to access). If the engines are really as good as they claim - maybe it's not a problem. If they aren't - then it's a big problem. If it was a turbo inline 6 with easy access to a turbo on one side - I don't think we'd see nearly as much pushback. But a 20 or 30 hour process to get to the turbos is a huge concern. I think the turbo 4 is a lot easier by the looks of it. On that engine I bet you could pop the turbo off in maybe 1-2 hours.
With respect to the engines - it's more of the classic tragedy of the commons. I'm not sure there's a nonlinear feedback at some high rate of use. But there's really no way I'd choose a legacy v8 over a TTV6 with Toyota build quality. Look at how well the supercharged v6 and v8 Toyotas have lasted. They've been pretty solid. The new tundra engine is miles better in terms of power deliver than my 5.7. The turbo 2.4 might even out perform it at low rpms. What I personally don't like how Toyota packaged it for serviceability. It was a mistake not to allow for easy access to the important parts. Either removeable fenders or more space to access. Both of which are pretty easily doable at the design stage and weren't done. Toyota did exactly that on the ttv6 diesel (turbo on top, EGR cooler easy to access). If the engines are really as good as they claim - maybe it's not a problem. If they aren't - then it's a big problem. If it was a turbo inline 6 with easy access to a turbo on one side - I don't think we'd see nearly as much pushback. But a 20 or 30 hour process to get to the turbos is a huge concern. I think the turbo 4 is a lot easier by the looks of it. On that engine I bet you could pop the turbo off in maybe 1-2 hours.
NTTD
Lurker
Not to mention where one gets their power. There's plenty of "coal fired" and "gas fired" Teslas around. These "elsewhere emissions" are often not factored in.
NTTD
Lurker
Absolutely.
It needs to happen but I'm pretty sure it can't happen as fast as they'd like. Not without serious infrastructure investment. We need more plants, more wires, bigger electric panels...
Even if every house got solar I don't think there's enough electricity and supply capacity to go around yet.
IMO - (I've argued this for a long time as I used to work in the energy industry) - PHEVs are simply the better choice both for the environment and as a bridge tech. With limited battery manufacturing capacity, every battery that goes into a PHEV gets about 4-5 times as much fuel savings and thereby emissions savings as a pure EV. We should be building predominantly PHEVs before BEVs. There is also a time value of emissions savings wrt global warming. Emissions reduction now is more important than emission reduction over the next 20 years.
I'm also very pro-renewables, but in a pragmatic sense. Roof top solar is great, but it's not the answer to major energy needs. Utility scale solar is far more efficient both economically and generation wise. And we still need dispatchable thermal resources to manage the grid. Many grids are relying on market purchases to make up the difference and it's going to result in major grid failures. What's happening is the big grid operators are relying on market depth of connected systems who are at the same time relying on historical assumptions about the same market depth of generation capacity. What is going to happen, and is already happening at some level, is that everyone is relying on a mythical market having enough excess capacity to make up for the variable generation and that's not going to actually work. I'm all for renewables - but it can't happen overnight. Doing it in a smart and cautious way is more appropriate in my opinion.
Still likely less than a gasoline vehicle, when all is considered.
Infrastructure is also something that CAN be improved over time, replacing fossil fuel based power generation with renewable energy. A gas powered car will never get cleaner than it is when it was made.
LazarusTaxa
SILVER Star
It seems like most anti-EV people only talk about the environmental impact of EVs (usually with completely incorrect facts), whereas many/most EV buyers I know are doing it for 1) performance and 2) convenience. A smaller environmental footprint is a bonus.
But, speaking to that point, personally living in the PNW basically zero of our energy comes from fossil fuels.
But, speaking to that point, personally living in the PNW basically zero of our energy comes from fossil fuels.
Fair enough. But that negates the point of taking taxpayer money to subsidize them.
PNW has some of the lowest carbon footprint power generation anywhere. The green lobby would block the creation of that hydroelectric power generation today if it wasn’t already in place.
You talking hydro? As @JohnPW pointed out, (I'll use his term) the green lobby hates hydro.
Also, please point out the incorrect facts that are being banded about - this thread has been a great discussion. If you see incorrect facts, please provide proof otherwise - don't hide behind labeling it "a fair amount of conspiracy".
Sidenote: I know two types of EV drivers. The ones with Tesla or Rivians that do it because they think its cool to have the new, tech related thing and tell you all about it, and the ones who do it because of virtue signaling/perceived environmental help. I, personally, know zero in between.
Last edited:
In the northwest a significant amount of the energy comes from coal. It's just greenwashed to pretend it's not. You can tell by looking at the market purchases. When you see that 60% of the energy is from market transactions at the hubs - that means it's probably coal being hidden in the market purchase category. Oregon would not be able to keep the lights on in the winter without Jim Bridger in Wyoming sending power as an example I'm familiar with. If you see the term "net" before generation - you know it's a greenwash. Washington probably does better than most states, as does Oregon. But they do still rely on gas and coal out of state for maintaining reliable service.
I know a number of EV drivers who do so simply because it's cheap and convenient. They drive a Nissan Leaf, a Honda Clarity (PHEV, but use mostly as an EV), and whatever the Hundai is - IONIC? All of them also have other cars but use the EVs as commuters and local cars because they're so cheap and convenient to never have to go to a gas station. I'm sold on the convenience alone that I'd love to have one for all my local driving - but not as my only vehicle. Pretty sure our next family commuter CUV will be a Model Y or something like it.
I know a number of EV drivers who do so simply because it's cheap and convenient. They drive a Nissan Leaf, a Honda Clarity (PHEV, but use mostly as an EV), and whatever the Hundai is - IONIC? All of them also have other cars but use the EVs as commuters and local cars because they're so cheap and convenient to never have to go to a gas station. I'm sold on the convenience alone that I'd love to have one for all my local driving - but not as my only vehicle. Pretty sure our next family commuter CUV will be a Model Y or something like it.
- Status
