Toyota Stout

I wouldn't be torn if leaf springs were removed. Considering heavier trucks are using coils I can't see it being an issue in the Tacoma; in fact I'd even welcome the boost to flexibility/articulation. The possibility of coilovers is curious too.

I know it just increases complexity but as a younger (not very) person in and out of the automotive trade I welcome the challenge and the experience to learn more as the trade constantly evolves.

 

You mean like this guy? Hybrids are fuckin' sweet I just don't like that they sing. Who would banish the performance change similar to the old V8 5.7L i-Force vs the i-Force MAX TT because it's a hybrid?

"For comparison, the old 5.7L V8 produced 381 horsepower and 401 lb-ft of torque. The V6 hybrid takes it up another notch. The all-new i-FORCE MAX twin-turbo V6 hybrid powertrain pumps out 437 horsepower and 583 lb-ft of torque."

The old V8 got about 18L/100km city, the TT V6 gets 13L/100km; perfect world specs. You're also able to tow over 500kg more between the two 4x4 CrewMax Limited models with the short bed. Once equipped the performance differences in the Tacoma will likely scale similarly. IE possibly 50% more torque and 15% more HP.

Seriously?

 

Performance? I suppose that is a fairly subjective term. Higher fuel economy that a pure gasoline engine? Sure. But not as good as some other options. I had a 2014 VW Passat TDI that got precisely 40 MPG over the 83,000 miles I owned it. Hybrid would be very lucky to equal that.

Hybrids have twice as much that can go wrong. You can have all the normal problems as any other gas powered vehicle has, plus now you have all the problems with the electrical portion of the vehicle.

Replacing those $$$$$$$$$ batteries every couple years, huge drawback in my opinion. I will leave out discussion of the negative environmental impacts of mining, manufacturing and disposing of the lithium ion batteries.

Driving range - at best, a small hybrid like the Prius will go as far as a similar gas powered vehicle. The larger hybrids, like pick up trucks, are way, way less distance than gas (or diesel) powered vehicles.

I'll grant that hybrids have much higher torque instantly than pure gas/diesel vehicles do, but only for the first few seconds. And if a person invests in modifications to their gas/diesel vehicle, they can still beat a hybrid in a race.

Ultimately, everyone will buy the vehicle they feel best suits their style, needs, budget. I can explain why hybrids or pure electric are of no interest to me, but everyone else will have to arrive at their own decisions for what to buy.

 

Alpha is really just a design house at this point, but Toyota could consult for sure.

More of this in a wee EV truck please...

 

funky, but to each there own

 

I'm certainly not one to buy an EV either but I gotta say I love that everyone just tries to use the same argument that EV batteries are the devil when they usually don't actually give a shit about the actual environment or climate change or will at any point in their lives because they have no other arguments; whether that is or isn't you is beside the point. I digress.

I'm sure everyone here can agree, without getting off the rails political, that in one way or another (or many) the technology just is not worth it as it stands. I absolutely agree. I won't buy a pure EV until something changes. *edit* Whether* they offer better range, life, greener options etc or the electricity generated to charge or harvest could be magically shifted from burning coal to using hydro, solar, wind, geothermal (hell yeah), what have you.

That being said the Prius has been recorded in Fuelly for years and years, and the average MPG is still 10mpg above what you boast of your TDI. Considering people can hypermile their 3.5L ICE Tacomas to at the very least 25mpg which is a considerably heavier vehicle, much taller, much less aerodynamic, I'd say 40mpg isn't an outstanding example of much better fuel economy.

I'm also just gonna bullshit my way into a vague calculation combining the average rise in cost of fuel over the past 10 years where I live which is 20% each year, measured during the lowest/highest cost twice a year (every 6mo), plus hypermiling combined(?) fuel economy vs perfect world combined fuel economy (9.4L/100km vs 11.8L/100km) and factored in a reduction of 28% fuel use using the Tundra's perfect world fuel economy with ICE vs hybrid for shits n giggles it's a probably not accurate but potential ridiculous fuel savings of $17,000 in ten very fictional years. Drop from 11.8L/100km to 6.8L/100km (rounded up after hypermiling and hybrid efficiency are combined) and you're saving 17,000 in fuel, say a battery costs 8,000, you're still coming out with a profit and that's only if the hybrid battery shits the bed in the 10 year average. They've lasted longer or so it seems.

Basically went from:

Perfect world fuel cost at $1.375/L - $40,500 spent in fuel over 10 years with a rise in cost of 20%
Hypermiling (-20% at 9.4L/100km) at $1.375/L - $32,400 spent in fuel over 10 years
Perfect world hybrid fuel economy (-28% or 8.5L/100km) plus hypermiling -20% L/100km = $23,375 spent in fuel over 10 years.

I'm bad at math, punched a bunch of numbers in at Fuelly, CalculConversion "fuel consumption calculator", as well as used Fuel Buddy's average provincial fuel costs over 10 years and came up with a very loosely calculated number. I welcome critiques and better use of math but I think all this talk of 600+V EVs fried my brain and I'd gladly not do this much math again.

Time will tell if things get better, worse, ICE, or hybrid, OR EVs are pushed to the side for something better and we all save money in a world where everything is rapidly costing more anyways. Tons of people on this website won't live to see it or be lucid enough to know it so wish us under 40s luck for the future

 

I want a nucular truck.