1990 Toyota Landcruiser Fj-62 Original! on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Bibendum 2014: Former EU President says Toyota could lose 100,000 euros per hydrogen FCV sedan

Pat Cox does not work for Toyota and we don't think he has any secret inside information. Still, he's the former President of the European Parliament and the current high level coordinator for TransEuropean Network, so when he says Toyota is likely going to lose between 50,000 and 100,000 euros ($66,000 and $133,000) on each of the hydrogen-powered FCV sedans it will sell next year, it's worth noting. That was just one highlight of Cox's presentation at the 2014 Michelin Challenge Bibendum in Chengdu, China today, which addressed the main problem of using more H2 in transportation: cost. The EU has a tremendous incentive to find an alternative to fossil fuels, since Europe today is 94 percent dependent on oil for its transportation sector and 84 percent of that 94 percent dependency is imported oil. The tab for that costs the EU a billion euros a day, Cox said, on top of the environmental costs. To encourage a shift away from petroleum, European Directive 2014/94 requires each member state to develop national policy frameworks for the market development of alternative fuels and their infrastructure. For the member states that choose to fulfill 2014/94 by developing a hydrogen market – and to be clear, Cox said, it's not an EU diktat that they do so, since a number of other alternatives are also allowed – the aim is to have things in place by the end of 2025. The plans don't even have to be submitted until the end of 2016. The long lead time is due to a quirk in a hydrogen economy. In hydrogen infrastructure, "the first-mover cost is not the first-mover advantage, but the firstmover disadvantage." – Pat Cox In deploying a hydrogen infrastructure, Cox said, "the first-mover cost is not the first-mover advantage, but the first-mover disadvantage, and high risk." That's why the EU and member states will financially support the early stages, but everyone agrees that "if this is to work, it will have to be ultimately and essentially a commercially viable and commercially driven infrastructure roll-out." Since 1986, European Union research programs have spent 550 million euros on hydrogen-related and fuel-cell-related research, including methods of hydrogen storage and distribution as well as improved fuel cells vehicles, Cox said. Expensive problems remain to be solved. At a conference in Berlin, Germany this past summer, Cox said, the unit cost of the refueling stations was identified as the main problem.

The most efficient gas or hybrid cars of 2024: Not the greenest, but still very green

Not a single electric vehicle appears on the “greener choices” list assembled by the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE) in its annual compilation of the most environmentally friendly cars in the United States. But for potential car buyers seeking an efficient, fairly affordable gasoline or hybrid vehicle this year, the list of 12 cars, trucks and SUVs can help with decision making. Topping this yearÂ’s list was the gas/hybrid Honda Accord, priced at $33,990 with an estimated annual fuel cost of $982. Rank Make & Model Powertrain Vehicle Class Green Score MSRP Estimated Annual Fuel Cost* 1 Honda Accord Gas Hybrid Large Car 62 $33,990 $982 2 Kia Niro FE Gas Hybrid Compact SUV 61 $28,315 $885 3 Mitsubishi Mirage Gas Compact Car 59 $17,955 $1,189 4 Lexus ES 300h Gas Hybrid Midsize Car 59 $44,590 $1,073 5 Lexus NX 350h Gas Hybrid Midsize SUV 57 $43,465 $1,207 6 Ford Maverick Gas Hybrid Compact Pickup 55 $24,900 $1,297 7 Toyota Sienna Gas Hybrid Minivan 55 $39,080 $1,304 8 Mini Cooper Convertible Gas Subcompact Car 54 $35,700 $1,412 9 Toyota Highlander Gas Hybrid Large SUV 54 $40,720 $1,348 10 Kia Soul Gas Small Wagon 53 $21,565 $1,467 11 BMW Z4 sDrive30i Gas Two-Seater 50 $53,600 $1,626 12 Mercedes-Benz GLA250 Gas Hybrid Large Van 49 $43,000 $1,596 13 Volvo V90CC B6 Gas Hybrid Midsize Wagon 45 $59,800 $1,843 14 Ford Ranger Gas Standard Pickup 43 $32,670 $1,968 *ACEEE analysis using EIA data of the annual cost of driving 15,000 miles In making its evaluations, the ACEEE examines each 2024 model based on its cost to human health from air pollution associated with vehicle manufacturing and disposal, the production and distribution of fuel or electricity, and vehicle tailpipe emissions. The group also takes into account air pollution associated with EV battery manufacturing. The organization also ranks what it calls the “greenest” cars — it selected the Toyota Prius Prime SE plug-in hybrid is the greenest model of 2024. As well as the “Meanest.Â’Â’ or least efficient vehicle. At the top of that list this year was Mercedes-Benz AMG G63. The group says that the greener choices are those that are available nationwide “with among the lowest environmental impacts in each vehicle class but that didnÂ’t make the Greenest List.

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.