mmarshall

I wonder off we are all getting off-topic? .....the thread started with Toyota (supposedly) cheating on emissions and ended up in a debate about regulations for the emissions themselves.

Toys4RJill

Smog testing is a total money grab. Eventually they changed it. Then made it free. Then abolished it. Worse, north of a certain highway, the test was not needed. I was reading that 99.5% of cars were passing at the 7 year requirement.

Had a friend who went to L.A. for a year. First thing he noticed was the lack of trees and green. Lots of concrete.

AMIRZA786

All you are doing is pretty much proving that gasoline cars are the major cause for air pollution. The first three are not even really cities, they are farm towns, and the pollution is mostly pesticide and dust particle related from farming activities, like tractors, and lots of trucks. Bakersfield is also an oil town with miles of oil fields. Numbers 5,6,and 7 are highly populated cities with a vast amount of cars, probably the majority of cars in California are located in numbers 5 and 6. California has over 40 Million vehicles. Thanks to emission regulations, these highly populated cities have improved pollution from decades back, and it also proves to me at least that we need more emission regulations

Allen K

iTrader: (4)

What you're ignoring is that being the most polluted city in the country today is exponentially better than being the most polluted city in the 40s-80s

AMIRZA786

Exactly, thanks for mentioning that

Toys4RJill

‘I think you will have a hard time proving your argument against the requirements of emissions regulations not being beneficial for America and the rest of the world when it comes to what is in the air. Like others have said, smog in cities has been drastically reduced today than it was pre-1990s thanks to emission requirements. You might have a better argument in regards to the financial cost and burdens that emission regulations and testing cause to the average person.

mmarshall

Wrong. First, I did not say there were NO benefits....certainly the water and air are cleaner today than 50-60 years ago. Second, you have to weigh the potential benefits vs. the cost and other issues involved...it is possible to reach a point of diminishing (or no) returns. Third, money and resources that go for these issues often gets taken away from equally-important ones.

Toys4RJill

‘So what benefits are there?

There are vehicles with zero tailpipe emissions in the year 2024. So what more could someone ask for?

situman

If it was some paperwork error, fine, crap happens. If that error translates into a safety concern, then Toyota should be held liable.

People seem to ignore the fact that moving into an EV is just moving the emissions from your tailpipe to a smoke pipe. Think of the nuclear waste from a nuclear powerplant and the health hazards from the radiations in the area or the emissions from coal powerplants. Even natural gas will have emissions. There is no free lunch people. You just feel better about yourself because YOU dont see anything from your car anymore doesnt mean it doesnt exist somewhere else.

AMIRZA786

Nobody buys an EV to feel good about themselves, we buy them because they drive better, perform better, are more efficient etc. nothing to do with tailpipe emissions. Do a poll in EV chat and you will see I'm correct, as this is not the forum to discuss this. The fact is, emissions is not even the topic of this thread. It's about cheating on safety, it just happened to get derailed

Toys4RJill

You are not wrong that emissions move from the tail pipe to the smoke stack . But even a dirty powered EV is still far emissions cleaner than a gas car driving around emitting CO2, there is very little doubt. . It is also state dependent as well as the same EV in some regions of California will have half the dirty powering emissions compared to somewhere in West Virginia. It’s also true that some cars like a Prius might have less total overall emissions than a Toyota EV but it depends where you are charging that EV and in what area of what state.

mmarshall

Yep. As has been shown a number of times, there is no free lunch. Even relatively clean solar and wind-power-generation has its limitations, and cannot be a credible source for millions of EVs.

AMIRZA786

You guys keep repeating this over and over. Those of us who buy EV'S don't do it to lower emissions, to save the environment, or eliminate tailpipe emissions. We buy them because of the better driving experience, smoother drivetrains, and amazing power they produce using less energy. Respectfully, let's move on from emissions and go back to discussion of Toyota cheating safety

LeX2K

Speaking of safety EVs are safer because they don't have a giant lump of an engine that loves to drive itself into the cabin in a crash. I 100% agree with the above if an EV had the same environmental footprint as a gas car I'd buy the EV anyway they are simply vastly superior.

mmarshall

No, they only have a million different electrical pieces all around you that can electrocute you in a crash..or if your vehicle ends up in the water.