Featured Wipe out any progress we've made, right?

'Green-wash'

Bob Wilson

 

"The trade group lobbying is “really counter to what a lot of these companies, like Toyota and Volkswagen, have been kind of posturing on their websites,” says Tanner. “Toyota Prius really benefited from California’s electric vehicle regulations a decade ago, and enabled it, really. To now stand by while their two key trade groups push this agenda is startling.”

Toyota tells Fast Company that it “believes deeply in the benefits of improvements in fuel economy and the reduction of greenhouse gases” but that fuel economy standards should be reviewed to “help ensure they help grow our economy, reduce the impact on the environment and serve the best interest of our customers.”

Like Ford, Toyota argues that the standards need to protect affordability for customers, though a Consumers Union report found that as cars have become more efficient over the past two decades, they haven’t become much more expensive. And with better fuel economy, consumers ultimately save money on gas.

Toyota didn’t respond before publication when asked why stronger fuel economy standards wouldn’t be to its advantage, given that it already makes more efficient cars than some competitors. "

 

CAFE does help improve fuel economy, but it does put some strain on the companies, because there isn't an incentive for consumers to buy efficient vehicles. When gas prices are low, the consumers buy less efficient cars. In order to avoid CAFE fines, the manufacturers have to start discounting the more efficient ones. So while efficiency technology doesn't add to the car price, the discounting needed to get one off the dealer lot could mean selling at a loss. You can now find Ford hybrids for up to $10k off MSRP. This is why some auto exacs have stated we needed to increase fuel taxes.

Earlier reports of the auto group lobbying showed that they weren't trying to revoke the new CAFE target once a little digging was done. They automakers just wanted the overall CAFE target, that was based upon the historic mix of car types being sold, to be adjusted to reflect that consumers were buying more crossovers now.

tl;dr CAFE works, but if you want the car makers to support it, there needs to incentives to make selling the efficient models to consumers easier.

 

most companies are in business to make money, not save the planet. it's up to us to do that. if we choose not to, so be it.

 

For once, I have to agree with the OEMs on this one.

Auto makers are into the electric thing because they pay people to read the tea leaves, and they want to still be making cars 50 years from now....but for now they still have to make a profit making earth-killing, ICE-powered, human guided cars.

The human animal is very poorly equipped to do long-term risk assessment, which is why people smoke, use credit cards, eat food that actually tastes good, etc...
Add to this, since car manufacturers are required by law to financially protect their investors, so not trying to eliminate CAFE regulations would be the financial equivalent of malpractice in the medical community.

That's the difference between passing laws, and governing by regulations.

Also, and contrary to popular perceptions, privately owned automobiles are not responsible for all of the carbon component of climate change....so if you want to reduce fossil fuel usage, there is only one way that's been proven to work every single time, and that's to raise the price of fuel.
This would not only force private individuals to buy slow, unattractive, soul-killing transportation appliances instead of the automotive equivelent of a steak dinner - but it would also force other things that use fossil fuel like power plants, airliners, buses, trains, ships, to also "save the planet."

Now.....if you want an all-expenses paid trip to Stockholm and about a million and a half bucks worth of spending money......figure out how to double or triple the fuel prices without wrecking the economy......

 

Toyota was hoping to sell Ram truck levels with the latest Tundra, the least efficient full size pick up available.

 

I understood they were aiming at the Ford F250. The current Tacoma is the "F150" size of the original Tundra. That is plenty large enough for most home use.

 

The original Tundra was the smallest of the full size pick ups, but also the most efficient. The new one went xB and became the largest and thirstiest when gas prices were rising and the others were putting out more efficient options.

The F250 isn't much bigger than the F150; the major differences are in the frame and drive train being stronger. The Tundra does have such upgraded components, but Toyota underestimated how much truck owners that use their trucks for work push the limits of the truck. As the trucks get 'larger' in the x500 rating, more that are used for work.

Early Tundra tailgates were bending under loads. For the 3.5 Ecoboost torture test promotion Ford did for the release of it in the F150, they rented competitor trucks. They flexed the Tundra's frame on one course that resulted in the cab and bed colliding together. Resulted in over $6000 of damages. All the other models didn't have a problem there.

 

The Toyota T-100 was a 3/4 size pickup that flopped. The Tundra was its successor. My 2000 Tundra has had no tailgate issues apart from the latch handle. Most home users & southern "Coal rollers" do not need anything larger than an F150 IMHO.

 

Your 2000 was the first generation, and I would consider a used one easily. We did look at one back then, but I remember it had a premium fuel requirement on the window sticker; wouldn't care about that now.
The second generation had the issues, and even if those are fixed I wouldn't consider one. Besides being too big, it is a FSP. Its best EPA ratings are under 20, whereas everybody else have over that.

Agreed on actual homeowner needs, but the coal rollers need the bigger trucks to get the large diesels.

 

Our 2000 Tundra V8 uses regular fuel. Not sure about the 6 though.