Disappointing

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/toyota-apologizes-cheating-vehicle-testing-102117211.html

 

I saw somewhere that the RX non-US models were included. This isn't good for Toyota, and I think they should lower prices as an incentive to their customers. Toyota is falsifying information on their products.

I don't really care when manufacturers lie when it comes to gov regulations, I don't always agree with regulations.

 

Sounds like normal business to me...

The problem with ever increasing standards and decreasing budgets. eventually product stops meeting the requirements and rubber stamps it with the hope they'll be gone before anyone notices.

No different than the steel fiasco a few years ago. Certification takes time, overbearing middle managers can't accept that until after it blows up in their face.

 

I've been watching the ever increasing government regulations on motor vehicles since the 1970s. I am convinced that the ever more stringent requirements are intended to make cars and trucks more and more difficult and expensive to build. The alleged fuel economy and clean air goals are a facade.

 

It's a tricky thing all this regulation and certification. But imagine if Boeing had no oversight. They can't even keep tge doors on the planes with regulation and inspection. Imagine for a moment a world where industry did what it wanted, how it wanted, when it wanted....

That's a terrifying world as well.

 

we're unfortunately seeing exactly that in the labor market. many companies are posting record profits, paying peanuts, and also complaining that "no one wants to work" all at the same time.

 

I think there are gains being made in those areas absolutely, but is the fuel economy worth the cost becomes the question one must balance out

 

Drifting farther off topic, added weight of mandated stuff tends to reduce fuel economy. For 16 years, I drove an early production (e.g., 1979) model year 1980 Mazda GLC with a 4 cylinder engine and a 4 speed manual. It was a sub-base model, meaning that it didn't have a carpet, a right side sun visor, or a right side door mirror. We added the visor and mirror straight away. No air conditioning, no air bags, questionable crumple zones, no auto-stop or lane departure warning. Manual windows and fueling was via a small carburetor. Just a basic, lightweight car. It got really good fuel economy. We could count on 30 mpg around town, and in the upper 30s on the highway. When we got it above 3,000 feet, it would always break 40 mpg. Our best was 46 average mpg in Colorado. It seated four in relative comfort, five managed for short periods in my car pool. I eventually swapped out the 4 speed for a 5 speed and added air conditioning. The fuel economy held up. Now, though, comparably sized automobiles are heavier and don't seem to produce the same economy. Could this be caused by the added weight of mandated equipment and the luxury doo-dads we seem to like?

I never fully understood the added fuel economy at altitude. According to the shop manual, there was an atmospheric pressure compensator that leaned out the mixture as needed.

 

Maybe the tuning was such that it was always running Uber lean at sea level then at altitude, the lower air density fatten out the A/F ratio a bit.

 

I almost bought one of the Great Little Cars as a teenager..needed fuel economy first and that would have fit the bill.

Not sure how it stacks up re weight/HP/etc off my skull, but when my Tacoma was getting reframed 3 yrs ago my first rental was a 2019 or 2020 Chevy Malibu. I never had anyone in the back seat so can't speak to that one but in around town cruising it would get a steady mid 30s to the gallon. I took it on the highway twice and managed 40 both times.

I see what you mean about the weight and such, though that's been parried by electronics, fuel injection and the like in terms of MPG. How much truly though..not sure.

 

The tipoff is that the goals are ever changing. Nitrogen was the enemy a few years ago, then diesel particulates, now Carbon Dioxide. Plants need CO2 to grow and there are concerns in some parts of the world that CO2 levels are too low. Next thing you know, they'll be telling us Oxygen is dangerous.

 

Lack of oversight isn't the problem at Boeing. In fact, all of their problems were done despite government oversight. Their problem was internal management that was lead by sales and accounting people, not aircraft engineers.

Government oversight rarely, if ever, makes anything better.

 

Yep, I had a 80 Datsun pickup with a 1.8L I4 5 speed and it got 39 hwy. My 64 bug got 36. There is a guy who put a walbro lawnmower carburetor on a Ford 302 in a 70s Maverick. Gets 40 mpg with the 5 liter V8. This emissions crap is a scam. How better to reduce co2 than to get more miles from the same gallon of fuel?

 

All of which was predicated on the fact that they are "too big to fail" and ultimately they wont have to eat shit, so lets make ourselves rich now by selling the brand name but swapping in cheap parts/and "streamlining" labor .

 

"I've been watching the ever increasing government regulations on motor vehicles since the 1970s. I am convinced that the ever more stringent requirements are intended to make cars and trucks more and more difficult and expensive to build. The alleged fuel economy and clean air goals are a facade."

That may not be the actual intent but that is certainly the result. However, there is no such thing as a "self-regulating" industry. Companies will generally do whatever they can to maximize profits over people.

 

A world without regulation, rules, laws, oh boy
I walked away without a scratch, accident not my fault, damn safety crap!

 

I believe they are obligated to maximize profit over people due to ultimate responsibility to their share holders.

 

The problem is, the regulation only appears to be regulation. The reality is Boeing was treated like developers building a large housing tract. They'll inspect a couple examples and trust the rest are built the same. Plus, in aerospace, the inspectors are in-house employees and only submit reports to regulators. When something goes wrong, the inspectors and or management of inspectors will be hung out.