Jump to content
William Maley

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

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, FAPTurbo said:

i like the guy whose entire house cost less than my car calling people 'leftists...'

whattaboutism is an old soviet chestnut, so keep it up comrade. 

I know you like me.  Shhh...

7 hours ago, A Horse With No Name said:

Perfect case for the use of fossil fue

I honestly don't understand why you cannot love both fossil fuel and electric vehicles.  I do!

Not even a remote possibility.  FOSSIL FUES FTW

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Drew Dowdell said:

*Gently steering this back on topic without offending anyone*

If that $75 an hour consulting ever goes south you have a fantastic future herding cats.

2 hours ago, ocnblu said:

Not even a remote possibility.  FOSSIL FUES FTW

So you admit your mind is completely closed...self honesty is a good thing at times.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, A Horse With No Name said:

If that $75 an hour consulting ever goes south you have a fantastic future herding cats.

So you admit your mind is completely closed...self honesty is a good thing at times.

Someone just needs a nap and a moment to comptemplate their reasons for being here, other than being a EV troll. It seems that is not working out very well. Oh well, his loss and the reason why that line of thinking will be a distant memory in the near future.

 

Adapt or get left behind, just like the horse and buggy, the typewriter, and soon to be old ass fossil fuels.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, surreal1272 said:

 

Adapt or get left behind, just like the horse and buggy, the typewriter, and soon to be old ass fossil fuels.

Horse and buggy is still current technology to the Amish..

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But they don't use buggy parts & typewriters to make 1000 other products, like they do with petroleums.
Petroleums are irreplaceable for the foreseeable future- they will continue to be processed / refined. Their use will decline (slowly) in automobiles, but they aren't 'going away'.

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, surreal1272 said:

Someone just needs a nap and a moment to comptemplate their reasons for being here, other than being a EV troll. It seems that is not working out very well. Oh well, his loss and the reason why that line of thinking will be a distant memory in the near future.

 

Adapt or get left behind, just like the horse and buggy, the typewriter, and soon to be old ass fossil fuels.

Actually, let me play devils advocate, because there is a case for fossil fuels.

We stand resolved that fossil fuel vehicles have value;

Points of contention-

#1. Vintage vehicles are a valuable and unique art form and should be preserved, we should allow fossil fuel to be used indefinitely to power them.

#2. Motorcycles are available as EV but there are aspects of motorcycling where fossil fuels are inherently superior, we should allow artistic freedom and freedom to riders in terms of their motorcycling experience. 

#3. As mentioned by intrepedation, two stroke internal combustion engines are torque monsters, certain types of motocross competition would be adversely affected by  an Ev changeover, we should allow indefinite use of fossil fuels for motocross.

#4. As mentioned by Drew, certain portions of branch line railroad are unprofitable in the extreme to electrify, such as low volume track-age utilized primarily to move food after harvest.  there may be an indefinite need for older internal combustion locomotives in this case.

#5. Shipping is uniquely difficult to adapt to full EV, this will remain internal combustion for the foreseeable future.

#6. Developing nations have the right to automotive transport, and may lack the electrical infrastructure in rural areas to support large scale vehicle charging. We should allow and encourage fossil fueled vehicles in this case, as it brings needed commerce, tourism, medical supplies, religious freedom in that it allows religious people to make pilgrimages, etc. This is of very high value to humanity.

#7. As brought up by Balthazar, counsel from new Jersey, we have a lot of ICE cars currently on the road and large scale scrapage of these vehicles is unprofitable and environmentally wasteful.

To be continued.

 

2 minutes ago, balthazar said:

But they don't use buggy parts & typewriters to make 1000 other products, like they do with petroleums.
Petroleums are irreplaceable for the foreseeable future- they will continue to be processed / refined. Their use will decline (slowly) in automobiles, but they aren't 'going away'.

The Affirmative will take this counsel into advisement...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, A Horse With No Name said:

Without a spare battery it is like $600 and does not require gasoline to be stored in my garage. I may just pull the trigger.

Yeah it's great if it lasts as long as you need for your yard. A second battery really wouldn't be necessary. Plus, you could always get one of the smaller batteries as a backup. They advertise that they're all interchangeable. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

#8. Aircraft are uniquely unsuited to EV propulsion, and our lives are made infinitely better by aviation.  Commerce is encouraged by aviation  and a reduction in aviation may well lead to increased alienation between countries.  This could well lead to un-desireable impacts like nuclear war, economic stagnation, increased racism and intolerance as people become alienated from their fellow humans, a drastic reduction in tourist income,  a loss of religious freedom as people are no longer able to make religious pilgrimages.

#9. ccap41, counsel from St Louis, needs to mow his damned yard and forced conversion to EV would be a form of governmental tyranny and also a pain in the but for the above mentioned. Plus ccap needs something cool like a mustang Gt to cruise around in, an EV lawn mower would put him further from that goal.

#10. As mentioned by Balthazar, tons of things are made from petroleum, it isn't going away any time soon.

#11. Social change works best when it is done on a gradual basis, our infrastructure for petroleum has taken well over a century to build, the EV infrastructure will be over a century replacing it.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

#12. Governmental plans than force change against peoples will such as prohibition or the outlawing of narcotics often fail spectacularly, government coercion will actually slow down the change over to EV vehicles. It could be argued that by doing nothing change will happen at the rate society deems best. Advocacy for things like global warming/climate change and other environmental issues may be best done by social movements and not the government.

#13. Supposing the government was actually able to force the issue and cause widespread EV conversion in the short term (5-10 years) this may well convince people that we had solved issues relating to climate change and global warming.  Counsel from Lancaster, PA OCNblu was essentially correct in postulating that many sources of C02 would have to be regulated/changed for a significant impact.

#14. Automobiles are therefore non unique in terms of being polluters causing gross economic damage. As mentioned previously, regulating other sources may be beyond the scope of both current human technology and current human willpower to solve.

Edited by A Horse With No Name

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

#15. The affirmative for the proposition would affirm that if we are honest dealing with climate change may be best done by other means than EV automobiles.  One could stop giving federal aid to say Miami after hurricanes, and also inform people buying property in Miami of the long term environmental peril of their situation. People should be free to buy property there...we as the rest of the country should not be forced to bail them out. And people have a right to know what will happen with their insurance premiums and the city they choose to live in. This is a form of dealing with the problems we face honestly that does not involve electrification of passenger vehicles and light trucks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

42-gal barrel of oil only yields 20 gals of gasoline.
Rest~
ultra low sulfate distillates : 11
jet fuel : 4
heavy fuel oil : 1
hydrocarbon gas liquids : 2
heating oil : 1
other products : 6

IF there is a widespread move to a majority of EVs, this move is insurance against future fuel price spikes. Demand would be halved and prices would fall below where they are today. Gas might be 1.00 gal again. :)

Edited by balthazar
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

#16. People have a right to free choice in vehicles. Forcing an EV mandate treats people like small children unable to determine the course they want for the future.

If someone wants to buy an F350 knowing full well fuel prices could spike in the future, giving them the freedom to make that choice is the adult thing to do, and treats them like adults.

#17. Planning everything for the future and leaving nothing for today is a form of futurism that is toxic.  We don't know what course humans will take in the future, so over planning can be harmful.  Fossil fuel vehicles are a well established technology that works well for today and should be embraced.

 

#18. An over emphasis on EV vehicles takes away credit from two things...A. fossil fuels ahve been a huge gift and a huge blessing over the last two hundred years and B. Fossil fuel companies are not the anti-Christ-they bring us on a daily basis what we need to keep society running.  Without fossil fuels, anarchy and chaos would result, ending the lives of millions, perhaps billions of people and diminishing the lives of all 7 billion of us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

#19. Fossil fuels are uniquely transportable-for things like exploring the antarctic where no EV re-charging structure exists or is very remote, fossil fueled vehicles make a lot of sense.  Same thing could be said of deep jungles.

#20. Aesthetically, the smell of race gas, the sound of an internal combustion race motor on a cold morning, and the joy of internal combustion competition should not pass from this planet.

I just wrote this up quickly to show that there is an alternate side to the argument we are not looking at. 

It's a shame when this needs to be brought up by an Ev fan and not an internal combustion advocate.

Open to additional debate and discussion about the future of propulsion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Cubical-aka-Moltar said:

Horse and buggy is still current technology to the Amish..

So is no electricity and butter churning lol. 

29 minutes ago, A Horse With No Name said:

Actually, let me play devils advocate, because there is a case for fossil fuels.

We stand resolved that fossil fuel vehicles have value;

Points of contention-

#1. Vintage vehicles are a valuable and unique art form and should be preserved, we should allow fossil fuel to be used indefinitely to power them.

#2. Motorcycles are available as EV but there are aspects of motorcycling where fossil fuels are inherently superior, we should allow artistic freedom and freedom to riders in terms of their motorcycling experience. 

#3. As mentioned by intrepedation, two stroke internal combustion engines are torque monsters, certain types of motocross competition would be adversely affected by  an Ev changeover, we should allow indefinite use of fossil fuels for motocross.

#4. As mentioned by Drew, certain portions of branch line railroad are unprofitable in the extreme to electrify, such as low volume track-age utilized primarily to move food after harvest.  there may be an indefinite need for older internal combustion locomotives in this case.

#5. Shipping is uniquely difficult to adapt to full EV, this will remain internal combustion for the foreseeable future.

#6. Developing nations have the right to automotive transport, and may lack the electrical infrastructure in rural areas to support large scale vehicle charging. We should allow and encourage fossil fueled vehicles in this case, as it brings needed commerce, tourism, medical supplies, religious freedom in that it allows religious people to make pilgrimages, etc. This is of very high value to humanity.

#7. As brought up by Balthazar, counsel from new Jersey, we have a lot of ICE cars currently on the road and large scale scrapage of these vehicles is unprofitable and environmentally wasteful.

To be continued.

 

The Affirmative will take this counsel into advisement...

Not saying fossil fuels are dead in the water per say. They have many other uses outside of the automotive industry but it seems to me that the writing is on the wall and one day fossil fuels will no longer be the dominant source of power in the world. 

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, surreal1272 said:

So is no electricity and butter churning lol. 

Not saying fossil fuels are dead in the water per say. They have many other uses outside of the automotive industry but it seems to me that the writing is on the wall and one day fossil fuels will no longer be the dominant source of power in the world. 

Ohhhh very much so. The writing was on the wall for passenger trains in 1941 but they continued on for another 30 years.  They have a place, but nothing like they once did. Same with internal combustion passenger vehicles.

I remember reading an article published in 1941 that said the same thing about the passenger train.

My point in posting all of that is that there is a way to debate the pro EV folks rationally without stomping off to your room like a 9 year old who won't eat his porridge.

Some day humans will no longer be the dominant life force on this planet.

Edited by A Horse With No Name
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Will fossil based products still be in production in 2050?  Yes, almost certainly

Will their production per capita be substantially lower than today? Also yes, almost certainly

Will they be the primary fuel for personal (non-commercial) transportation? No, almost certainly not.

All of us here are tainted with the specialist point of view. We're all automotive enthusiasts. We see the world in Camaros and Mustangs, S-Classes and CT6es, F-150s and Silverados.....  But auto manufacturers have a very different viewpoint.  They see the world in Fusions, Camries, Accords, Focuses, Corollas, and Civics.  Those traditional sedan sales may be plateauing, but take away the marketing malarky, and what is an Escape really? It's just a tall Focus with an inflated price. Ditto Corolla / RAV4...or even Dart / Compass

So once one stops separating those models and admits they are essentially the same vehicle, you realize that the market is, by far, a whole bunch of bland beige 4-bangers.  99.99998% of people who buy those cars do. not. care. what powers their car as long as it gets them from point a to point b, is reliable, and is cheap.  I know I've said it before, but the moment a manufacturer is able to deliver on that EV trifecta while being priced similar to an ICE, the countdown timer on the ICE will have started.  It doesn't matter what those of us on automotive enthusiast sites think about it. 

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, A Horse With No Name said:

Actually, let me play devils advocate, because there is a case for fossil fuels.

We stand resolved that fossil fuel vehicles have value;

Points of contention-

#1. Vintage vehicles are a valuable and unique art form and should be preserved, we should allow fossil fuel to be used indefinitely to power them.

#2. Motorcycles are available as EV but there are aspects of motorcycling where fossil fuels are inherently superior, we should allow artistic freedom and freedom to riders in terms of their motorcycling experience. 

#3. As mentioned by intrepedation, two stroke internal combustion engines are torque monsters, certain types of motocross competition would be adversely affected by  an Ev changeover, we should allow indefinite use of fossil fuels for motocross.

#4. As mentioned by Drew, certain portions of branch line railroad are unprofitable in the extreme to electrify, such as low volume track-age utilized primarily to move food after harvest.  there may be an indefinite need for older internal combustion locomotives in this case.

#5. Shipping is uniquely difficult to adapt to full EV, this will remain internal combustion for the foreseeable future.

#6. Developing nations have the right to automotive transport, and may lack the electrical infrastructure in rural areas to support large scale vehicle charging. We should allow and encourage fossil fueled vehicles in this case, as it brings needed commerce, tourism, medical supplies, religious freedom in that it allows religious people to make pilgrimages, etc. This is of very high value to humanity.

#7. As brought up by Balthazar, counsel from new Jersey, we have a lot of ICE cars currently on the road and large scale scrapage of these vehicles is unprofitable and environmentally wasteful.

To be continued.

 

The Affirmative will take this counsel into advisement...

My Response to this.

1) True, keep vintage auto's that truly have value as is, but I can also see powertrain conversion to EV and to me that does not diminish the value of the old auto, just makes it better.

2) Disagree here, EV Bikes have superior torque and will replace the dirty noisy bikes. Just time to improve the battery pack I hate all Harley's other than their Live Wire EV Bike as they are way to loud and police refuse to enforce noise laws.

3) Disagree, again EV has proven to have more torque without the dirtiness of 2 stroke. Monster energy has started to sponsor EV dirt bike teams that are killing the competition.

4) Agree, but I think since many Train engines use electric motors with diesel generators, the change over to LNG generators is happening fast and this is being pushed hard by Warren Buffet who has invested heavily in the train industry.

5) Shipping is actually more electric than many realize, they will NOT convert the existing boats, but new boats are being built with electric motors and LNG or low sulfur bunker fuel generators. LNG seems to be the near term future as more and more ports install LNG refueling systems for the container ship industry.

6) Totally agree, have stated this that in many 3rd world places with unreliable electric grids, petro will be the main source of auto needs.

7) Agreed, He is right on this.

1 hour ago, A Horse With No Name said:

#8. Aircraft are uniquely unsuited to EV propulsion, and our lives are made infinitely better by aviation.  Commerce is encouraged by aviation  and a reduction in aviation may well lead to increased alienation between countries.  This could well lead to un-desireable impacts like nuclear war, economic stagnation, increased racism and intolerance as people become alienated from their fellow humans, a drastic reduction in tourist income,  a loss of religious freedom as people are no longer able to make religious pilgrimages.

#9. ccap41, counsel from St Louis, needs to mow his damned yard and forced conversion to EV would be a form of governmental tyranny and also a pain in the but for the above mentioned. Plus ccap needs something cool like a mustang Gt to cruise around in, an EV lawn mower would put him further from that goal.

#10. As mentioned by Balthazar, tons of things are made from petroleum, it isn't going away any time soon.

#11. Social change works best when it is done on a gradual basis, our infrastructure for petroleum has taken well over a century to build, the EV infrastructure will be over a century replacing it.

8 ) Agree here but plenty of work is being done to get us alternative fuel planes. Seems bio jet fuel is far more planet friendly. Boeing has this as an option and Alaska Airlines uses Bio Jet Fuel on the west coast. smells more like french fries than the traditional plane jet fuel smell. Could explain the increase in food sales on their flights. :P

9) :roflmao: You so nailed this! :metal: 

10) Totally agree, no way to replace the liteness of plastic containers even though I think Glass is superior.

11) I get this, many people are set in their ways and get scared like ostriches and stick their heads in the ground rather than embrace change.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, A Horse With No Name said:

#12. Governmental plans than force change against peoples will such as prohibition or the outlawing of narcotics often fail spectacularly, government coercion will actually slow down the change over to EV vehicles. It could be argued that by doing nothing change will happen at the rate society deems best. Advocacy for things like global warming/climate change and other environmental issues may be best done by social movements and not the government.

#13. Supposing the government was actually able to force the issue and cause widespread EV conversion in the short term (5-10 years) this may well convince people that we had solved issues relating to climate change and global warming.  Counsel from Lancaster, PA OCNblu was essentially correct in postulating that many sources of C02 would have to be regulated/changed for a significant impact.

#14. Automobiles are therefore non unique in terms of being polluters causing gross economic damage. As mentioned previously, regulating other sources may be beyond the scope of both current human technology and current human willpower to solve.

12) I get this point, but also want to point out that a supportive government for improvement in quality of life invests in the R&D and through this we have gained many benefits. Just look at Nasa and other investments in research.

13) Totally understand this point, lucky for us many around the world are already supporting and regulating yet with that said much is still left to be done.

14) I get your point here and agree up too a point as I feel humanity can and will change and regulate for the betterment of survival. I am an Optimist! :D 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, A Horse With No Name said:

#15. The affirmative for the proposition would affirm that if we are honest dealing with climate change may be best done by other means than EV automobiles.  One could stop giving federal aid to say Miami after hurricanes, and also inform people buying property in Miami of the long term environmental peril of their situation. People should be free to buy property there...we as the rest of the country should not be forced to bail them out. And people have a right to know what will happen with their insurance premiums and the city they choose to live in. This is a form of dealing with the problems we face honestly that does not involve electrification of passenger vehicles and light trucks.

15) Very True, stop pumping out New Orleans and let the city move to higher ground as it is a waste of Tax dollars to pump out a city below ocean level.

1 hour ago, A Horse With No Name said:

#16. People have a right to free choice in vehicles. Forcing an EV mandate treats people like small children unable to determine the course they want for the future.

If someone wants to buy an F350 knowing full well fuel prices could spike in the future, giving them the freedom to make that choice is the adult thing to do, and treats them like adults.

#17. Planning everything for the future and leaving nothing for today is a form of futurism that is toxic.  We don't know what course humans will take in the future, so over planning can be harmful.  Fossil fuel vehicles are a well established technology that works well for today and should be embraced.

 

#18. An over emphasis on EV vehicles takes away credit from two things...A. fossil fuels ahve been a huge gift and a huge blessing over the last two hundred years and B. Fossil fuel companies are not the anti-Christ-they bring us on a daily basis what we need to keep society running.  Without fossil fuels, anarchy and chaos would result, ending the lives of millions, perhaps billions of people and diminishing the lives of all 7 billion of us.

16) While I agree on principle sadly some humans are very destructive and need the push to a better way of life. We see this all over. We continue to pay to the native americans and yet they are some of the most destructive people I have seen when it comes to Mother Earth. Just visit reservations to see how destructive some are to the land and water.

I agree personal choice should still be personal choice. I have no desire to force Ocnblu to buy an ev.

17) I disagree with this one as planning can always change and if we do not plan, we will fail. You can see way too many societies that got complacent in where they were and failed and died. Improving oneself and society should be always on everyone's mind.

18) I get your point and to a certain level agree, but society also changes as technology brings better ways of improving and supporting life. Nothing is forever is one thing I have learned from being a business owner.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I certainly don't advocate all of the points above in exactly the format made, but we did have a rational discussion.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Surreal and others who like to point out the fact that I live in an area heavily populated by Amish folks show their big, fat ignorance every time they gleefully spit it.

 

There are Amish barns near me with solar panels on the roof.

So read up on things... like you all are particularly wont to command of me, before you so surely and clearly spell out just how ignorant you are by throwing out statements about the Amish, which demonstrate you don't know a damn thing about them and how they live in 2017.

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're alright with me, Bill; I respect your preference. To each his own.
 

#7. As brought up by Balthazar, counsel from new Jersey, we have a lot of ICE cars currently on the road and large scale scrapage of these vehicles is unprofitable and environmentally wasteful.


It's NOT that it'd be 'unprofitable or wasteful'; it'd be a tremendous financial hardship to so many, and a grotesque criminal infringement on individual liberty to all. Short of an open dictatorship, it CANNOT be done.

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, balthazar said:

It's NOT that it'd be 'unprofitable or wasteful'; it'd be a tremendous financial hardship to so many, and a grotesque criminal infringement on individual liberty to all. Short of an open dictatorship, it CANNOT be done.

That also. Your answer is essentially non competitive with mine...we are both correct. Something can be environmental waste and an act against personal liberty at the same time.

3 hours ago, ocnblu said:

Surreal and others who like to point out the fact that I live in an area heavily populated by Amish folks show their big, fat ignorance every time they gleefully spit it.

 

There are Amish barns near me with solar panels on the roof.

So read up on things... like you all are particularly wont to command of me, before you so surely and clearly spell out just how ignorant you are by throwing out statements about the Amish, which demonstrate you don't know a damn thing about them and how they live in 2017.

Or better yet just don't take the bait if you think he is baiting you.  There is a world of ideas relating to the fossil fuel side of the equation.  Deal with those ideas.  I don't give a damn about who has sand in their manly bits about what was said here.  I want to talk about cars.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now




  • Today's Birthdays

    No users celebrating today.
  • Similar Content

    • By Drew Dowdell
      Full-size family sedans have been on the ropes lately. The Hyundai Azera has been canceled.  There is no planned replacement for the Ford Taurus. The Dodge Charger and Chrysler 300 both have uncertain futures.
      Toyota however is about to put a pile of chips on the table with a fully redesigned 2019 Toyota Avalon.  They released a teaser picture ahead of the January 15th release at the North American International Auto Show in Detroit. 
      The picture, which only shows the front left corner of the car shows a very expressive look with a broad lower intake and a somewhat Lexus shaped grille.  We expect the new Avalon to ride on a longer variant of the 2018 Toyota Camry platform that was released at the 2017 Detroit Auto Show.  The new Camry platform shaved significant weight over the prior model and that will likely carry over to the new Avalon as well. That should make for some impressive performance numbers as the Avalon is already one of the lightest vehicles in the class.
      We will have more details and on-site reaction for you as we approach the full release of the 2019 Toyota Avalon at the Detroit Auto Show.
       

    • By Drew Dowdell
      Full-size family sedans have been on the ropes lately. The Hyundai Azera has been canceled.  There is no planned replacement for the Ford Taurus. The Dodge Charger and Chrysler 300 both have uncertain futures.
      Toyota however is about to put a pile of chips on the table with a fully redesigned 2019 Toyota Avalon.  They released a teaser picture ahead of the January 15th release at the North American International Auto Show in Detroit. 
      The picture, which only shows the front left corner of the car shows a very expressive look with a broad lower intake and a somewhat Lexus shaped grille.  We expect the new Avalon to ride on a longer variant of the 2018 Toyota Camry platform that was released at the 2017 Detroit Auto Show.  The new Camry platform shaved significant weight over the prior model and that will likely carry over to the new Avalon as well. That should make for some impressive performance numbers as the Avalon is already one of the lightest vehicles in the class.
      We will have more details and on-site reaction for you as we approach the full release of the 2019 Toyota Avalon at the Detroit Auto Show.
       


      View full article
    • By William Maley
      Toyota's polarizing C-HR crossover went on sale earlier this year and it isn't doing so well in terms of sales. Through November, Toyota has only moved 21,889 units, way less than Chevrolet Trax (72,723 units) and Honda HR-V (86,491).
      Speaking to Wards Auto, Toyota Motor Sales USA's president Bob Carter said a key reason the comes down to the C-HR not offering all-wheel drive in North America. Most subcompact crossovers sold in the U.S. have the option of AWD. But if Toyota was to AWD to the C-HR, it would highlight another problem. The C-HR carries a base price of $22,500, making it one of the more expensive models in the class.
      The C-HR isn't the only crossover that will only come front-wheel drive. Nissan's upcoming Kicks crossover will also be FWD only. However, Michael Bunce, senior vice president-product planning for Nissan North America tells Wards that only offering FWD on the Kicks shouldn't dent sales due to the low price of under $19,000. Those who want AWD will need to step up to the Rogue Sport which begins at $22,470 for the base S AWD.
      Source: Wards Auto

      View full article
    • By William Maley
      Toyota's polarizing C-HR crossover went on sale earlier this year and it isn't doing so well in terms of sales. Through November, Toyota has only moved 21,889 units, way less than Chevrolet Trax (72,723 units) and Honda HR-V (86,491).
      Speaking to Wards Auto, Toyota Motor Sales USA's president Bob Carter said a key reason the comes down to the C-HR not offering all-wheel drive in North America. Most subcompact crossovers sold in the U.S. have the option of AWD. But if Toyota was to AWD to the C-HR, it would highlight another problem. The C-HR carries a base price of $22,500, making it one of the more expensive models in the class.
      The C-HR isn't the only crossover that will only come front-wheel drive. Nissan's upcoming Kicks crossover will also be FWD only. However, Michael Bunce, senior vice president-product planning for Nissan North America tells Wards that only offering FWD on the Kicks shouldn't dent sales due to the low price of under $19,000. Those who want AWD will need to step up to the Rogue Sport which begins at $22,470 for the base S AWD.
      Source: Wards Auto
    • By William Maley
      Over the course of this year, Toyota has unveiled three different crossover concepts; the FT-4X, TJ Cruiser, and the FT-AC. We figured that one of these concepts could make it into production and this was confirmed by a Toyota executive.
      "It's like the 90s again, we can have more than one vehicle in each segment if they are different enough," Toyota Motor North America General Manager Jack Hollis told Motor Authority.
      While the three concepts differ greatly in terms of design, Hollis explained this was done to "test the waters in the market and get feedback from consumers." No matter which design is chosen, there are certain details that have been confirmed. Hollis said this new model will sit alongside the C-HR and be based on the company's TGNA platform. Power will come from a four-cylinder, but don't count out a hybrid option. Unlike the C-HR, this model will have the choice of front or all-wheel drive. The new crossover will also influence the design of the next-generation 4Runner and RAV4.
      Hollis said the model will have a price tag of under $20,000 and go on sale within the next two to three years. 
      Source: Motor Authority

      View full article
  • My Clubs

  • Who's Online (See full list)

About us

CheersandGears.com - Founded 2001

We  Cars

Get in touch

Follow us

Recent tweets

facebook

×