Bull Something. Even Toyota’s non marketing engineers concede that 4 bangers, TT, Hybrid, etc. are here to meet regulations not because of preference or desire. Our V8 have indeed been taken.
This is probably going to be very unliked, but this is just like my opinion man. This is my issue with the LC250
- Thread starter dbbowen
- Start date
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.
Of course v8 is gone from new production, but if you already got one...
Anyways, there are many factors, but who doesn't consider / desire / prefer a better MPG in a new vehicle? On any window sticker the MPG figure is the first thing you see
In most vehicles that now have smaller engines we are getting better MPGs and at worst remaining the same or improving very slightly.
Sure, we can question long term reliability of the smaller engines compared to the V8, but then again plenty of people buy a Ford or GM instead of a Toyota, so they don't care as much about reliability
Anyways, there are many factors, but who doesn't consider / desire / prefer a better MPG in a new vehicle? On any window sticker the MPG figure is the first thing you see
In most vehicles that now have smaller engines we are getting better MPGs and at worst remaining the same or improving very slightly.
Sure, we can question long term reliability of the smaller engines compared to the V8, but then again plenty of people buy a Ford or GM instead of a Toyota, so they don't care as much about reliability
It's interesting that modern environmentalism (the wrong kind of environmentalism) kind of coincides with the decline of traditional religion. Most people have a deep need to be connected to some kind of meaning and higher purpose; in the absence of religion that is replaced with various -isms. The modern environmental movement has a Garden of Eden (the pre-industrialized world and nature), original sin (industrialization and carbon emissions), an impending apocalypse (climate change caused by our sinful ways), and future salvation (a utopian, net-zero, circular-economy future - but only if we drink the cool-aid). And all the zealots using their influence to take away individual freedoms to try and get there
.The problem with the -isms is that they demand forced control over other people and therefore can't really ever get to that future salvation. We've all seen this form with various other -isms and movements throughout history, all of them eventually fail but can cause widespread suffering and human rights abuses along the way (a la communism, which was supposed to be a classless, utopian society). I don't think our current -isms will ever get anywhere near that bad, but I find it useful to view them in a historical context of just another movement.
Back to the Toyotas - our V8s were indeed taken away; Toyota had no choice. I personally think that sucks as I don't ever see a turbo 4 going 1M miles like a UZ, regardless of how great the MPGs are. The only company really moving V8s forward is Ford, and to a lesser degree GM. I'm not a huge fan of Fords, other than their V8s, which are quite good (the 5.0 Coyote is a blast to drive in a F150; I'd like to try one of the 6.8/7.3 big-blocks in a F250).
Always remember Ferris. The great 1980’s philosopher.
Hiluxforever
SILVER Star
I am honestly surprised Toyota made V8s as long as they did. While I have no issues with turbo engines or hybrids I will probably keep a GX in the fleet if something were to happen to mine.
I even ordered "Last V8" for a vanity plate, still waiting to see if it's approved.
That being said, rhe perfect stable mate for a v8 is something that gets better mileage.
When I had a 1 ton service truck, loaded to the gills with anything I could ever possibly need, I had a little turbo hatchback.
I am thankful that Toyota imported 30k GXs a year for the last few years so there will be some used ones available after their first soccer mom, for quite some time.
I even ordered "Last V8" for a vanity plate, still waiting to see if it's approved.
That being said, rhe perfect stable mate for a v8 is something that gets better mileage.
When I had a 1 ton service truck, loaded to the gills with anything I could ever possibly need, I had a little turbo hatchback.
I am thankful that Toyota imported 30k GXs a year for the last few years so there will be some used ones available after their first soccer mom, for quite some time.
Out of curiosity- do you think these are fake? If you don't believe that air pollution is bad - what's the basis for that? Help me understand. Is it not real? It is real but not harmful? Or It's real and harmful but the harm to me isn't high enough to offset the benefit to me? Something else? Help me understand where you're coming from when you're suggesting that pollution and/or tail pipe emissions aren't something we should care about.
Last edited:
Hiluxforever
SILVER Star
I mean tornados in Decemeber and January is crazy AF for Iowa.
Both of those photos are all real, and both of them would have looked just like the USA did in many areas up until our initial environmental movement in the 1970s. China and India have not yet had similar movements; eventually their people will hopefully be able to say "no" and have clean water and air to drink, like we do.
Ultimately, that's what our first environmental movement was - clean air, clean water, no toxic chemicals seeping into our bodies. Remember DDT, PCBs, dioxins, CFCs, R12, etc? All were known human carcinogens and/or human and ecological health risks that sickened and killed people and wildlife, or potent greenhouse gasses well beyond CO2.
The modern environmental movement in the West is not like that. It ignores the major progress we've made over the past 50 years and is now pointing solely at carbon. Nowhere in the USA looks like those two photos, and that's awesome. Now people are focused on decarbonization only, while ignoring the fact that the rest of the developing world is still the US like it was in 1968 - and much of that is because those countries are willing to sacrifice their land and health to make cheap stuff for us to consume.
Switching to EVs isn't going to stop that, and if anything make it worse for non-Western countries as all of the green-energy supply chains run through the far east.
Ultimately, that's what our first environmental movement was - clean air, clean water, no toxic chemicals seeping into our bodies. Remember DDT, PCBs, dioxins, CFCs, R12, etc? All were known human carcinogens and/or human and ecological health risks that sickened and killed people and wildlife, or potent greenhouse gasses well beyond CO2.
The modern environmental movement in the West is not like that. It ignores the major progress we've made over the past 50 years and is now pointing solely at carbon. Nowhere in the USA looks like those two photos, and that's awesome. Now people are focused on decarbonization only, while ignoring the fact that the rest of the developing world is still the US like it was in 1968 - and much of that is because those countries are willing to sacrifice their land and health to make cheap stuff for us to consume.
Switching to EVs isn't going to stop that, and if anything make it worse for non-Western countries as all of the green-energy supply chains run through the far east.
LA is #63 in worst air quality in the world and the first USA city. Most every other city above that is in a developing nation without much in the way or environmental laws or controls; many are that way as they are in the business of making cheap things for us. Everyone buying EVs can just make things in those countries even worse due to increased industrial production (EVs, batteries, solar to power it, other energy-transition materials). Again, those hidden impacts that we don't see here.
www.iqair.com
Your photos appear to have several miles of visibility. The photo posted above has maybe a few hundred yards. There is probably an order of magnitude plus difference in air quality between LA and Delhi.
World Air Quality Index (AQI) Ranking | IQAir
Keep track of the most polluted cities in the world with our air quality index (AQI) ranking.
www.iqair.com
Your photos appear to have several miles of visibility. The photo posted above has maybe a few hundred yards. There is probably an order of magnitude plus difference in air quality between LA and Delhi.
Hiluxforever
SILVER Star
I was in LA during one of the massive storms and took an impossible picture, I got Big Bear from 4 miles west of Griffith Observatory as it shut the city down and the rain cleaned the air.
Normally you can barely see the observatory. There are 4 mountains in the photo, one in front of the Observatory that has a fence.
Normally you can barely see the observatory. There are 4 mountains in the photo, one in front of the Observatory that has a fence.
TheLCProject
SILVER Star
Whenever I fly or even see people posting photos of outdoor vistas on social media, I think to myself: wow, the air quality looks terrible. Have we normalized bad air quality? Then I go look at the AQI for where I flew in to, over, or out of and see green sub-50 AQI.
I'm not sure oil and gas development has been super great for non-western countries:
And - might be worth a look in our own backyard. I don't think people realize the scale of damage that fracking is doing in the west. The second picture covers hundreds of square miles of Utah and Wyoming now. When you look on google earth and it looks pixelated - it's not. It's the well platforms.
The difference is that everyone of those well pads had a land disturbance permit/stormwater pollution prevention plan (required for disturbances >1 acre), had a threatened and endangered species survey done, has brine/fracing fluids discharged into modern tanks or lined ponds, has a spill prevention control and countermeasure plan, a national pollutant discharge eliminations system permit for any wastewater discharges, clean air act permitting for any stack emissions, and was probably based on an environmental impact assessment before a shovelful of dirt was moved. On top of that, the actual drilling would have been in accordance with state oil and gas regulations, and the permittee would have had to purchase reclamation bonds for eventual site cleanup in the event they go defunct as a company. State/Federal environmental agencies would have then done inspections and issued violation notices for any things that were not in the permits.
All of those items would have gone through a state and federal permit process with public notice, public meetings, review and comment periods, etc, and the permittee fee would have spent millions in permit fees and consultants to do all of that work. A lot of folks don't realize how intense the environmental permitting program can be for any type or project in the USA. Byzantine and expensive, sure, but it's also been successful in cleaning up our land and water. They flipside is that it also can just result in those problems being outsourced to other countries.
Although, for the record, knocking coal out of the game was primarily done via natural gas. Great thing for CO2 emissions, bad thing for scarring up so much of the USA with well pads. It's those hidden trade-offs, and natural gas will indirectly power Teslas.
All of those items would have gone through a state and federal permit process with public notice, public meetings, review and comment periods, etc, and the permittee fee would have spent millions in permit fees and consultants to do all of that work. A lot of folks don't realize how intense the environmental permitting program can be for any type or project in the USA. Byzantine and expensive, sure, but it's also been successful in cleaning up our land and water. They flipside is that it also can just result in those problems being outsourced to other countries.
Although, for the record, knocking coal out of the game was primarily done via natural gas. Great thing for CO2 emissions, bad thing for scarring up so much of the USA with well pads. It's those hidden trade-offs, and natural gas will indirectly power Teslas.
Why would we want to restrict the development? I say bulldoze every square inch of it! (If it means I get to keep my v8)
No one is cheering for tailpipe emissions. What we are getting currently is regulatory action not approved by voters making cars less reliable for slight changes in MPG. Historically, increasing cars MPG by government mileage standards (versus just taxing gasoline like Europe does) doesn’t reduce gallons burned. People choose to live in bigger homes further from work, since the higher mpg car reduces monthly fuel costs. You end up with a higher carbon footprint from people living further from work.
I believe your second photo is from China, much of that pollution is from coal burning power plants. China leads the world in EV’s, as a matter of national security….they have no oil and lots of coal, and the minerals required for battery production. So they’re building coal fired power plants as fast as they can. Terrible for the local environment and huge CO2 impact.
How about if we are honest about what actually might reduce pollution? Mileage standards are being pushed to reduce CO2, not to clean up the LA skyline. And my argument is that they don’t make a meaningful difference, while delivering a potentially less reliable auto fleet, without ever considering the carbon footprint or pollution created in building a car (or appliance, or air conditioner etc) that no longer lasts as long.
If LA wants to ban cars to clean up the air, have at it. But that isn’t the same as the EPA twisting decades old laws to outlaw reliable cars.
Last edited:
