GX Twin Turbo or LC 250 hybrid engine (1 Viewer)

[Phillyd2]

I can't see how a hybrid will improve emissions if it isn't more fuel efficient.

It should have at least slightly better mpg but it’s an ancillary benefit and according to the engineers not the reason for them.

 

[Rednexus]

There are more to emissions than just CO2. NOX, particulates, CO, etc.

 

[Phillyd2]

There are more to emissions than just CO2. NOX, particulates, CO, etc.

Do they include any MPG numbers? I had thought there were two different standards set by the EPA.

The Environmental Protection Agency is proposing its most ambitious new regulations yet for cutting pollution from vehicles.

The overarching goal is not just cleaner cars, but the transformation of the auto industry: The EPA would essentially impose regulatory penalties on companies that do not move quickly enough toward electric cars.

The new standards are so strict that, according to the EPA's estimates, up to 67% of new vehicles sold in 2032 may have to be electric in order for carmakers to be in compliance.

They are separate from the fuel economy standards set by the federal government; new proposals for those rules are expected soon. These are also separate from — and designed differently than — the zero-emission vehicle mandates adopted in California and some other states.

Seems more like social engineering with the ultimate goal of killing the consumer internal combustion engine.

 

[Rednexus]

Do they include any MPG numbers? I had thought there were two different standards set by the EPA.



Seems more like social engineering with the ultimate goal of killing the consumer internal combustion engine.

I deal with USEPA regulations all of the time in my career (environmental consultant). EPA may have been a science-based agency at some point in the past, but now they are as much of a political agency as anything else - trying to bend the arc of science to fit the political goals of the appointed agency director and administration. It is a bit of sea-saw however - EPA and other agencies act very different during different administrations, which create lots of uncertainty for regulated entities (car companies, oil and gas, utilities, other manufacturing) about what regulations and enforcement they'll have to deal with just a few years in the future.

However anyone is allowed to comment on proposed EPA rules. I would suggest that folks issue comments on the next round of proposed rules from EPA. EPA is mandated to respond to them (though some of their "responses" basically ignore the comments....) when developing the new rules.

 

[Phillyd2]

I deal with USEPA regulations all of the time in my career (environmental consultant). EPA may have been a science-based agency at some point in the past, but now they are as much of a political agency as anything else - trying to bend the arc of science to fit the political goals of the appointed agency director and administration. It is a bit of sea-saw however - EPA and other agencies act very different during different administrations, which create lots of uncertainty for regulated entities (car companies, oil and gas, utilities, other manufacturing) about what regulations and enforcement they'll have to deal with just a few years in the future.

However anyone is allowed to comment on proposed EPA rules. I would suggest that folks issue comments on the next round of proposed rules from EPA. EPA is mandated to respond to them (though some of their "responses" basically ignore the comments....) when developing the new rules.

If by “There are more to emissions than just CO2. NOX, particulates, CO, etc.” you just meant that the ‘more’ is a political agenda, then I agree.

I have no doubt that comments are routinely ignored and dismissed which is why elections matter. As this extremely important subject seems to be forbidden here, I’ll leave it at that.

 

[Rednexus]

If by “There are more to emissions than just CO2. NOX, particulates, CO, etc.” you just meant that the ‘more’ is a political agenda, then I agree.

I have no doubt that comments are routinely ignored and dismissed which is why elections matter. As this extremely important subject seems to be forbidden here, I’ll leave it at that.

For the record, I meant that emissions are not just CO2 based. NOX, particulates, CO are all in emissions standards. So a vehicle and theoretically be very efficient (great MPG) and have very low CO2 emissions, but high NOX, CO, and particulate emissions (which are the drivers of overall air quality in terms of us being able to breath). Conversely, a vehicle can have poor MPG but great emissions profile from the tailpipe - the two are inter-related but not directly correlated. Toyota's hybrid system could be improving tailpipe emissions without changing the MPG very much - hard to say as I'm presuming this but it seems possible.

 

[Phillyd2]

For the record, I meant that emissions are not just CO2 based. NOX, particulates, CO are all in emissions standards. So a vehicle and theoretically be very efficient (great MPG) and have very low CO2 emissions, but high NOX, CO, and particulate emissions (which are the drivers of overall air quality in terms of us being able to breath). Conversely, a vehicle can have poor MPG but great emissions profile from the tailpipe - the two are inter-related but not directly correlated. Toyota's hybrid system could be improving tailpipe emissions without changing the MPG very much - hard to say as I'm presuming this but it seems possible.

Ah! I missed the period between CO2 & NOX and read it as a comma.

 

[Hiluxforever]

For the record, I meant that emissions are not just CO2 based. NOX, particulates, CO are all in emissions standards. So a vehicle and theoretically be very efficient (great MPG) and have very low CO2 emissions, but high NOX, CO, and particulate emissions (which are the drivers of overall air quality in terms of us being able to breath). Conversely, a vehicle can have poor MPG but great emissions profile from the tailpipe - the two are inter-related but not directly correlated. Toyota's hybrid system could be improving tailpipe emissions without changing the MPG very much - hard to say as I'm presuming this but it seems possible.

Since micro-plastics are getting more attention, tires are coming under more and more scrutiny, and it's probably a matter of time before something starts happening there, as well. Regardless of how an individual feels about it, there is no denying the uptick in articles talking about. It's good for the enthusiasts to be aware of what's coming up next instead of lamenting over battles already lost.

 

[Jetboy]

Since micro-plastics are getting more attention, tires are coming under more and more scrutiny, and it's probably a matter of time before something starts happening there, as well. Regardless of how an individual feels about it, there is no denying the uptick in articles talking about. It's good for the enthusiasts to be aware of what's coming up next instead of lamenting over battles already lost.

There's a somewhat hidden air pollution issue with EV weight and tires also. Tires = pm2.5. It's kind Achilles heel of evs. Weight results in higher pm2.5 from tires and road wear than the ice equivalent. For nonattainment areas it's a problem when the compliance plan is partially based on EV conversion. I think there's work to do on tire compounds to reduce the atomized particulates.

 

[Hiluxforever]

There's a somewhat hidden air pollution issue with EV weight and tires also. Tires = pm2.5. It's kind Achilles heel of evs. Weight results in higher pm2.5 from tires and road wear than the ice equivalent. For nonattainment areas it's a problem when the compliance plan is partially based on EV conversion. I think there's work to do on tire compounds to reduce the atomized particulates.

Exactly, and even non EVs are significantly heavier, between the size increase of most cars and using different materials to pass crash tests.

Personally I think tires need to go through more scrutiny and must allow a vehicle to stop within so much of what it would stop from the factory if nothing else.

 

[Phillyd2]

And of course mineral mining, battery production and end of life disposal issues never seem to be part of the equation or conversation.

 

[cruisergreen]

There's a somewhat hidden air pollution issue with EV weight and tires also. Tires = pm2.5. It's kind Achilles heel of evs. Weight results in higher pm2.5 from tires and road wear than the ice equivalent. For nonattainment areas it's a problem when the compliance plan is partially based on EV conversion. I think there's work to do on tire compounds to reduce the atomized particulates.

Another PM2.5 source is brake wear, which should be less on EVs with the regenerative braking. Though maybe that's reduced by the extra weight of EVs causing more brake wear when they are used. I'm not sure how the two sources would compare, but maybe would offset each other some.

 

[cruisergreen]

And of course mineral mining, battery production and end of life disposal issues never seem to be part of the equation or conversation.

It is part of the equation. I think it's at around 30k miles when the benefits of an EV start to outweigh the impacts of its production.

 

[Rednexus]

And of course mineral mining, battery production and end of life disposal issues never seem to be part of the equation or conversation.

Also need to consider the development of new energy sources as we simultaneously pull reliable sources like nuclear/coal/natural gas of the grid and replace them with unreliable sources like solar/wind, while increasing grid demand due to EV charging load.

And all of the electrical infrastructure/new transmission lines/charging stations we need to construct to support the EVs.

It's nothing short of a massive undertaking with extremely new and complex supply chains. And it ain't happening within anyone's 203X timeline, it takes years to a a decade to permit, design, and build the infrastructure need to do it.

Meanwhile most of us will keep tooling along in our gas-powered Yotas.

 

[Phillyd2]

An organic market driven transition would be good but takes time and investment. Lots of both. Instead we have a cart looking for a horse.

 

[OGBeno]

And of course mineral mining, battery production and end of life disposal issues never seem to be part of the equation or conversation.

It‘s the hottest topic in Patagonia where I live and a huge electric batteries material mine is going in (manganese, zinc, copper, molybdenum, etc).

Fast tracked by the US Govt and all deemed “essential to National Security”…. Ergo, drill baby drill.

Its become a shĩtshow here…. Front lines of the “future”….

New Arizona mines unearth new conflicts: Resist climate change or protect fragile landscapes?

A proposed mine for battery-grade manganese is only the start of an electrification mining boom facing Arizona and the West.

www.azcentral.com

 

[Rednexus]

It‘s the hottest topic in Patagonia where I live and a huge electric batteries material mine is going in (manganese, zinc, copper, molybdenum, etc).

Fast tracked by the US Govt and all deemed “essential to National Security”…. Ergo, drill baby drill.

Its become a shĩtshow here…. Front lines of the “future”….

New Arizona mines unearth new conflicts: Resist climate change or protect fragile landscapes?

A proposed mine for battery-grade manganese is only the start of an electrification mining boom facing Arizona and the West.

www.azcentral.com

I kind of wish we'd look harder at carbon sequestration instead of EVs. Maybe someone already has. It's expensive but so is the EV supply chain and charging infrastructure. And it's not just limited to mines, we'll need to build thousands and thousands of miles of new transmission lines and devote huge swaths of land to solar arrays and wind farms. A greater scar on the planet than oil and gas for sure.

Just as a FYI - I do a lot of mining work and they have very stringent environmental regulations (state and federal) for water, air, and land. Most mines the size of South32 will have a staff of 5-10 people at the mine solely responsible for environmental compliance, plus an army of offsite consultants and contractors helping them stay compliant. They'll have literally hundreds of permit conditions, environmental monitoring standards, and reclamation requirements to comply with. It's not the old Wild West where contaminated water and tailings were dumped willy nilly (my entire county is a Superfund site from historical lead/zinc mining - it's been mostly cleaned up by now though).

But I do understand how much a large industrial site can disrupt a tranquil, undeveloped area, regardless of how clean it is, and it's part of the price we're being made to pay for EVs.

 

[OGBeno]

Well put. The mine is “advanced” in its infrastructure: IE: it is a next-gen mining operation.

But when a town of 800 people far away from anything overnight goes to 500-1000 people rolling in daily to build the mine, s*** gets real quick-like.

I mean they are basically terraforming. I don’t even call it mining anymore. It’s earth-scale terraforming to convert the earth into the next phase of terrestrial living.

I get it. It has to happen. It’s inevitable. I’m pragmatic.

Still sucks. Anyway, enough mine talk.

How about 35”s under this new Land Cruiser?

 

[TWILLY]

I kind of wish we'd look harder at carbon sequestration instead of EVs. Maybe someone already has. It's expensive but so is the EV supply chain and charging infrastructure. And it's not just limited to mines, we'll need to build thousands and thousands of miles of new transmission lines and devote huge swaths of land to solar arrays and wind farms. A greater scar on the planet than oil and gas for sure.

Just as a FYI - I do a lot of mining work and they have very stringent environmental regulations (state and federal) for water, air, and land. Most mines the size of South32 will have a staff of 5-10 people at the mine solely responsible for environmental compliance, plus an army of offsite consultants and contractors helping them stay compliant. They'll have literally hundreds of permit conditions, environmental monitoring standards, and reclamation requirements to comply with. It's not the old Wild West where contaminated water and tailings were dumped willy nilly (my entire county is a Superfund site from historical lead/zinc mining - it's been mostly cleaned up by now though).

But I do understand how much a large industrial site can disrupt a tranquil, undeveloped area, regardless of how clean it is, and it's part of the price we're being made to pay for EVs.

Siting for conflict avoidance matters so much. I am right now involved in litigating federal approvals for some of the Patagonia-area mine plans. Electrifying transportation will require battery material mining, but with so many endangered species and scarce water, Southeastern Arizona is literally one of the worst places in the U.S. for it; even small operations beg big conflicts. Trying to fast-track through big conflicts just makes it worse.

But yeah, back to Land Cruisers.

I'm ready for Toyota to give us more damn specs. This forum has gnawed the information they've given us down to the bone.

 

[BigSwede]

I'm ready for Toyota to give us more damn specs. This forum has gnawed the information they've given us down to the bone.