Onsit

That's a fair point, but the only specification he chose to point out wast the 10,000 psi requirement.

Which implied that was all he cared about, the storage, protection, and temperature requirements of a volatile gas at a high pressure. If he cared to speak to some of the other facets of H2, such as the requirements of separation of H2 from CH4 with electrolysis locally on site. Well that is a relatively separate topic, and my comparison was simply to address his concern of high PSI gas tanks. There are infact thoughts on re purposing CNG to allow for storage of H2 (https://steps.ucdavis.edu/wp-content...YPOLICY115.pdf). Nice straw man.

I did, it is highly irrelevant to the future of H2.

bob256k

The paper you posted straight up says exactly what I said, and is from 2017. I read it, and it is all forward looking statements from 2017 and clearly says that CNG and LNG are not viable to be reused for H2, for the reasons everyone who has taken basic physics course knows. Literally the WHOLE CNG or LNG station would have to be changed. Thanks for posting that, because I thought it was mainly the tank would need to be reinforced and maybe some sort of internal lining and lines to dispenser that would nee to be replaced, but it's the ENTIRE tank , compressor, lines, dispenser , everything.

You are arguing simply because you like to argue, simply because I am from California. I am done feeding the troll. I have nothing against H2, but right now its the chicken and the egg and H2 just isn't going anywhere. I lived next to the only H2 stations in cali, you live in MD , there aren't any even in your state. You didn't even read the paper you sent. please just go back to watching Fox News and leave me alone

P.S. you are probably one of the waaakke people who think everyone from California is a "liberal" or out to take your guns. nobody cares; I just live here

AJLex19

Seeing GS F's in the low to mid 40's nowadays too: https://www.cars.com/vehicledetail/d...5410/overview/

bob256k

I want one but its hard to find one for that price that isn't beat up.... I test drove a '16 @ Lexus stevens creek but they wanted way too much and it was in not great shape....

Onsit

The article I linked is a good neutral article to link in this debate because it gives both sides of the argument a fair stance. Infrastructure supply vs edge node distribution of the final product. This journal goes heavily in depth of supply chain possibilities. But please focus on how it is infact possible to re-purpose CNG facilities, which you heavily and aggressively stated as moot. You failing to defend your initial point, and moving the argument to something entirely (your initial postulate was that is is HERP DERP impossible)...

1. You began the argument with a toddler like understanding that current technology doesnt exists that supports high pressure storage (OMG 10,000psi) and distribution of a highly reactive gas when introduced to large amounts of oxygen. Which I stated CNG exists and could be adapted from - as an edge node distribution (final product). This article supports this point, and yes it will be VERY expensive, it however may or may not shine the most truthful to the economic feasibility. Big companies have a lot of money to throw away to stir up a market after-all.
2. I linked an article, to an otherwise childish retort that, that it is in fact possible, but requires infrastructure investment. You have selectively skimmed this article (be honest, you really only read the abstract) - and decided to point random sentences that support your point of view. Your initial input into this discussion was that it is IMPOSSIBLE because OMG 10,000 psi. However there is plenty of data in this article that discusses that is is in fact possible, but at the time of 2017 economically speaking it is not the wisest investment (It is technically possible that a CNG station could overbuild storage tanks or compressors to ensure forward compatibility with hydrogen. However, the UC Davis study estimated that the additional costs of overbuilding CNG equipment would outweigh the benefit of forward compatibility with hydrogen. The study concluded that overbuilding CNG stations for future hydrogen compatibility is not economically attractive (Jaffe et al., 2017).
3. This article was simply used to disprove your argument that H2 is DOA. Yes it is a dated article, however take your MYOPIC point of view and think globally. USA is only one country in a global issue, and many other countries will adapt and go forward with H2 as a solution where it is simply no feasible to run huge amount of electrical infrastructure cross country to support 250kW (tesla superchargers) and 460kW charging systems. Such as Russia and China.
4. The US is an overly saturated market for vehicle sales, as many manufacturers are seeing. China however, sells almost DOUBLE the vehicles in volume in the last 5 years. In 2017 27mil vehicles sold in China, vs 17mil in USA.
5. Wuhan is heavily investing in hydrogen fuel cells, where one city alone will contribute to 20bil worth of fuel production by 2025.
6. Toyota, Honda are putting money on hydrogen because it does make sense to other markets.
7. Big oil companies are very much ready to blow, and waste money on infrastructure if they can make a case of reusing existing infrastructure.

So back to what this main thread is about. Toyota is a Japanese company with a finger in a lot of markets. And right now emerging markets are the sexiest thing possible for auto makers. Hydrogen aint going anywhere. And Toyota taking a stab at a mass production H2 vehicle, that is entry-luxury, is following directly out of Tesla's playbook.

You are aware that Maryland is a blue state.... right?

bob256k

So if the GS does go away what's everyone's top 5 picks as a replacement?

DaveGS4

iTrader: (2)

Folks let's keep this thread on the 4GS future / discontinuation potential please. Not Hydrogen vehicles or supply, not global economics, not politics. And most certainly NOT rude personal commentary which is in the last few posts. If you can't do that, please exit this thread.

Onsit

Simple ... Genesis G70, Q50 RS, Alfa Romeo Giulia Ti Sport - were all very attractive to a GS-F. I suppose you could also make an argument for an Avalaon TRD.

Shame that the market just wants trucks, and suvs. The Rav4 PRIME speaks to the guilty pleasure of the US car market wanting SUVs.

JDR76

If the GS goes away, I can’t see how it isn’t the end of my Lexus ownership, unfortunately. I simply don’t want a large LS or a FWD based sedan.

So, in no particular order, I would consider:

Kia Stinger
Genesis G80
BMW 540i
Audi A6
I can’t come up with a fifth...

Onsit

The Avalon is getting AWD, and the TRD trim (not sure if AWD will have the TRD trim) makes it quite an interesting option. One would assume maybe Toyota is keeping an ES 450h and a fancy AWD/F-sport trim in the near future - or possibly some combination of V6 + Electric assist motors.

Seems a lot of their moves have been to consolidate on reusable chassis between Toyota vehicles and Lexus vehicles (avalon platform, 4runner/lx, gx/landcruiser). The GS was a fantastic platform, but it was probably way too expensive to keep it as a one off platform, with no reuse as a cross sell down to a Toyota.

I think I would be happy with and AWD ES to satisfy the need for a large sedan if they are able to use some of the hybrid magic.

JDR76

The addition of AWD to the Avalon and ES will not help as they’ll still be nose heavy, FWD based sedans. They just aren’t replacements.

The GS could have moved over to the GA-L platform. It’s used on the LS, LC, Toyota Crown, and Toyota Mirai.

coolsaber

RWD to FWD is no easy transfer, but if they can tune the AWD system thats been already demoed I wouldnt knock it out of the running yet.

Onsit

Eh, I see where he is coming from with the FWD based statement. Having a transfer case and a transverse engine is just a slug, even if it has AWD. It'll be mounted to far into the nose, and too high up. Vs a longitudinal setup that can be mounted lower, and with a trans tunnel to further help center the car.

coolsaber

True a fwd vehicle will have inherent nose dive, but this will have the benefit of being electric and geared towards performance unlike the E-axle their launching in alot of hybrid from toyota.


Time will tell, but unless the very thought of FWD is repulsive, I`d give it a chance. Acura does an astounding job at making FWD CUVs handle well when pushed to the limits compared to a RWD biased CUV (x5)

JDR76

There’s a lot that adding rear power in a FWD car won’t fix. I dislike the front weight and torque steer, the long front overhang, the short axle to dash, etc. Just not appealing to me. The torque steer in my Highlander is insane. It’ll jerk the wheel right out of your hands.

I know I’m sounding like a snob, but I just don’t want to go back from a longitudinally mounted engine.