2007 Toyota Fj Cruiser Base on 2040-cars

Auto blog

New Toyota Mirai videos continue questionable hydrogen claims

"Toyota engineers were simultaneously working on a brand new technology that met all the driver's needs with an even smaller carbon footprint." Toyota has released a number of new promotional videos for the hydrogen-powered 2016 Mirai. Most are exactly what you'd expect: pretty, full of promise and vaguely informational. But there was one line in the Product Introduction video that caught out ear. In the Product Information video about the Mirai, the narrator goes into a short history of Toyota's green car advances. After talking about the Prius and the Prius Plug In, making EVs for urban commuting and the rest of Toyota's advanced fuel programs, we hear this: "Never satisfied though, Toyota engineers were simultaneously working on a brand new technology that met all the driver's needs with an even smaller carbon footprint, one that took its lead from nature itself." You can watch the video (and four others) below. Plug In America co-founder Paul Scott told AutoblogGreen, "Show us the math! Toyota claims the FCV has a smaller carbon footprint than their EV, but every paper I've read indicates the FCV uses 3-4 times as much energy to travel a given distance as an EV. If they are making this claim, let's call them out to prove it. Show us the math!" There's some math that comes out in favor of EVs here and here. "BEVs and FCs have a very similar carbon footprint, dependent on fuel source." – Toyota's Jana Hartline Plug-in vehicle advocate Chelsea Sexton went further. "Assuming appropriate comparisons in energy feedstock, basic science doesn't support the notion that the footprint of an FCV is smaller than that of an EV," she told AutoblogGreen, explaining that "appropriate comparison" would mean using similar energy generation methods for both hydrogen and plug-in vehicles. Not the tendency, she noted, "of H2 fans to compare FCVs based on solar-based electrolysis to EVs running on coal-bases electricity and similar shenanigans." Besides, Sexton said, "focusing purely on efficiencies entirely misses the biggest struggles that FCVs face in the market, namely fuel price, inconvenience, and market fear, even if the vehicles themselves are initially subsidized.

Porsche takes 2016 Le Mans win on last lap, Ford grabs class victory

So far, only one Japanese manufacturer has won the 24 Hours of Le Mans endurance race. That carmaker was Mazda exactly 25 years ago with the legendary, rotary-engined 787B. This year, Toyota was amazingly close to winning with their TS 050 car, piloted by Kazuki Nakajima, and it all ended in tears on the last lap. The Toyota ran smoothly for almost 24 hours, but to lose power and stall on the pit straight with five minutes to go is nothing short of catastrophic. Still, the #5 car was able to be restarted and limped across the finish line for 45th place. Toyota's #6 car had its own set of issues, as the car gained bodywork damage and also veered off track in the hands of Kamui Kobayashi. Driven to second place, the Toyota #6 passed the finish line driven by Stephane Sarrazin. For Porsche, the win with the #2 919 Hybrid was the 18th constructor title at Le Mans 24 Hours. The car was driven by Romain Dumas, Neel Jani and Marc Lieb, and it proved to be more reliable than the #1 919 with Timo Bernhard, Mark Webber and Brendon Hartley behind the wheel. The #2 Porsche and the #5 Toyota battled for the lead throughout the day. Had the Toyota not broken down, Audi would have missed a podium finish for the first time in 18 years - a great run was ruined this year by turbo trouble in the #7 R18 e-tron Quattro driven by Lotterer-Treluyer-Fassler, and the third place was taken by the #8 Audi with Lucas Di Grassi driving. Winners #LeMans24 #919Hybrid @Porsche_Team @neeljani @LiebMarc @RomainDumas but kudos to @Toyota_Hybrid team pic.twitter.com/TLRuwuSTzx — Porsche GB (@PorscheGB) June 19, 2016 ??? #LeMans24 pic.twitter.com/zUkBbA65RK — Peter Leung (@BaronVonClutch) June 19, 2016 In the GTE Pro Class, Ford had reason to celebrate: the #68 Ford GT campaigned by Chip Ganassi Racing took a class win 50 years after Ford's 1-2-3 GT40 Le Mans win in 1966. 50 years to the day following the '66 Le Mans 1-2-3, the No. 68 #FordGT has won the GTE Pro Class at #LeMans24 pic.twitter.com/jkMLuWlEYm — Ford Performance (@FordPerformance) June 19, 2016 For the full list of official results, click here.

IIHS: Drivers safer than passengers in frontal crash test

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety introduced a small overlap frontal crash test in 2012 that replicates what happens when the front corner of a car impacts another object. In the test, vehicles travel at a speed of 40 mph toward a five-foot-tall barrier with 25 percent of the total width of the car striking the barrier on the driver side. One would assume that vehicles with good small overlap front ratings would protect the driver and the passenger equally. But a recent study from the IIHS proves that passengers aren't as protected as drivers. The IIHS conducted the test on seven small SUVs with good driver-side small overlap ratings and only one of the vehicles, the 2016 Hyundai Tucson, performed well enough to be given a good rating. The other SUVs performance ranged from poor to acceptable. After reviewing the results of the test, the IIHS is deliberating whether it should institute a passenger-side rating as part of its Top Safety Pick criteria. "This is an important aspect of occupant protection that needs more attention," states Becky Mueller, lead author of the study and an IIHS senior research engineer. "More than 1,600 right-front passengers died in frontal crashes in 2014." Since the small overlap front test was introduced, 13 automakers have made structural changes to 97 vehicles with roughly three-quarters earning a good rating after the adjustments. The IIHS' test for frontal ratings is completed with a dummy in the driver's seat and with a barrier overlapping the driver's side. Which makes sense, as passengers aren't always riding in a vehicle. "It's not surprising that automakers would focus their initial efforts to improve small overlap protection on the side of the vehicle that we conduct the tests on," states David Zuby, IIHS executive vice president and chief research officer. "In fact, we encouraged them to do that in the short term if it mean they could quickly make driver-side improvements to more vehicles. As time goes by, though, we would hope they ensure similar levels of protection on both sides." As the IIHS' test revealed, there's a massive difference in safety between the two front seats. Increase passenger safety, according to Mueller, would require automakers to strengthen the occupant compartment by using a different type of material or by making it thicker.