Jump to content
  • William Maley
    William Maley

    Toyota's R&D Boss Believes Internal Combustion Engines For Cars To Be Gone By 2050

      Blame stronger emission regulations

    Most vehicles sold feature an internal combustion engine running some type of fuel, but a Toyota executive believes this engine will be gone for vehicles by 2050.

    “We expect that by 2050 we will have reduced CO2 emissions from vehicles by 90% compared to the figure in 2010. To achieve that from 2040 simple internal combustion engined cars will not be made, but they may be the basis of some hybrid or plug-in hybrid cars,” said Seigo Kuzumaki, Toyota’s head of advanced R&D and engineering.

    Kuzumaki's reasoning for this comes down to governments tightening regulations on emissions. This, in turn, will cause automakers to accelerate development of alternative powertrains such as electrics.

    Toyota's a latecomer to electric vehicles, instead choosing to focus on hydrogen. But the Japanese automaker is working on a new family of EVs that will launch in 2020. The models will use lithium-ion batteries and have a range of 300 miles. But Toyota hopes to launch solid state batteries only a few years later for their EVs. Solid state batteries use solid electrolytes instead of liquid to hold a charge. This will provide better performance and a smaller size than the lithium-ion battery packs.

    Source: Autocar

    User Feedback

    Recommended Comments



    I think in the modern 1st world nations New ICE will be gone by 2030 to 2035 as a for sale option. It is possible they could be gone world wide for new Auto sales by 2050. Hybrids I think will still be around for 3rd world places that have lousy electrical grids.

    I do agree with Toyota R&D, the best batteries I ever had in an auto were solid state. Sears for a while sold a platinum solid state battery, expensive and had a 7 year warranty. Loved them, but when I went to buy another, they had discontinued selling them due to poor sales. Was told they were more expensive than majority of people were willing to pay. 

    I suspect technology will bring this cost down greatly over the next 5 years on top of breakthroughs like Toshiba has with their rapid charge batteries.

    • Upvote 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Notice those two words... "...from VEHICLES".  There is still the problem of CO2 from ALL THOSE OTHER SOURCES THAT ARE NOT BEING REGULATED ONE BIT.

    Sly insertion to show his displeasure.  And there are millions of people just like him.  This is being forced on people who do not want it, and it will not solve a problem because there is no problem to be solved.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    52 minutes ago, ocnblu said:

    Notice those two words... "...from VEHICLES".  There is still the problem of CO2 from ALL THOSE OTHER SOURCES THAT ARE NOT BEING REGULATED ONE BIT.

    Sly insertion to show his displeasure.  And there are millions of people just like him.  This is being forced on people who do not want it, and it will not solve a problem because there is no problem to be solved.

    Where is this fantasy planet that doesn’t have regulations?

     

    And your last paragraph sound like the words of the horse and buggy business over a century ago. Say hello them. 

    • Like 1
    • Upvote 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Ok... not sure why... but "hello them".

    Livestock CO2 emissions are not regulated.  People exhale CO2.  CO2 is generated all over the place and the car is the fall guy because of some misguided vendetta against fossil fuels.  Where are all these metals going to come from to manufacture all these batteries?  And how will they be transported to industrialized countries that will be making them?  By ship most likely and are there emissions standards for ships?

    11 minutes ago, surreal1272 said:

    hello them

     

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    6 minutes ago, ocnblu said:

    Ok... not sure why... but "hello them".

    Livestock CO2 emissions are not regulated.  People exhale CO2.  CO2 is generated all over the place and the car is the fall guy because of some misguided vendetta against fossil fuels.  Where are all these metals going to come from to manufacture all these batteries?  And how will they be transported to industrialized countries that will be making them?  By ship most likely and are there emissions standards for ships?

     

    Newsflash, you can’t control the CO2 emissions of living creatures. You can with everything else. 

     

    What is amsuing is the “well there’s all the other sources of pollution so why bother with cars?” argument. It’s amusing and foolishly ignorant. 

     

    And yes, say hello to the horse and buggy industry while you fight the obvious evolution of technology. 

    Edited by surreal1272
    • Upvote 1
    • Downvote 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I would say it is much easier to crack down on CO2 pollution on power plants first, then go after cars.  One coal-fired plant will pollute more than thousands of cars at any one time.  2030 may well be the beginning of the end of the ICE in vehicles, but I would rather see no more power plant emissions first.  Afterwards, then the zero-emission vehicle mandates can start.

    • Thanks 1
    • Upvote 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    :lol:

     

    Not going to happen.....now can I see not so many- Yes. I think we will still have choices, though I think the popular one will be electric. Which is okay. There are still going to be cases that good ol' gas engines will need to be used....plus, I think people will still enjoy them....and not everyone is going to retrofit a classic car either....

    • Like 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    5 hours ago, ocnblu said:

     Where are all these metals going to come from to manufacture all these batteries?  And how will they be transported to industrialized countries that will be making them?  By ship most likely and are there emissions standards for ships?

    First off China leads the world in recycling metal of all types, we ship it to them after we dump it on ships.

    Second, Marine Ocean Going ships do have CO2 regulations, all new ships are EV Ships using LNG or super clean low sulfur bunker fuel to run generators thus reducing emissions and improving efficiencies. Cost of fuel is a bitch, EV ships are far more efficient and maneuverable.

    For your reading pleasure:

    http://www.ics-shipping.org/docs/default-source/resources/environmental-protection/shipping-world-trade-and-the-reduction-of-co2-emissions.pdf?sfvrsn=6

    This was a report put together and approved by the global marine industry to reduce polution and it is from 2006, you can find this going back to the 90's as they looked for ways to reduce CO2 output, reduce cost and clean up the ships used to move cargo around.

    http://www.martrans.org/docs/publ/REFEREED JOURNALS/WMUJMA EMISSIONS 2009.pdf

    Our own Government signed off on this and President Bush signed this into law with approval of our house and Senate in 2000 with reductions in CO2 and cleaning up the marine fuel industry and the ships.

    https://www.epa.gov/regulations-emissions-vehicles-and-engines/international-standards-reduce-emissions-marine-diesel

    Sorry to bust your Amish thinking, but our own country and everyone else around the world has been focused on reducing the pollution and CO2 production from the Marine shipping fleets.

    Need more reading, here is a Bing Search for you to have more documentation:

    https://www.bing.com/search?q=Commercial+ship+emission+regulations&qs=n&form=CHRDEF&pc=U480&sp=-1&pq=undefined&sc=0-21&sk=&cvid=C14899805E194460B76A04978A519516

    • Upvote 2
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    4 hours ago, riviera74 said:

    I would say it is much easier to crack down on CO2 pollution on power plants first, then go after cars.  One coal-fired plant will pollute more than thousands of cars at any one time.  2030 may well be the beginning of the end of the ICE in vehicles, but I would rather see no more power plant emissions first.  Afterwards, then the zero-emission vehicle mandates can start.

    Actually @Drew Dowdell had posted some info that showed the huge reduction in Coal power Plants as they switch to much cleaner Natural Gas which North America sits on the world's largest reserves.

    Here is a 3rd party story that shows the big change over:

    http://www.power-eng.com/articles/print/volume-119/issue-6/features/coal-to-gas-plant-conversions-in-the-u-s.html

    A research story by The Guardian that shows the dominate production of Electricity in the US will be by Natural Gas by 2020.

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/14/gas-surges-ahead-of-coal-in-us-power-generation

    Here is our own government details showing that Natural Gas Production of Electricity surpassed Coal in 2016 4 years ahead of original expectations.

    https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=25392

    2/3rds of CO2 output by Dirty Coal has been removed since they started the switch to Natural Gas production in the 90's.

    Now is the time to start the transition to EV Auto's.

    • Upvote 2
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    11 hours ago, surreal1272 said:

    And your last paragraph sound like the words of the horse and buggy business over a century ago. Say hello them. 

    We ahve a really cool house in Columbus built by people in that business....ten years after it was built, they went broke...

    https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/1330-Bryden-Rd-Columbus-OH-43205/33846110_zpid/

    Image result for 1330 bryden road columbus ohio

    It is slowly being rebuilt by a very determined individual...no one else has been in the house for something like 30 years...

    Scientists warning to humanity about global climate change and other things that will happen if we keep using fossil fuels;

    http://scientistswarning.forestry.oregonstate.edu/sites/sw/files/Ripple_et_al_11-3-17 Scientists main text.pdf

    Who do i believe...13,000 plus scientists or an automotive body shop estimator from Lancaster PA with an admitted bias against electric cars?

    • Upvote 4
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    2 hours ago, ocnblu said:

    While all of that blather up there is good, there will NEV.ER. be an appropriate time to "start the transition to EV Auto's" (sic)

    (You kill me with your funny non-grammatical apostrophes)  :lol:

    However, the amount of fossil fuel is indeed finite, there will be a very painful end to life as we know it if we do not transition to renewable energy.  I like to deal with unpleasant things before they bite me in the ass, not after. Just sayin.

    6 hours ago, dfelt said:

    Actually @Drew Dowdell had posted some info that showed the huge reduction in Coal power Plants as they switch to much cleaner Natural Gas which North America sits on the world's largest reserves.

    Here is a 3rd party story that shows the big change over:

    http://www.power-eng.com/articles/print/volume-119/issue-6/features/coal-to-gas-plant-conversions-in-the-u-s.html

    A research story by The Guardian that shows the dominate production of Electricity in the US will be by Natural Gas by 2020.

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/14/gas-surges-ahead-of-coal-in-us-power-generation

    Here is our own government details showing that Natural Gas Production of Electricity surpassed Coal in 2016 4 years ahead of original expectations.

    https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=25392

    2/3rds of CO2 output by Dirty Coal has been removed since they started the switch to Natural Gas production in the 90's.

    Now is the time to start the transition to EV Auto's.

    And to Solar and Wind and away from even natural gas as a fuel.

    • Upvote 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Everyone armchairing the future has been talking about the banning of IC, but I can see plenty of room for co-existence way into the future. Once IC in new vehicles becomes a minor percentage (for conversation- let's say IC gets to 20%), there's no longer a reason to ban them; they'll become a statistical non-factor. Regardless, I still believe the following 2 general things; that new EV vehicles WILL become a majority of vehicles sold, and that this 'flip' will take 50 years minimum.

    Again I remind; we've had a 'successful' PHEV from a major OEM for 15 years now, there are currently 3 dozen PHEVs/ EVs on the US market, and the marketshare is still only 1% at the end of this year.
    Those saying 'most of the market will be EVs in 12 years' are being woefully ignorant of the trending.

    A plethora of relevant examples exist; look at set belts- mandated for front passengers since January 1966, in everything built since (initially front outer passengers only), takes 2 secs to apply, has empirical evidence of effectiveness, most states (if not all) assign fines for non-use.... but only at (it's historical high) 90% useage in 2016. That's 50 years of trying to instill a habit that takes 2 seconds.

    Edited by balthazar
    • Thanks 1
    • Upvote 2
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    11 hours ago, riviera74 said:

    I would say it is much easier to crack down on CO2 pollution on power plants first, then go after cars.  One coal-fired plant will pollute more than thousands of cars at any one time.  2030 may well be the beginning of the end of the ICE in vehicles, but I would rather see no more power plant emissions first.  Afterwards, then the zero-emission vehicle mandates can start.

    And they have been cracking on power plants. That’s the point that Mr. Anti-EV does not get while talking about cows and other non-related crap. There have been efforts almost accross the board to reduce CO2, yet he says “why bother” just because of his half baked hang up of EVs. The horse and buggy industry would be proud of him. Oh wait. They don’t exist anymore.

    • Upvote 1
    • Downvote 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    6 minutes ago, surreal1272 said:

    And they have been cracking on power plants. That’s the point that Mr. Anti-EV does not get while talking about cows and other non-related crap. There have been efforts almost accross the board to reduce CO2, yet he says “why bother” just because of his half baked hang up of EVs. The horse and buggy industry would be proud of him. Oh wait. They don’t exist anymore.

    They do in Amish Ohio, Pennsylvania and Indiana.  Thriving, actually.  But a tiny percentage of the actual transportation market.

    Just like ICE in 2065.

    30 minutes ago, balthazar said:

    Everyone armchairing the future has been talking about the banning of IC, but I can see plenty of room for co-existence way into the future. Once IC in new vehicles becomes a minor percentage (for conversation- let's say IC gets to 20%), there's no longer a reason to ban them; they'll become a statistical non-factor. Regardless, I still believe the following 2 general things; that new EV vehicles WILL become a majority of vehicles sold, and that this 'flip' will take 50 years minimum.

    Again I remind; we've had a 'successful' PHEV from a major OEM for 15 years now, there are currently 3 dozen PHEVs/ EVs on the US market, and the marketshare is still only 1% at the end of this year.
    Those saying 'most of the market will be EVs in 12 years' are being woefully ignorant of the trending.

    A plethora of relevant examples exist; look at set belts- mandated for front passengers since January 1966, in everything built since (initially front outer passengers only), takes 2 secs to apply, has empirical evidence of effectiveness, most states (if not all) assign fines for non-use.... but only at (it's historical high) 90% useage in 2016. That's 50 years of trying to instill a habit that takes 2 seconds.

    Agreed...but we should be continuing the transition.  I want everyone to enjoy the same freedom that I do in owning a car.

    • Upvote 2
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    1 hour ago, balthazar said:

     

    Again I remind; we've had a 'successful' PHEV from a major OEM for 15 years now...

    Yes, and the last time I was in NYC all of the dirty, polluting inefficient crown vics had largely been replaced with vehicles like the Prius....same thing in LA when my wife was there just recently, lots of hybrids on the road...

    At some point when fuel prices spike cars like the Prius will become the norm.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    19 hours ago, ocnblu said:

    Notice those two words... "...from VEHICLES".  There is still the problem of CO2 from ALL THOSE OTHER SOURCES THAT ARE NOT BEING REGULATED ONE BIT.

    Sly insertion to show his displeasure.  And there are millions of people just like him.  This is being forced on people who do not want it, and it will not solve a problem because there is no problem to be solved.

    Some/Many of the other man-made sources are targeted for regulation as well. 

    • Upvote 3
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    The only thing that I think Toyota has wrong here is the timeline.  First off, existing cars will not be gone. But new production cars will likely be down to EV only.

    2050 is only 33 years away.

    Today, the most technologically advanced cars on the road are PHEVs and EVs like the S-Class PHEV, CT6 PHEV, Chevy Bolt EV, and Tesla Model-S.  This is the powertrain diagram for the CT6 PHEV. Aside from the CT6's transmission which is the most advanced hybrid transmission available, the concepts and technologies of this car are the same as the Fusion Energi or Pruis Prime.... I only picked this picture to show the technology, I realize it is not an average person's car.

    6a00d8341c4fbe53ef01bb08bc4f49970d-800wi.png

     

    33 years ago the average midsize car was powered by a carbed V6 or V8.  The 1984 Thunderbird was one of the most advanced average person car. It had Central Fuel Injection... which was basically a glorified carb with a single fuel injector instead of vacuum operated jets. Numerous manufacturers were still running carbed engines for an additional 8 years.   In another thread here on C&G we are talking about the new Corvette V8 that has two different kinds of fuel delivery systems, and in that regard it is about 3 or 4 years late to the party. Think about the level of technological difference between a 1984 Thunderbird and a 2017 CT6 PHEV or Pruis Prime.

    605878_1.jpg

    33 years prior to that Thunderbird was 1951 and this was one of the most advanced average person's car on the road.  Think about the technology difference between a 1951 Olds with its "High Compression V8" and the 1984 Thunderbird.

    3601455266_cba1f434f9_z.jpg

    33 years before that and you were in a Model-T.

    122_97aa066dcc42404e7602768333af5659_m.jpg

    33 years before the Model-T, you could get a Studebaker with between one and four horsepower.

    5e10d5d0586407969eb6faa7a4850a50.jpg

    The point of this thought exercise is to help you keep in mind what is possible in the span of 33 years.

    • Haha 1
    • Upvote 3
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Like the computer industry and Moore's Law that explains the doubling of computer power every 24 months, battery technology is in the early days of where CPU technology was in the 90's and we have blown way past that. 

    Battery tech is also ramping up fast from Air batteries and the first one to prove 1,100 miles on a single charge to various other forms. What happens over the next 2-3 years will truly change the way people live life and get around.

    http://www.pocket-lint.com/news/130380-future-batteries-coming-soon-charge-in-seconds-last-months-and-power-over-the-air

    This story is recent and covers the whole battery industry, the various options and the amazing size and density that is just now going to production. Samsung has finalized a solid state battery that will out last their current Li batteries by a factor of 3.

    If we did not have the Internet and the advanced technology we have today, I would agree with Balthazar that we are looking at 50 plus years to transition much like how the auto industry started from 1876 to 1915 when ICE auto's clearly won the battle. Yet we no longer live in a years to get info out to humanity and I actually expect this to change much faster than many here will realize. Look at how fast people change phones, computers and just about everything else. Humanity likes to have the best, sooner and faster than others the Jones - Jones competition will allow a faster change over to EV's than the PHEV has done.

    Simpler, less maintenance cost and easy to use as it blends with today's modern technology.

    We know it is not a matter of if but when. I believe the start is this year 2017 and by 2030+ we will see a majority of new auto's be EV and the death of new auto sales from ICE will be over by 2040-2045.

    Few Charts to show the growth:

    BatteryDensity.png

    DensityCells.png

    DevelopmentOfLithium.png

    EnergyDensity.jpg

    • Upvote 3
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    10 hours ago, A Horse With No Name said:

    We ahve a really cool house in Columbus built by people in that business....ten years after it was built, they went broke...

    https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/1330-Bryden-Rd-Columbus-OH-43205/33846110_zpid/

    Image result for 1330 bryden road columbus ohio

    It is slowly being rebuilt by a very determined individual...no one else has been in the house for something like 30 years...

    Scientists warning to humanity about global climate change and other things that will happen if we keep using fossil fuels;

    http://scientistswarning.forestry.oregonstate.edu/sites/sw/files/Ripple_et_al_11-3-17 Scientists main text.pdf

    Who do i believe...13,000 plus scientists or an automotive body shop estimator from Lancaster PA with an admitted bias against electric cars?

    Yeah Chris, I'm the ONLY ONE out here with this opinion.  Bull crap.

    There is not that much difference between the 1951 Oldsmobile and the 1984 Thunderbird though.

    • Downvote 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Here's a real world, industry comparison:

    toyota prius prime, overall length 183", MSRP $27100, projected 2017 sales : 20,018
    toyota corolla, overall length 183", MSRP $18500, projected 2017 sales : 347,928

    Seems like it would be easy-peasy to nudge their customer base into an PHEV the same size; despite the maybe 2 price tiers higher buy-in, it has an eMPG rating of 133.

    • Upvote 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    33 minutes ago, ocnblu said:

    Yeah Chris, I'm the ONLY ONE out here with this opinion.  Bull crap.

    There is not that much difference between the 1951 Oldsmobile and the 1984 Thunderbird though.

    No you are not the only one but you are part of an ever shrinking minority that wants to cling to the past and bitch and moan like what you are saying is going to change a single thing about progress and technology. All I have to say is “buck up” becuase it’s not changing just becuase you can’t or won’t see the writing on the wall. 

    • Upvote 3
    • Downvote 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    9 hours ago, A Horse With No Name said:

    At some point when fuel prices spike cars like the Prius will become the norm.

    The higher EV sales edge, the less demand on fuel price spiking/speculation. I doubt we'll ever see a spike like when it rocket up to $140/barrel again.

    • Upvote 2
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites



    Join the conversation

    You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
    Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

    Guest
    Add a comment...

    ×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

      Only 75 emoji are allowed.

    ×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

    ×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

    ×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




  • Similar Content

    • By William Maley
      The 86's exterior has undergone some significant changes. The most apparent is the front where the front bumper has been swapped to give the coupe a slightly more aggressive look. There are also new headlights with the "86" logo seen on the outside edge. These changes, along with a rear wing really help the 86 still look quite fresh. A feat when you take into consideration that this car, along with its sister, the Subaru BRZ has been around for eight years. The interior boasts a new steering wheel, updated instrument cluster with a color trip computer; and a seven-inch touchscreen radio featuring Apple CarPlay and Android Auto compatibility.  Trying to find a comfortable position the 86 took longer than I expected due to the limited amount of adjustments on offer. The sport seats provide excellent bolstering to hold you in during enthusiastic driving but falter in terms of comfort when it comes to long drives. As for the back seat, I would only recommend it for either very small kids or extra storage space. We come to the key weak point of the 86, the engine. It is the 2.0L Flat-Four from Subaru which produces 205 horsepower and 156 pound-feet of torque when equipped with the six-speed manual - figures drop by five when equipped with the automatic. Not much has changed in the performance department. At low speeds, the 86 goes along merrily. But then the power band falls off a cliff and you're left wondering when it will come back.  It doesn't help that the engine note of the 2.0L sounds like a bucket of bolts dumped into a dryer. This doesn't encourage wanting to climb higher in the rev band and giving the illusion of going faster - something Mazda does quite well with the MX-5 Miata. On my test car, an optional TRD exhaust was fitted and it somehow makes the noise worse. It sounded like a group of cats fighting one another to get that prime spot in the box from an Amazon delivery. The manual transmission does not like being shifted quickly as it becomes slightly stiff and bulky. Go slowly and the gear lever responds with a smooth and positive feel. An option that was ticked on this vehicle was the TRD handling package which adds a set of SACHS dampers. The SACHS do make an improvement in terms of body control as the 86 doesn't really exhibit any sort of roll. What you get a vehicle that is fun to toss in the corners. Helping out is the steering that responds quickly and provides a decent feel. But there is a downside to the TRD Handling package and that is the ride quality. I found the FR-S to be quite stiff and transmit most bumps and road imperfections. This package only increases the frequency and impact them. I would highly recommend driving a standard 86 against one with the Handling Pack to see which one you would prefer. The 86 GT starts at $30,115 and my tester with the two TRD options and some other items stickers at $34,783. If you drop the TRD options, then it becomes slightly better at just under $32,000.  Who is the 86 for? The obvious answer to this is someone who wants something fun to drive but doesn't have that much to spend. Of course, there are other options that offer more performance, the 86 shines on a winding road. But as someone pointed out in our interactive review, the 86 is a good option for someone who wants a blank canvas. This and the BRZ have a large aftermarket which means an owner can build their coupe to their desires. Want to upgrade the suspension and brakes? There are parts available. Feel like dropping in a larger engine? That is possible. It's a blank canvas ready for someone to make it their own. Disclaimer: Toyota Provided the 86, Insurance, and One Tank of Gas
      Year: 2020
      Make: Toyota
      Model: 86
      Trim: GT
      Engine: 2.0L DOHC D-4S 16-Valve Flat-Four
      Driveline: Six-Speed Manual, Rear-Wheel Drive
      Horsepower @ RPM: 205 @ 7,000
      Torque @ RPM: 156 @ 6,400
      Fuel Economy: City/Highway/Combined - 21/28/24
      Curb Weight: 2,817 lbs
      Location of Manufacture: Ota, Gumma, Japan
      Base Price: $30,115
      As Tested Price: $34,783 (Includes $995.00 Destination Charge)
      Options:
      TRD Handling Package - $1,270.00
      TRD Exhaust System - $1,100.00
      TRD Sway Bar - $550.00
      Special Color - $425.00
      Center Armrest - $199.00
      All-Weather Floor Mats - $169.00

      View full article
    • By William Maley
      The 86's exterior has undergone some significant changes. The most apparent is the front where the front bumper has been swapped to give the coupe a slightly more aggressive look. There are also new headlights with the "86" logo seen on the outside edge. These changes, along with a rear wing really help the 86 still look quite fresh. A feat when you take into consideration that this car, along with its sister, the Subaru BRZ has been around for eight years. The interior boasts a new steering wheel, updated instrument cluster with a color trip computer; and a seven-inch touchscreen radio featuring Apple CarPlay and Android Auto compatibility.  Trying to find a comfortable position the 86 took longer than I expected due to the limited amount of adjustments on offer. The sport seats provide excellent bolstering to hold you in during enthusiastic driving but falter in terms of comfort when it comes to long drives. As for the back seat, I would only recommend it for either very small kids or extra storage space. We come to the key weak point of the 86, the engine. It is the 2.0L Flat-Four from Subaru which produces 205 horsepower and 156 pound-feet of torque when equipped with the six-speed manual - figures drop by five when equipped with the automatic. Not much has changed in the performance department. At low speeds, the 86 goes along merrily. But then the power band falls off a cliff and you're left wondering when it will come back.  It doesn't help that the engine note of the 2.0L sounds like a bucket of bolts dumped into a dryer. This doesn't encourage wanting to climb higher in the rev band and giving the illusion of going faster - something Mazda does quite well with the MX-5 Miata. On my test car, an optional TRD exhaust was fitted and it somehow makes the noise worse. It sounded like a group of cats fighting one another to get that prime spot in the box from an Amazon delivery. The manual transmission does not like being shifted quickly as it becomes slightly stiff and bulky. Go slowly and the gear lever responds with a smooth and positive feel. An option that was ticked on this vehicle was the TRD handling package which adds a set of SACHS dampers. The SACHS do make an improvement in terms of body control as the 86 doesn't really exhibit any sort of roll. What you get a vehicle that is fun to toss in the corners. Helping out is the steering that responds quickly and provides a decent feel. But there is a downside to the TRD Handling package and that is the ride quality. I found the FR-S to be quite stiff and transmit most bumps and road imperfections. This package only increases the frequency and impact them. I would highly recommend driving a standard 86 against one with the Handling Pack to see which one you would prefer. The 86 GT starts at $30,115 and my tester with the two TRD options and some other items stickers at $34,783. If you drop the TRD options, then it becomes slightly better at just under $32,000.  Who is the 86 for? The obvious answer to this is someone who wants something fun to drive but doesn't have that much to spend. Of course, there are other options that offer more performance, the 86 shines on a winding road. But as someone pointed out in our interactive review, the 86 is a good option for someone who wants a blank canvas. This and the BRZ have a large aftermarket which means an owner can build their coupe to their desires. Want to upgrade the suspension and brakes? There are parts available. Feel like dropping in a larger engine? That is possible. It's a blank canvas ready for someone to make it their own. Disclaimer: Toyota Provided the 86, Insurance, and One Tank of Gas
      Year: 2020
      Make: Toyota
      Model: 86
      Trim: GT
      Engine: 2.0L DOHC D-4S 16-Valve Flat-Four
      Driveline: Six-Speed Manual, Rear-Wheel Drive
      Horsepower @ RPM: 205 @ 7,000
      Torque @ RPM: 156 @ 6,400
      Fuel Economy: City/Highway/Combined - 21/28/24
      Curb Weight: 2,817 lbs
      Location of Manufacture: Ota, Gumma, Japan
      Base Price: $30,115
      As Tested Price: $34,783 (Includes $995.00 Destination Charge)
      Options:
      TRD Handling Package - $1,270.00
      TRD Exhaust System - $1,100.00
      TRD Sway Bar - $550.00
      Special Color - $425.00
      Center Armrest - $199.00
      All-Weather Floor Mats - $169.00
    • By William Maley
      Next up on the review vehicle playlist here at C&G's Detroit Bureau is the 2020 Toyota 86, a vehicle I haven't driven since it was called the Scion FR-S. A lot has changed with this model aside from its name since the one I drove back in 2013. The styling has been refreshed, various tweaks made the suspension, and minor updates to the interior. What hasn't changed is the 2.0L boxer-four from Subaru that produces 205 horsepower and 156 pound-feet of torque. My test vehicle has the standard six-speed manual.
      The as-tested price for this 86 comes to $34,783, partly due to a couple of TRD options being fitted. Here's some first impressions,
      The 2.0L boxer-four isn't a great sounding to begin with, sounding like a bucket of bolts being shaken. The optional TRD exhaust only makes the noise worse. Handling is still this car's strong suit, offering minimal body roll and crisp steering. The touchscreen radio is very barebones, but does offer Apple CarPlay. I'll have more thoughts throughout the week, and will be doing my best to answer various questions from you. 

    • By William Maley
      Next up on the review vehicle playlist here at C&G's Detroit Bureau is the 2020 Toyota 86, a vehicle I haven't driven since it was called the Scion FR-S. A lot has changed with this model aside from its name since the one I drove back in 2013. The styling has been refreshed, various tweaks made the suspension, and minor updates to the interior. What hasn't changed is the 2.0L boxer-four from Subaru that produces 205 horsepower and 156 pound-feet of torque. My test vehicle has the standard six-speed manual.
      The as-tested price for this 86 comes to $34,783, partly due to a couple of TRD options being fitted. Here's some first impressions,
      The 2.0L boxer-four isn't a great sounding to begin with, sounding like a bucket of bolts being shaken. The optional TRD exhaust only makes the noise worse. Handling is still this car's strong suit, offering minimal body roll and crisp steering. The touchscreen radio is very barebones, but does offer Apple CarPlay. I'll have more thoughts throughout the week, and will be doing my best to answer various questions from you. 


      View full article
    • By William Maley
      The Toyota Tundra holds the title of being the oldest full-size truck, coming in at thirteen years without any sort of redesign. On one hand, this makes the Tundra a very reliable and dependable truck. On the other hand, the Tundra isn’t able to fully compete with the likes GM, Ram, or Ford with their more modern designs and hardware. But there is one exception to this where the Tundra can be a good alternative to the Detroit Three, and it comes in the form of the TRD Pro.
      Color can do a lot to a vehicle such as making an older model look modern or highlighting some of the polarizing elements of a design. This Army Green paint, which is new on all TRD Pros for 2020 makes the Tundra look younger and a bit more aggressive.  Inside, you can tell that the Tundra is getting up there in age. The design hasn’t changed much and material quality cannot even compare to the likes of GM and Ram’s trucks. But I like the large buttons and knobs for various controls. Not only does it make it easier to find, but it means you can have a set of gloves on and easily control various aspects. One key improvement for 2020 is Apple CarPlay and Android Auto being added to the Tundra’s Entune system, which gives drivers another choice in their infotainment choices. The Crewmax model seen here is huge. Step into the back seat and you might think you entered a limo with an endless amount of head and legroom on offer. I do wish the seats had a little bit more padding. Only one engine is available on the 2020 Tundra; a 5.7L V8 with 381 horsepower and 401 pound-feet of torque. This is teamed with a six-speed automatic and four-wheel drive. This engine provides plenty of thrust and provides an engine burble that you might expect from one of the Detroit three’s V8 trucks. The automatic is very smooth when changing gear and seems to where it needs to be in any situation. The downside to this V8 is fuel economy. The EPA says TRD Pro CrewMax will return 13 City/17 Highway/14 Combined. I saw an average of 14.2 mpg during my week of a 60/40 mix of highway and city driving. Maybe a couple more gears for the automatic could improve this. Toyota has kitted the Tundra TRD Pro with some serious off-road chops; Fox internal bypass dampers for all four corners, TRD springs that increase wheel travel, and a set of Michelin LTX off-road tires. Unfortunately, I didn’t get a chance to try it off-road. But other reviewers who have taken it off the beaten path report the TRD Pro is very capable.  What I can report is the changes to the suspension makes for a surprisingly comfortable ride. This suspension does mean you will experience a fair amount of body roll when cornering, but that is to be expected with a truck like this. My Tundra TRD Pro CrewMax starts at $52,780. With some accessories and destination, the price climbs $55,020. The Tundra is getting long in the tooth as evidenced by the interior and poor fuel economy from the V8 engine. But the TRD Pro helps freshen the Tundra a bit and makes a compelling option for those who plan on spending more time off the beaten path. Disclaimer: Toyota Provided the Tundra, Insurance, and One Tank of Gas
      Year: 2020
      Make: Toyota
      Model: Tundra
      Trim: TRD Pro CrewMax
      Engine: 5.7L DOHC 32-Valve i-FORCE V8
      Driveline: Six-Speed Automatic, Four-Wheel Drive
      Horsepower @ RPM: 381 @ 5,600
      Torque @ RPM: 401 @ 3,600
      Fuel Economy: City/Highway/Combined - 13/17/14
      Curb Weight: N/A
      Location of Manufacture: San Antonio, TX 
      Base Price: $52,780
      As Tested Price: $55,020 (Includes $1,495.00 Destination Charge)
      Options:
      Chrome Tube Steps - $535.00
      Stainless Steel Door Edge Guard - $140.00
      Door Sill Protector - $70.00

      View full article
  • Posts

    • Yes, they really need some! 🙂 
    • Wasnt THE Trans Am version of the Firebird more or less a Cougar competitor? Although I do agree that an Oldsmobile F-Body would have been a better fit.  Maybe. It would have been a sportier version of a personal luxury coupe.  But it would have also  been a less expensive model of Oldsmobile's very own personal luxury coupe that is the Cutlass SX.  Would THAT be a good idea having a cheap pony car sold above the price tag of an already expensive Trans Am but being a cheap pony car non-the-less and offering not much more than what a Trans Am could offer anyway, and probably be LESS favorable  than the Trans Am OR the Cutlass SX?  But then again, an Oldsmobile F-Body personal luxury pony car coupe would have fit in PERFECTLY just below that SX and the big daddy Toronado.     But then again, the Cougar in the mid-1970s just became a bloated Ford Torino personal luxury coupe and strayed far far away from its original concept. But then again, seeing that Pontiac made '70s history with their SD455 Trans Am and  made a stellar movie appearance with a black and gold 6.6 liter Trans Am...and later years actually HAD an Olds engine under the hood to satisfy sales and CAFE numbers...maybe an Olds rocket 455 or 403 in the later years of their very own F-Body doesnt sound that out of this world after all.   An intersesting "what-if" ... 
    • I am having a Ford Truck fetish, go figure. Love this video of them wrenching on a basic F series.   
    • This actually looks fantastic.    Agree completely.   
  • Social Stream

  • Today's Birthdays

    1. guionM
      guionM
      (53 years old)
  • Who's Online (See full list)

  • My Clubs

About us

CheersandGears.com - Founded 2001

We ♥ Cars

Get in touch

Follow us

Recent tweets

facebook

×
×
  • Create New...