This is probably going to be very unliked, but this is just like my opinion man. This is my issue with the LC250 (1 Viewer)

[JohnPW]

People should want to adopt the electric car because the energy cost is much lower and they will be much more simple & reliable machines. Environment is secondary.

I don’t knock anyone for buying an EV, Tesla’s are great performers if charging isn’t a problem for you. Theoretically they should be reliable because they are simpler mechanically, although Tesla hasn’t been as reliable as Toyota so far. As far as gas savings: for the typical buyer of a new Land Cruiser, or of a new Tesla, gasoline expense isn’t a major concern either way. Which makes turbo hybrid in luxury vehicles, versus simpler naturally aspirated motors, so silly for marginal mileage improvements. It’s all driven by government, not the consumer.

But there are layers and layers of government subsidies making an EV available (starting with mileage credits, tax breaks for both the builder and consumer, etc)…these subsidies are based on the idea of EV’s providing environmental benefit. I have yet to see realistic scenarios where EV’s can materially reduce emissions on a global scale, given the small % of emissions that come from consumer cars and trucks. And the technology won’t work well for busses and other mass transportation because of limited range of charge. Perhaps I am wrong but what I see is a boondoggle that benefits politicians and virtue signaling, not the environment.

 

[Phillyd2]

Think of it on the bright side:
When most vehicles are electric 100 years from now, there will be a hell of a lot less air pollution globally. That’s reason enough to change and something to work towards.
Gasoline is dead.

The location checks out

 

[Jetboy]

Even the G wagon is moving to EV. It's time to accept reality folks. The world is changing. Slower than some might like, faster than others would like. But it's not going back. You'll never buy an emissions system free diesel again. You'll never buy another new v8 land cruiser.

 

[Jetboy]

People should want to adopt the electric car because the energy cost is much lower and they will be much more simple & reliable machines. Environment is secondary.

My experience is that almost everyone who actual tries an EV for a while will never go back. For a daily driver, charging at home is akin to using a cell phone for the first time over a landline.

 

[tacoshawn]

I find it interesting when, as consumers, we advocate for the oil’s very effective monopoly and lobbyists. Billions annually in continued subsidies and willing and able to raise oil and gas prices when there is a storm a continent away.

At least electric brings a different monopoly (and their lobbyists and their subsidies) into play to have a little competition. Less demand for gasoline and diesel should, in our capitalist system, lower prices. But prices improvements will probably will be limited because oil has near-monopoly pricing power and seeks to exploit pricing by working together as an industry to tighten supply when prices drop in order to drive out competition.

BTW, I own oil stocks. Keep up the pro-oil banter, I’m counting on you and on their continued ability to exploit market power!

Now, back to truck discussion. I’m on both LC 250 and GX550 waiting lists. My Toyota dealer says that late May / early June a heritage blue Land Cruiser trim that is incoming with my place in line tagged to it. I’m leaning toward GX due to tow capacity for a trailer that I may own someday in the future.

 

[Rednexus]

Bidenomics is a joke just like the EPA unconsitutional mandate of this week. The capital cost of compliance would likely only exacerbate our national debt, endanger our international conomic competitiveness and will bankrupt a number of industries and automotive companies---but hey, you can smugly enjoy your Tesla or Prius while speaking Chinese or Russian.

I was reviewing the preamble of one of those rules (that directly affects my industry - although not one of the climate rules) earlier this week. EPA calculated a annualized compliance cost of around $250M, and annualized benefits of around $50M. So, their own math showed we will basically be flushing $200M a year down the toilet. A fair portion of that will go to my industry (a winner), ultimately the rest of society who transfers wealth to all of the industries that will do the compliance work falls into the loser category.

For what it's worth, I actually have zero problems with EVs at all - and we own a hybrid. It would have been a plug-in if Toyota offered one with 3 rows. My problem is the fallacy that EVs are somehow "good" for the environment. It's just another expensive, resource-intensive status symbol (like our 4x4s), only the environmental impacts occur further up the chain then the tailpipe, and to a totally different groups of people.

 

[TheLCProject]

It's pretty consistent with the ethos of 'Merica and capitalism that nearly all of the solutions thus far involve making, selling, and buying something new.

I wish we were focused on using what we've already created more efficiently or through re-use.

[Edit] One of the best ways to reduce your own personal impact is to stop buying new things and especially stop buying new things produced far away from where you are. And use your feet to walk or ride the rusty bike in your shed to get around. And stop flying unnecessarily. [/edit]

The problem before us though is so complex that I am not sure that any human alone (and perhaps even together) can quickly and effectively solve these problems.

 

[uzj100]

I find it interesting when, as consumers, we advocate for the oil’s very effective monopoly and lobbyists. Billions annually in continued subsidies and willing and able to raise oil and gas prices when there is a storm a continent away.

At least electric brings a different monopoly (and their lobbyists and their subsidies) into play to have a little competition. Less demand for gasoline and diesel should, in our capitalist system, lower prices. But prices improvements will probably will be limited because oil has near-monopoly pricing power and seeks to exploit pricing by working together as an industry to tighten supply when prices drop in order to drive out competition.

BTW, I own oil stocks. Keep up the pro-oil banter, I’m counting on you and on their continued ability to exploit market power!

Now, back to truck discussion. I’m on both LC 250 and GX550 waiting lists. My Toyota dealer says that late May / early June a heritage blue Land Cruiser trim that is incoming with my place in line tagged to it. I’m leaning toward GX due to tow capacity for a trailer that I may own someday in the future.

GX550 just seems to be the better choice. Are you getting the Overtrail or Overtrail+ or another model?

I believe hydrogen will win in the end and all the ev peeps and their hyperdepreciating vehicles will be stuck. No one will want them and no one will want to pay to replace the batteries. They will depreciate faster than Land Rovers.

However it is crazy Land Rover still offers a v8 in the defender line and even the 2 door.

 

[OSS]

I know this is a LC250 forum but the hybrid engine in the 250 brings to light the direction all vehicles will be heading.

As far as electrification is concerned, we’ve got to start somewhere - and now at least, the world is inching forward.
Imagine a world where all of our energy is produced by renewable resources, and petroleum/fossil fuel based energy is a painful dirty memory that the old-timers used to use to wreck the planet. (How dare they).

Sure, this utopia isn’t going to happen in our lifetime or probably our kids’, but we’ve got to start somewhere — and the ball now is at least rolling.

I think of the LC250 hybrid as more of a symbol of change, not just a light duty Landcruiser. The days of the Ford Excursions are long gone.

 

[Phillyd2]

No issue with EVs being an available option. The mandates, tax payer subsidies and the non stop self righteous preaching are what needs to be taken behind the barn.

 

[uzj100]

No issue with EVs being an available option. The mandates, tax payer subsidies and the non stop self righteous preaching are what needs to be taken behind the barn.

Agreed and the silly front row parking spaces. If there are no other parking places, I will use a front door ev spot. My money is the same as their money. I just throw the charging cord on the arb bumper. ;<)

 

[TheLCProject]

No issue with EVs being an available option. The mandates, tax payer subsidies and the non stop self righteous preaching are what needs to be taken behind the barn.

Subsidies for oil and gas then need to go, too?

 

[Jetboy]

IMO - there's roughly zero probability of hydrogen winning out. Round trip energy efficiency is far too low. Even at utility scale, battery storage and pumped hydro are both more efficient/economical. Obviously pumped hydro can't directly fuel a car, but it can store energy until you re-convert to electricity and send it to your car pretty efficiently. Cost to manage/store/transport hydrogen only works for very niche transportation needs - possibly aircraft or OTR trucking. Refueling isn't particularly easy or fast. It's pretty hard to make even a theoretical case for hydrogen as a primary energy option for passenger vehicles.

If Toyota is correct that by 2026/27 it'll have 650 mile range mass production solid state batter EVs - there's no need to seriously entertain anything else for passenger vehicles. I suspect that is why Tesla is cutting expansion of charging stations. If ranges reach 600-800 miles per charge, there isn't the same need for charging stations as there are at 200 or 200 miles.

 

[krice118]

It's pretty consistent with the ethos of 'Merica and capitalism that nearly all of the solutions thus far involve making, selling, and buying something new.

I wish we were focused on using what we've already created more efficiently or through re-use.

[Edit] One of the best ways to reduce your own personal impact is to stop buying new things and especially stop buying new things produced far away from where you are. And use your feet to walk or ride the rusty bike in your shed to get around. And stop flying unnecessarily. [/edit]

The problem before us though is so complex that I am not sure that any human alone (and perhaps even together) can quickly and effectively solve these problems.

Yea no, me riding my bike to work instead of taking the 10 mile per gallon Land Cruiser isn’t going to change anything considering all the airplanes and huge ocean freighters that pollute more in a single day than I will in my entire life.

It’s not your car that’s the problem

I do agree with buying locally and stop buying new unnecessary stuff

 

[TheLCProject]

Yea no, me riding my bike to work instead of taking the 10 mile per gallon Land Cruiser isn’t going to change anything considering all the airplanes and huge ocean freighters that pollute more in a single day than I will in my entire life.

It’s not your car that’s the problem

That's fair - not suggesting that any single individual not driving is going to solve climate issues - but when you get entire cities of tens of thousands to millions of people walking/riding or just not driving can make a dent. There's interesting data from the pandemic shutdown supporting this.

I was just suggesting some things that personally each of us can do. Also..vote and lobby elected leaders for better city planning, land use, zoning, etc.

 

[OSS]

One of anything isn’t significant- think one raindrop. but multiply that by a few billion and you’ve got a biblical flood on your hands.
The same is true with all of us. There’s nothing I can personally do to stop the next global mass extinction — but if 7 billion of us do our part, we can.

One person does matter. It just doesn’t seem like it.

 

[uzj100]

Are you all seeing the j250 out on the streets yet? I have not seen one in person.

 

[JohnPW]

That's fair - not suggesting that any single individual not driving is going to solve climate issues - but when you get entire cities of tens of thousands to millions of people walking/riding or just not driving can make a dent. There's interesting data from the pandemic shutdown supporting this.

I was just suggesting some things that personally each of us can do. Also..vote and lobby elected leaders for better city planning, land use, zoning, etc.

Again, TOTAL global consumer car and truck use is 7% of manmade CO2 emissions. Agriculture is double that. Cars and trucks in the USA are 2% of global emissions, and that is shrinking as China and India’s emissions rapidly increase.

Living in a smaller home, taking a job that’s work from home, changing to a plant based diet could all theoretically make a bigger difference than what car you drive. But telling people not to eat meat, forgo the McMansion, don’t take air travel, all don’t sit well with the upper middle class green voter. So we get a push for EV cars, plastic reusable bags, paper drinking straws and other ways to virtue signal and “do something” for the environment.

Fracking and the switch to natural gas power plants led to a big decline in CO2 emissions, with greens fighting it every step. Nuclear power is the only needle mover that could actually change the trajectory of emissions and environmental groups fight it forever and always. Germany shuts down their nuclear plants while pushing for EV cars. None of this makes environmental sense. A carbon tax would actually result in emissions reduction but instead we pretend that subsidies and regulations will somehow solve this problem.

 

[krice118]

I’m not here with the solution just here to argue.

Don’t take my meat or V8.

 

[uzj100]

I’m not here with the solution just here to argue.

Don’t take my meat or V8.

Agreed. 5 to 7 steaks a week and 5 local eggs a day. ;<)
And the V8 is going no where.