Toyota signing on to lawsuit opposing emission standards - ouch!

Funny how when a bunch of criminal hedge fund investors tanked the global economy Toyota did better than all the other automakers because of how they were running their business... But these days, they'd rather join the criminals circling the drain rather than plan to survive them.

 

Come again?! What else would you call attaching yourself to one of the parties in a lawsuit? Very disingenuous, Toyota!

 

The problem is that too many issues that shouldn't have anything to do with politics have been politicized to the point that people no longer can debate anything without being prejudged, pigeonholed and labeled with a stereotype.

IMO, it's more productive to judge thoughts on their merit, and people - on their actions. Toyota has probably done more than any other car manufacturer to keep their side of the street clean(er) - all the while providing reliable and affordable transportation to more people all over the world than any other car company.

I think pretty much everyone agrees that our quality of life directly depends on clean, safe, livable environment. Where we disagree is how our gov't should contribute towards this goal. I do not feel that penalizing private vehicle ownership and commanding the car companies what they must and must not make, and the drivers - what they must and must not buy is the most productive way of doing so.

 

Because:
Trucks.

 

I'm very sad to see this turn of events.
Perhaps tomorrow will bring some better news on All Saints Day, a few minutes away.

Realistically, we are the 3% hoping to make a dent in the 97% economy.
As of today, the numbers are not in our favor as a potential lobbing group.

Who is to blame? in my opinion. we all share the blame for what we've become and where we're headed into the wonderful future.
We are all part of this system that is spinning far beyond any human reason. So out of control and continue to implement stop gap measures that only appear to put a bandaid on the broken back.
Keep cooking away world!

 

I agree that there is too much division in this country. So why did Toyota have to pick a side, then, especially when history will prove that they chose the wrong side? At the very least, they should have just stayed out of it. So they make good cars. That doesn't make them immune to criticism.

 

Nothing should make anyone or anything immune to fact-based criticism. If you have the right to challenge Toyota for their stance in this dispute - which you do - Toyota has the right to challenge California' stance in the way, prescribed by law - which they are doing.

Once again, Toyota didn't create this situation. I am sure they would very much prefer to engage in out-of-court, good faith consultations with all stakeholders on improving efficiency and reducing pollution - while working hard on creating value and developing the future tech.

I don't know nearly enough about the details of this lawsuit, and I suspect that neither do you, but I imagine that it has to do with the fact that Americans, including Californians, are now more inclined to buy larger vehicles, which intrinsically have lower mpg ratings.

 

False alarm?

WSJ now reporting that the administration has reversed itself.

Good thing nobody traded away their consumer goodwill yet. Whew!

 

Too late for me and Yota........by about 30 years.

 

I'm sorry, but to me, one thing this makes clear: Toyota's "Image" of being green is just a mirage.

They had a choice when the chips were down -- a choice that other automakers (including Honda) had no problems joining. As Hiroko Tabuchi tweeted, perhaps it's because Toyota is the only major auto maker who's CO2 emissions is getting WORSE.



Toyota can spend billions in the coming years on worldwide ads claiming to be green, soft, and cuddly.
And it will be wasted.

With this, they've shown what they really are. And NONE of us are going to be fooled.

The same company that has resisted electric cars for years is now, in my book, a gross polluter by lobbying to roll back emission standards. (And don't be fooled with their excuse of simply wanting a "single standard" -- they wouldn't be lobbying for a "single standard" if the regulations were going the other direction).

One last word to Toyota: my next car won't be one of yours.

And if you're arrogant enough to think your market share can't be toppled, go take a look at how Sony (and Sharp, and JVC, etc) are doing in today's consumer electronics market...

 

toyota is a 'for profit' business, with many people to try and retain employment.

the bigger question in my mind is the few companies that took the other stance

 

I have no immediate problem with Toyota's position.
Toyota has taken great lead in hybrid technology and probably saved more CO2 than anyone +NOx, HC, and CO.
Also Japan is extremely interested in sustainable use of resources, because it has none.
They cannot foresee going electric, that is even more issue for them without nukes.
They are looking at H2 FCV as future

If I had to guess, FORDs idea is that mandating EV's help them compete better with Toyota and Honda, who have Japan's interersts in mind. We Americans are affluent and have resources, so we are less interested in survival, and more interested in picking political winners and losers. FORDs preferred USA winners would likely be big cars offset with gov't mandated electric car sales credits. FORD's preferred losers would be hybrids and some other stuff (incl. Toyota and Honda).

Dems want to set impossible CO2 targets and say, OK you have to get credits by doing the foillowing political correct changes we would like to make in America.

The recent Trump admin position sounds like (Toyota-influenced) they are more going for attainable CO2 reduction (eg; hybrids) and less swapping credit things that the Dems like so much.

 

"Where there is no vision, the people perish".

I doubt that any Dems seriously expect that all of the Green New Deal's goals can be accomplished on their schedule, but what is the harm in trying? If a target is easily attainable, maximum effort will not be employed. Is this an existential crisis or not? That is the only real question.

 

List of genericToyota vehicles, number sold and mileage of the typical vehicle that may explain Toyota's support.
There are a number of choices within each model for engine/transmission combo's and 2WD or 4WD. I chose 4WD.

Toyota sold 2.4 million vehicles including 300,000 Lexus in 2018.

Model - #Sold - Combined MPG
Rav4, 427,000 25
Camry 343,000 26
Corolla 300,000 32
Tacoma 245,000 20
Highlander 244,000 23
4Runner 139,000 18
Tundra 118,000 14
Prius 87,000 52
Sienna 87,000 22
C-HR 49,000 29
Avalon 33,000 24
Sequoia 11,000 14
LandCruiser 3,000 15

The Tacoma, Highlander, $Runner, Tundra are sold in larger quantities to drag down the fleet average. The Prius is pretty far down the list to make a significant impact. The new RAV4 is at the top of the list and can offset the other four to some degree especially the new hybrid version.

CAFE credit trading provisions
The 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act also instructed NHTSA to establish a credit trading and transferring scheme to allow manufacturers to transfer credits between categories, as well as sell them to other manufacturers or non-manufacturers. Ninety-eight percent of the benefit derived from just the cross fleet credit trading provision flows to Toyota. The estimated value of the CAFE exemption gained by Toyota is $2.5 billion. Toyota borrows from:

• Hyundai (1.01 mpg),
• Nissan (0.65),
• Honda (0.83 mpg),
• Mitsubishi (0.13 mpg),
• Subaru (0.08),
• Chrysler (0.14 mpg),
• GM (0.09 mpg)

• Ford also borrows from other manufacturers to meet the CAFE mileage (0.18 mpg)

Instead of being on the plus side of this borrowing, their fleet fuel economy forces them to borrow credits from other car companies that exceed the requirements.

I believe that this is why they signed onto the lawsuit against California emission standards.

 

That's very interesting, and something I was completely unaware of. Are you saying that Toyota actually has to pay other manufacturers if they don't meet the standard?

 

swap the “if” for a “because” and you’ve got it.

Some cars are deliberately engineered to exceed the MPG requirements just so the manufacturer can sell the credit and use that revenue to keep the sticker price lower.

 

yes, to the extent that they sell trucks and suv's contributing to a higher than allowed fleet average. gm surprises me though, not sure it is correct, or maybe there are other factors

 

Cars and trucks are a big problem no matter how one looks at the facts. The convenience of having a vehicle and being able to drive it by oneself anywhere that person can legally drive has turned us into gross resource wasters. Even the vehicles we buy and trade in for new after several years contributes to throw away society (comma) Americans used to hear about during the 1970's when the big oil crisis hit hard at the pumps and in the pockets with out of pocket costs.

The easiest way to keep an economy strong is to waste resources. Cost cutting is supposed to reduce the effects of waste, but as we see it only makes for more wasted resources, in the name of keeping the economy strong. And round and round we go.

Switching the fuel used by our vehicles is not going to help with that problem, sadly.

 

Sometime wonder about the big ruckus on California emission standards. Instead of protesting them why not just refuse to sell cars there. After major manufacturers refuse to do business there California would immediately get in line with everyone else.

It is amazing the tail keeps wagging the dog.

California has every right to do what they want and manufactures have every right to tell them goodbye don't call us we will call you if we ever want to do business in your state again.