Bill Reinhert is Toyota USA's national manager-advanced technology group. He wants you to know that Toyota's decision to offer an E85-compatible (a.k.a. flex fuel) Tundra pickup has nothing to do "greenwashing." “It’s a longer-term strategy," Reinhert told WardsAuto. "What we’re not going to do, in the short-term, is say: ‘Look at us! Aren’t we green?’” Bob Carter, ToMoCo NA's group vice president and general manager, seconds the motion. He claims Toyota's decision to develop the flex-fuel full-sizer was designed to help the company capture more sales in the American heartland; where corn is grown, ethanol subsidies flourish and E85 stations abound ('cause they don't have to schlep the pipeline aversive juice cross country). Be that as it may, the Midwest is certainly a key battleground for the new Tundra. "The Midwest is where we’re seeing our strongest sales growth percentage-wise, not volume-wise.” Oh, and the fact that inexpensively converted E85 Tundras will boost Toyota's CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) ratings may have a little something to do with it too.
CAFE has to die – take the gas guzzler tax exemption away from luxury SUVs and call it a day.
Toyota doesn’t really need any help when it comes to their EPA ratings. But they do need help on Tundra sales, and offering an E85 version in the midwest is a surprisingly good idea, for the reasons you listed.
I’m still surprised that a hybrid version of the Tundra wasn’t rolled out almost immediately. It must pose some challenges that aren’t as easily solved as we might think.
I would think with Toyota’s increasing thirst, V8 Tundra’s, LS 460’s, Land Cruisers, Sequoia’s, and less thrifty V6 Camry’s, 4Runner’s Tacoma’s, and, well the rest of the Lexus lineup, they might need a CAFE push, Pruis notwithstanding. Especially with the new EPA mileage test technique that is more realistic (yet still not actually realistic) than the old standard.
The six-speed might not shift right, the camshaft might snap in your 5.7L, the bed might flex uncontrollably over rough terrain and the tailgate might break if you sit on it to eat lunch, but, hey, you can use E85 if you can find it anywhere!
I hope Ford and Chrysler are paying close attention to all of this (and the flame-throwing Super Duty – but at least that’s a cool feature) for their upcoming F-150 and Ram launches. If ever there was a chance to look better than Toyota…
Making E85 vehicles is easy. I wouldn’t be surprised if the engineering was already in the Tundra when it was released. The only dumb thing about this move is that is wasn’t so called Flex Fuel rated from day 1 of the latest version.
California has mandated Flex Fuel compatible vehicles for some of it’s state purchases and other states are doing the same. There is no good reason for Toyota to let itself be shut out of certain opportunities when making a Flex Fuel vehicles is so easy to do and costs very little in mfg. They should roll it out across the lineup.
” … new EPA mileage test technique that is more realistic …. ”
The new methodology is being used for reporting only. CAFE administration still is done using very, very old test methodologies (predating even the 2007 version which is being replaced for 2008).
Buddy just leased a Tundra — it was delayed by at least 3 monhts, because of, umm, issues in production (sure….). Bright red.
He *drools* over big trucks, just got rid of a leased Nissan.
But knows so little about cars. When I first saw him after he picked it up, he told me the sales guy told him it was “electronic turbocharged” — then he talked about how great the 4 doors are, the leather, and all the luxury items in the truck.
I asked him (half jokingly) — why not just buy a Cadillac?
He just laughed back (’cause, he is, after all a truck guy – who’ll never put anything in the bed of the truck more than luggage or case of water from Costco.).
I’m sure he believes its better than anything Ford or Chevrolet make, too.
/p
Despite all the publicity, here in the middle of the farm belt (Indianapolis), E85 is surprisingly non-available.
The map shows a total of 4 stations on the west side of town (in a 25 mile radius from downtown).
All that really needs to be done for E85 conversion is to make the fuel system corrosion-proof…And some ignition timing programming.
Of course we all get to pay for this in higher food prices as well as higher taxes.
Unfortunately, fuel economy is rather lousy when you burn E85 in a standard engine. However, that doesn’t need to be when you design engines with E85 in mind from the start. Is that something we can expect Toyota to deliver?
Every vehicle I’ve rented lately has been a Chrysler Corp with an E85 badge. I guess Toyota wanted to guard the title it earned for conspicuous eco-sensitivity that it earned with the Prius.
Not only does ethanol bring higher food prices, but the corn is grown on land irrigated by fast-dwindling aquifers whose water quality is suffering due to nitrate pollution due to over-fertilization.
I read recently of an ethanol plant linked to a feedlot, linked to a manure digester.
The digested manure puts out methane–some of which fuels the ethanol plant and some of which goes to the natural gas pipeline system.
The cows are fed mash from the ethanol plant plus un-converted corn.
My question is why have the ethanol plant?
If you didn’t have the ethanol plant, you could compress the gas and run cars off that.
The cows could eat pure corn–no energy having been expended to turn it tnto mash.
This country has a boundless energy source in the stuff it buries in landfills and flushes down the toilet. Why go to the trouble of water-depleting ethanol when every community can have its own low-water-reqirement gas plant and every vehicle can be converted to switch back and forth between petrol and compressed methane?