Shows you how much I know :iono:

Am I missing something here? I've read the articles that talk about evs not being environmentally friendly due to the origins of electricity. So what they're saying is that a powerplant will burn that much extra fossil to charge that particular vehicle? Or that an ice vehicle isn't producing additional pollution?

it's not all that different from blood diamonds. people buy something for it's visual value, and pay little mind to the who what why's of how that item got to them. the point of the argument is to pay attention to more than just one's usage of a product, and be mindful of how it gets to you, or how it stays powered.

some of the studies i've read have indicated that even if one accounts for an ev being charged by a coal power station, it still is overall more efficient than any given ice vehicle.

EVs have been discussed in Off Topic ad-nauseam, but here's the gist of it.

Total carbon footprint is a tricky calculation and you need to make a number of assumptions to do it. Those assumptions allow for wide variations in the final numbers because everyone who has the motivation (time/money) to calculate it and spread the result assumes the numbers they want to prove whatever point benefits them. This is made more difficult to verify because nothing says anybody has to release any proprietary information that would hurt their own case. To give you a few examples of carbon footprint costs you might not usually think about:

-Cost of manufacturing
-cost of transporting the materials
-cost of transporting the "fuel"
-cost of disposal

And so on...

So tldr: EVs are both more and less polluting at the same time depending on what numbers you use.

So Ev's are in superposition :iono:

Schrödinger's car.

I still don't buy into the EV thing being anymore "eco-friendly" than a traditional ICE powered vehicle. Lots of variables here, but I just like to keep things simple. EVs need massive batteries (currently) which requires a whole lot of heavy, earth moving equipment (ICE powered) to strip mine nature for those rare metals. Then it has to get transported to multiple factories, transported again, put on large container ships (who are some of the world's worst polluters), transported again, unloaded, transported again (all by ICE vehicles), finally delivered and sold to the consumer who then has to plug the thing into the grid, which again is questionable about the environmental impact of this increased need for energy to recharge massive batteries.

Then, at the end of the life cycle of the EV, you got at least one massive battery pack that's now hazardous materiel and that's assuming the battery packs was never changed during its life cycle. Where do all these used batteries go? Oh yeah, transported again, put on a container ship again, transported again to some remote third-world country where it just gets dumped into the environment.

What am I missing?

I think what they are saying is the combination of producing the batteries along with the carbon positive origin of the electrical power is not the clean we think it is. It might create less carbon per mile but it's not the zero emissions we actually see. Whether the result is reduced net carbon, the use of batteries introduces another issue. In my mind a long lived, possibly modular and reusable fuel cell system is the way to go. Continue to clean up the grid generation and set up hydrogen facilities in urbanized areas first. When are the limited-run fuel cell fleets from Toyota and Honda expanding and what was the biggest resistance before the pandemic?

Add one more thing to the mix. In the USA most of the wind and solar plants are very heavily subsidized From taxes we pay to the government. To add insult to injurie The road taxes collected from fuel is not applied to electric vehicles.

Weren't they talking about 4 cylinders though?lol

A 2.4lt NA engine is in the correct direction. The 2.0lt engine would have to be pushed too much and maybe beyond the cost limits of the specific platform. Bore and stroke selection (94 bore, 86 stroke) is also correct for a high rev engine and a 240PS output. The current information of a 220PS output is just unacceptable, no matter the improvement in middle rev range. Let's keep pushing over here. Maybe someone keeps an eye on these discussions and makes a second thought.

Another topic which is not very clear is about the weight of the new model. Can the weight be kept in the range of the current model or even go a bit down?

The goal was not just 100HP/L it was from a NA 4 cylinder.
Please list currant ones.

Sigh. Leaving aside people who power their Teslas with rooftop solar, back in 2018, 32% of the electricity produced in California was renewable (+9% nuclear). There were times last year when we hit 59% generation from solar alone. State law requires 50% renewables by 2025, 60% by 2030, and 100% by 2045. All new homes are required to be net-zero energy use, along with all new commercial buildings starting in 2030, plus 50% of existing commercial buildings by 2030. Europe and other advanced countries are on a similar track. I won't even bother discussing the environmental damage caused by fracking.

People who equate EVs with ICE emissions are out of touch with reality as it stands today, never mind the future. I'm pretty sure the car I buy this year will be the last ICE I'll ever own.

I agree. That was my way of pointing out that I realize Toyota isn't coming to this forum to seek out my opinion on how the GR86 should be powered. But this is a place to talk about our cars, and while I guess this thread says "insider info" I was typing pointless words about an engine that will never be used, because I felt like typing pointless words about an engine I wish was used.