[fy20]

What kind of fuel consumption do you get on that? I've been considering getting an older vehicles exactly for that reason (and you can easily tinker with it), but I'd imagine the fuel consumption is a lot higher than a modern vehicle, to the point where you are not saving anything by being able to fix it yourself.

[adamdevigili]

My 1997 LX450 (4.5L I6) with armor (front/rear bumpers, sliders), a roof rack, other random accessories with a 2.5" lift and 33" tires gets about 11 MPG highway, and maybe 7-9 city. I take it off-road often, and on trails I get maybe...4-6?

It does come with the territory though, and anyone owning an 80 (and probably a 100 series) at this point isn't doing it really to "save money" imo.

That being said, the recently outgoing 200 series LC didn't really do all that much better[1], and neither does the new 300 series.[2]

[1] https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymodel/2021_Toyota_Land_Cru...

[2] https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/45010.shtml

[zaken]

Do people ever give you grief about the climate impact of owning a vehicle like that?

I don't mean to judge and am genuinely curious -- I have a fairly fuel inefficient vehicle as well and it weighs on me sometimes that I maybe should try different, more climate friendly hobbies (like, stopping overlanding and pick up knitting or something...)

[happytiger]

Yes, but the service life of a Land Cruiser 200 series is 25 years. There’s a profound amount of environmental impact beyond the gas pump, and most of it comes from building and shipping all the parts to assemble the automobile over and over again. The manufacturing process is profoundly environmentally destructive, so vehicles that have a longer service life (Land Cruiser is 2-2.5 times the average) have a role to play.

They are also one of the few petrol vehicles that are still built to this kind of standard, so they do demonstrate as the “smoking gun” that the industry itself engineers obsolescence into their vehicles and could do much better.

Somehow we’ve all been reduced to yakking on and on about fuel economy. There are 30,000 parts in the average car, and almost all of them are manufactured and shipped. What’s the impact of tens of thousands of components and built onsite for JIT manufacturing?

If we wanted to change this, we could do very easily. We would just need to put a sticker in the window of the car that says: “Designed to Last: 12 years” or whatever. That way people could make an informed decision and game theory would come in to effect. Auto makers know this information: every car has a design life of you wouldn’t have anything like the “25 year design life” of a Land Cruiser in the first place.

I consider it the impact of car and oil company propaganda, as they’ve narrowed the discussion to “miles per gallon” rather than the overall impact of design life and the constant need to remanufacture the same vehicle over and over again for the same customer throughout their lifetime.

The hidden danger is in the subtle propaganda of suggested talking points from industry that subtly moves the conversation over decades. Propaganda isn’t to tell us what to think, it’s to frame and influence the things we talk about and give us a industry favorable set of opinion talking points to frame a conversation that benefits the status quo.

The Land Cruiser is one of the last petrol vehicles that demonstrates without a doubt that we could be building to a much higher standard for viritually the same money. It was 84k when it went off the market in 2020, and Toyotas next most expensive vehicle with half the service life was about 75k. The Land Cruiser has a 10,000 usd tax because it isn’t assembled in North America, so double the service life vehicle can be delivered at the same price as the top end vehicle in a lineup. Its simply a choice by car companies not to do it.

But all we as a society can talk about is gas mileage, because that’s something the “industry can get behind.”

It’s something to bear in mind.

[arcticbull]

> There’s a profound amount of environmental impact beyond the gas pump, and most of it comes from building and shipping all the parts to assemble the automobile over and over again. The manufacturing process is profoundly environmentally destructive, so vehicles that have a longer service life (Land Cruiser is 2-2.5 times the average) have a role to play.

This isn't really true. The manufacturing is intensive but not nearly as intensive as setting fire to 1/4 gallon of gas every mile.

This impact is also significantly lower for gas cars than electric, which achieve parity around 15,000 driven miles.

There is an obvious inherent trade-off of a longer service life: you don't get efficiency improvements for 25 years.

[edit] Studies show an average gas car produces about 5.6t of CO2e in manufacture, an electric car about 8.8t of CO2e. For the gasoline car that's equivalent to burning ~600 gallons of gasoline and for the electric, ~1000 gallons.

An average car is driven 12500mi per year, and look if you're getting 10mpg, that's 6 months. How about the other 24 years 6 months? Buying a car that's 10% more efficient breaks even after what, a couple of years? [1]

If you care about the environment, take a train. Caltrain gets 100 passenger-miles per gallon average on their diesel engines and those train cars are older than I am. Once they move to electric, it should be 250-ish pax-mi/gal-equivalent based on Bart. Although I suspect probably a lot more due to the longer runs between stations.

[1] https://www.epa.gov/automotive-trends/highlights-automotive-...

[ufmace]

Regarding trains, I don't think that's really accurate. Yes, a train that's completely full gets excellent effective mileage per passenger for that trip. But how often are they anywhere near full? In reality, trains and buses have to make a huge number of runs either completely or virtually empty in order to have a regular enough schedule for anybody to be willing to depend on them. We need to know the effective fuel consumption of all runs actually made per total actual passenger-miles transported over the course of at least a week, maybe more like a month.

And that's before we account for any additional trips needed for personnel movements, car and track servicing, and other such things.

[arcticbull]

Those numbers are from Bart and Caltrain's operating reports.

The Bart number may have been during peak only so fair point there, I can certainly look for the systemwide average. [1]

The Caltrain number is average over FY2016-2018, from their sustainability report page 5. [2] They completed roughly 436M passenger-miles per year, and consumed roughly 4.4M gallons of diesel. Clocks in around 100 passenger-miles per gallon. I'm sure its worse now with the COVID numbers. I think it's a fair ballpark point of comparison though, and you can consider the Bart number an upper limit.

You're of course right its a function of ridership. An average freight train gets over 400 miles per gallon per ton of cargo.

[1] https://www.bart.gov/sites/default/files/docs/GreenSheet.pdf

[2] https://www.caltrain.com/about-caltrain/sustainability

[scarab92]

No, what matters is the marginal additional emissions of a passenger choosing to ride the train. An empty train is going from A-B regardless.

[yohannparis]

I mean, the environment impact on buying a vehicle that polute less might not be worth running this one to the ground.

Same argument I have with aquaintainces that switch their cars to an electric ones... it's worse at the end if your previous car was in working order.

[sokoloff]

Presumably that car goes to someone else who will use it rather than being scrapped (a la Cash-for-Clunkers), right?

I've argued* that, because we drive our second car so little per year, that it makes more sense for us to buy an inexpensive, relatively gas-guzzling used car rather than a more economical hybrid. Reasoning being that someone is going to drive the gas guzzler and someone is going to drive that hybrid and better the hybrid go to someone driving a typical amount and we drive the worse one only 2-3K miles/year.

* - so far unsuccessfully, but the crazy used car market has made that moot for now.

[Smoosh]

Reasonable logic, but I feel that a moderately priced small/medium electric car would be ideal for the day-to-day short trips around town that is most of our driving these days. Unfortunately such cars don't exist yet in my market and there is not yet a significant used market for electric cars.

[yohannparis]

I completely agree! Because I only use my car for long trips (1h or more) a couple times a month. I got a 25 years old executive sedan... Sure 21 MPG is bad, but no new cars was made for my needs. And I stay under 3 metric tons of CO2 per year.

[usefulcat]

By buying an SUV (used or not), you're increasing--if only slightly--total demand for SUVs. Increased demand usually begets increased production.

[_adamb]

This could be true, but isn't the whole story. Cars tend to be sold more and more as they age, for lower and lower prices. In fact, where I live (Honduras), many of the vehicles were "totaled" in the US, sold as salvage in the US, then imported to Honduras and fixed. My daily driver is an SUV that was a salvage title from Wisconsin. It has a little over 150,000 miles on it and I'm pretty sure my mechanic can keep it running over 200,000.

[toast0]

Would depend on the size of the engine I'd think. Old SUVs are going to have big engines and eat gas. My '78 Scout II had a 345 (5.6L?) v8 and did 12 mpg when it was running well. But if you get a smaller car with a smaller engine, you can get better mileage. My wife's '86 Civic doesn't fit the no engine electronics ideal (and it did have electronics problems that required replacing the engine control module (module sourced from a junkyard worked fine though)), but it did around 40 mpg in normal driving, 60 for cross country highway driving with A/C off. No modern safety equipment isn't great if you get in an accident, but curb weight is a lot less.

If you get an early Civic or VW Bug, you're going to get pretty good mileage as long as the engine is well adjusted.

[lazide]

The issue with smaller vehicles, if you do actually go off-road or tow things, is they get destroyed in short order with very few exceptions.

I ended up having to get a proper truck because I kept breaking suspension components in my Forester shrug.

And for all the climate sin folks, it’s to manage 90 acres of previously overgrown timberland which was a huge fire danger and would have gone up in smoke in short order otherwise.

It’s now happily sitting there sequestering far more carbon than the truck will ever release.

[atourgates]

This is the achilles heel of the FJ80 we get in the US with a gas engine.

The official EPA rating on my 1995 is 12MPG city, and 14MPG highway. Real world, I'm more often in the 10-12 MPG range. If you add heavy offroad accessories, expect that to drop further.

The Diesel engine you can get in other parts of the world can get 20+ MPG in the same vehicle.

[coconut_crab]

I get around 12.5 l/100 km (19 mpg?) if I got easy on the throttle, and around 18L/100 km (13 mpg) on a rough road. There is no feedback loop since it uses on carb, so as long as I keep the throttle steady it isn't that bad. Of course it can't compare with modern SUVs but not too terrible either.

Economically wise, a 2 years old mid sized SUV here costs around 40000 USD, meanwhile I bought my FZJ80 with 6000 USD (with 200000 km on the ODO). Even if I drive 1000 km a month it will take me more than 30 years of driving to start losing money compare to buying a modern one.

[justinator]

More "Earth Fucker" than, "Land Cruiser" when it comes to MPG.

[hef19898]

Having one of those, from England and not Japan, they are less bad for the environment than one might think. You just don't drive them as much, gas milleage takes care of that. Being classics, you don't drive in winter with salt on the road. And you keep them on the road far longer than they were intended, no new car is a net positive.

[lmm]

Well obviously the less you use a car the less environmental damage it does, but if you're not driving it half the year then it's probably not displacing a new car purchase.

[justinator]

>no new car is a net positive.

But you're saying you're required to own an addition car?

[hef19898]

In that case? Yes, because for it is used for I don't have an alternative. And new ones capable of doing the same thing used to be unaffordable.

[mox1]

These older vehicles emit roughly as much as current (gas powered) small gas engines (aka lawnmowers, leaf blowers, etc).

So unless your household (or your maintenance crew) is 100% electrified, your part of the problem.

https://www.pressherald.com/2022/03/31/our-sustainable-city-...

[lazide]

What I love about the “movement” (just like in CAlifornian Politics!) is that everyone is terrible if they try to actually do anything useful, but everyone is great if they do random stuff that wastes time and effort without accomplishing it’s stated goals - as long as it seems futurist and green.

It’s basically the now is unacceptable, and the future is impossible.

[justinator]

Personally no lawn, no lawnmower, no leaf blower. No car either, to be honest.