Canadian Editorial: Dirtier Toyota

I had to send a comment on that article. What a load of crap.

 

If it's from Buzz it's BS to support his unions for their effort to create the problem in the first place. He's backed into a corner to support his paycheque. What else can he say. Problem with him is his political connections. The problem will come for him when the 50$USD a barrel flows thru to $2.50 a liter gas and no one will be buying anything that gets under 30 miles to a gallon and the CAW are to slow to recognize the world is changing. Buzz and his big 3 are about to take a kicking again.

 

What a load of BS my Tundra use to get 32 miles to the Imperial gallon which works out to 26 miles to the US gallon. 14 BS Buzz.

 

well we know that this article should be taken with a grain of salt as the writer obviously has an agenda to answer to.

but one must realize that its only necessary to knock down the king of the mountain. after all, kicking dead horses is frowned upon in nearly every society.

that is why Toyota is being attacked. its because they are the king and everyone knows it. many are upset that Toyota besides having customer loyalty that rivals Mercedes and BMW AND produces cars that appeals to every segment of the market AND has a reputation for quality and safety AND is the leader in innovation AND above all, they are able to do all that AND make money too.

you have seen it before. people also bashed intel for high prices, Microsoft for, well ok in their case some of it might have been deserved... but you get the drift.

when you are head and shoulders above the rest, you make an easy and inviting target.

 

What is with all of this defence of Toyota here? I thought we bought the Prius, not because it was a Toyota, but because it was an environmentally responsible vehicle.

I don't doubt that Toyota also makes some vehicles that are horribly destructive to the environment. The Natural Resources Canada website rates the Toyota Tundra at 17 mpg (Imperial). That works out to about 14 mpg (US).

We shouldn't promote or defend Toyota. We should be criticize its environmentally unfriendly vehicles as much as we criticize other manufacturers' unfriendly vehicles.

I say "right on" to Buzz Hargrove. We should point out Toyota's environmental offences as we point out the environmental offences of other companies.

Hopefully both pointing out problems, encouraging solutions, and purchasing those solutions when they are available is how we can change things. Not by being Toyota sycophants.

 

The point of defending Toyota is that they are actively executing plans to phase in the hybrid system throughout the model lineup. I have no problem that Toyota sells trucks, SUV's, and vans. The idea is to offer a prodcut for every aspect of the market. Those profits went in part, to begin the initial R&D of our Prii. Not everyone can get along with only owning a Prius. I for one, cannot. For those times when I need to haul something, I have a 3/4 ton truck for the job. I bought a 3/4 ton truck as it was the only way to get a diesel engine, which at current, is the only possible option to maximize fuel efficiency in such a large vehicle.

 

Here's one example - an environmental phenomenon that has been nicknamed Toyota-isation.

 

Ernie go back to Enviroment Canada's web site and look up if the Tundra is a LEV vehicle, that's why I bought it. As you know I've since sold it but the mileage that I quoted is what I used to get with it. Gas up in Cranbrook and gas up in Princeton. No BS 87 liters. Gas up in Hope and in Lake Louise 91 liters. V8 4X4 Tundra Ltd. 90 k on cruise.

 

My point is not to question anyone's personal experience. As we all know, YMMV. Rather it was to report on Natural Resources Canada's standardized rating.

Further, my point is not that Toyota is a terrible company. It is to point out that we should not believe anyone's PR without examination of the full range of information (that constantly changes).

I don't know that Canada uses the LEV, SULEV, etc. ratings that are used in the US. I looked at the Natural Resources Canada website for pollution issues and found a ranking system.

NRC identifies that the 3.7L Tundra ranks 82nd in terms of CO2 emissions, while the F-150, 4.6 L and Dakota 4.7L rank better at 60 and 64 respectively.

The Tundra 3.4L ranks 42nd while the B4000 4.0L ranks 30 and the Dakota 3.7L ranks 31.

Again, my point is not that Toyota is terrible. It is that Hargrove has a point when he identifies that Toyota has gotten good mileage (so to speak) from being identified as "green", when other manufacturers outperform Toyota in some areas, the large market for pickup trucks being one of those areas.

Interestingly, some North American manufacturers offer pickup trucks and vans with cleaner fuel alternatives, like natural gas or propane. I'm not sure why Toyota doesn't offer those. Perhaps NGV and propane fuel is not as readily available throughout North America as it is here in BC.

 

i thought that alternative fuel fleet vehicles was strictly a 3rd party venture that the big 3 only tolerates but does not actively participates?

when i was in CA the company i worked for had some ng vehicles and although they were bought new from the Ford dealership, the ng was put on by a local retrofit company

 

Here is the URL for Ford's information about factory alternative fuel vehicles, including vans, pickup trucks, and a school bus.

http://www.fleet.ford.ca/english/products_...003/default.asp

 

This Buzz guy said:

> Yes, Toyota beat its rivals to market with the hybrid-fuel
> Prius (the others, including the Big Three, are rolling out
> their own hybrids now).

I say:

The big three were in their usual position, asleep at the wheel. They would have happily cranked out Otis cycle vehicles 'till oil hit $100 a barrel. Then they would have called for federal financing to help with the "unexpected crisis".

Toyota did not beat them to the market, they *created* the market. They took all the risks and expenses upon themselves. I will mention in passing that the Ford hybrid bears a startling resemblance to the first gen. Toyota system, to the point where they pay patent royalties for using it.

(Buzz)

> Turns out Toyota's main commitment is not to fuel
> efficiency, but to profits -- just like any other
> corporation. Some environmentalists will be tricked by
> feel-good advertising into endorsing corporations that
> are getting worse, not better, at protecting the
> environment. But hopefully most will not.

(Me)

So they make the greenest production car in the world, create a whole new market segment, even make some profit off it, and this is still not good enough for him? When he gets done whining I'd like to see his guys do even half as well.

 

Propane is not readily available in the US. NG is even rarer down there than up here. I don't know of a single NG station beyond Hope. One of the reasons I bought my Tundra was that it was a LEV, back in 2000 that was how TC rated them in those days. I went looking for my old Air Scare printouts but I guess I thru them out after I sold it. It was a hell of a lot "greener" than our 2000 Ford F150 pickup at work. I compared the two of them and most that I work with agreed no comparison. And that thing is always in the shop for MIL's and trouble.

 

according to my sis, Ford does their alternative vehicles through a 3rd party. that is why the vehicles are not available at all ford dealerships. they are only available where there is someone to do the conversions.

Ford now only does barely half its truck conversions and none of their van conversions. but if you were to buy one off the lot, you would never have known that it didnt come that way from the factory.

where i live the nearest place to get ng vehicle from Ford is seattle. there are several ng vehicles here of all types. most arent ford however. Puget sound energy had a bunch of mitsubishi pickups they used for meter reading i think. (they stopped reading most of the meters nowadays since the new ones can be done electronically)

 

I used to drive my NGV Ranger around BC. I remember filling up in Kelowna, Williams Lake, Cache Creek, Smithers, Cranbrook and other places.

Later, I kind of wished I had gone propane rather than NGV. I eventually took the Ranger down to Mexico. I have seen ample use of propane as vehicle fuel there, but I have never seen NGV in Mexico.

 

In Mexico they use butane instead of propane and it has an even lower btu rating. Lower BTU lower HP, we had a NGV Chev S10 delivery truck when I worked in Port Kells and you almost had to push it up Johnson Hill. It really need to be a hybrid. Just a question what kind of mileage did you get with you NGV Ranger?

 

Dave what used to be BC Gas the Natrual Gas utility company here uses NG as fuel for their fleet. Mainly a fleet of Dogde Vans and K Cars. Westport Innovations is a company in partnership with Cummins to build Propane powered X-diesel engines. We maintaine one in a Ottawa trailer spotter.

 

yea around here is used to be real strange as the electric company had a bunch of ng vehicles (mostly mitsubishi and datsun pu's) and the gas company experimented with EV's.

but now they have merged and since most of the meters are not checked anymore, i really dont know what they use. used to see them all the time, but according to the lady at the electric company, most meters are electronic and read by computer. 3rd party maintenance crews come out once every 2-3 years to calibrate and clean them (check for bees mostly i guess)

in a way it is cool as i dont have to register my dog any more. before i had to inform the electric company that i had a dog that looked mean...(i guess, that is what i was told about 11 years ago... although my dog is a total wimp...)

 

I didn't realize that about Mexico. It's funny because the signs say LPG. The vendors who are selling in tanks seem to have a competition stretching out the "a" as they call their wares. "Gaaaaz" "Gaaaaaaaz" "Gaaaaaaaaaaaaaz"

I don't have my records for the fuel consumption on the Ranger. I'll try to remember to take a look at the file when I am near it and post the information here.