I own 3, 4 cylinder vehicles. 2 of them get high 30s on the hwy and 30 around town
Absolutely no need/value of a hybrid for you, I agree. I'm coming out of a '96 ES300, need more room, and want similar acceleration. The 4 cyl. Camry I drove was too slow. I still need to test drive the hybrid, but the reports I've seen have it performing about the same as my ES, with much improved mpg.
Everything is a money discussion and that is the only way to justify the purchase of a hybrid if the primary reason is to "save the environment" by using less gas. In the highly regulated driving environment in the US (cops on every other road, oppressive speed restrictions and poorly timed sequential traffic lights), my objective is to spend as little as possible on vechicles that I register for commuting. The decision of one buyer to spend $25 K plus on a car gives the auto manufacturer the delusional concept that everyone will pay whatever price they put on the car. Logic must come in (as racefan indicated) to give the masses the understanding that one doesn't necessarily have to pay twice the purchase price of another car to save gas - just cut the size and power of the car to fit the oppressive road conditions. The analogy of your stereo is not valid. A better analogy is would you pay $8,000 to REPLACE your current $4,000 stereo if it used 3/4 of the current power draw?
just cut the size and power of the car to fit the oppressive road conditions
Sure, a $10,000 Kia will get me there, but I won't buy it. My base, non-negotiable requirements: more than 100 cu ft interior, 9 sec or less 0-60. Camry hybrid meets those, gets good milage, and I can get leather without a sunroof. The latter two keep me out of a new Accord 4-cyl. Only alternative I see out there would be a diesel Accord, but I bet they'll all come with sunroofs. My other point: the vast majority of cars are sold with $1,000s of 'unnecessary' options, but those don't get scrutinized. As for 'saving the environment', I work in the oil industry and see major shortages possible in the next 5-7 years, so I just want to 'save my wallet'!
Good point on that last one. I expect the supply of oil over the next several years to be spotty as hell. Right now I'm saving my money by only having one car payment. I'd have no payments if I trusted minivans beyond about 120K.
2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
Good point. I'm not sure why when people talk about buying an EV they have to justify this purchase in terms of when it will pay for itself.
Its more in the realm of "how long does it take for the savings to add up to the extra investment" which is a very good question to ask.
If you wanted to go out and buy a Miata as a second vehicle nobody would question it yet it obviously will never pay for itself.
Unlike EV buyers Miata buyers don't talk up a storm about how much money they are saving in fuel. If they did I am sure they would get the same results.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
yeah but you can also walk from new York to LA but would you want to?
While it is built on the same chassy what is done to that chassie is different between the two different transmissions. A manual has a clutch hence a clutch pedal that has to be installed with all its linkage that may not have passage through the firewall let alone the mounts and what not for the pedal,
The mounts of a automatic transmission (both to the chassie and the transmission) may be different than a manual. Even the location and or size of the hole that the gear selector/gearshift might be different requiring a modification there.
What you are doing is not a simple transmission replacement but a rather complicated modification to your car. I will guarantee that you will not get this done mistake or problem free and it will take a while.
I just don't think it is worth it.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Generally, the observed FE is disappointing in regard to the manufacturer's claims. difference can go as af as 50% higher consumption. They all measured FE with a reference car to keep results consistant, namely a Smart for2
If your automatic transmission has crapped out and you have the manual, it will be a good learning experience. As several have pointed out it is not just a swap and done. It would be easier the other direction because of all the added linkage. It may take a different starter as well. You will need a new flywheel, clutch and clutch plate. The clutch & shift linkage could be a nightmare. I think it would be more fun to drop a small block V8 with rear wheel drive. Then you would have a smokin' fast little car when you are done. I can see you spending as much for the change as you could buy a used manual transmission Geo to start with. In San Diego there are several on Craigslist under $2000 with as few as 81k miles. You will probably have a lot of hours at the wrecking yards looking for parts.
If he's serious about doing the manual swap, the only feasible way to go is to have a manual parts car already on hand as a source for parts and a guide on how to put everything together.
I converted a 1953 mercury from auto to manual. I had it tore apart for months. I was rebuilding manual transmissions in the local wrecking yard. Even with full access to the yard it took a long time to get all the necessary pieces for the swap. Once was enough for me. It would be best to just look around for a junker with stick to get all that stuff and only buy new what will wear.
The truth is a lot of people will be hanging on to older cars as the price of gas rips a hole in their budget. An old Civic HF is probably the best choice going for those on limited resources. Too bad Honda forgot how to build high mileage cars.
The steadily increasing gas prices will have a definite impact on people's car purchasing habits, just look at Europe and see what for future holds for us here in the good ole US of A. Just be glad your not paying $7 bucks a liter like they are. Oh and btw, the largest retailer of petroleum products in Europe just happens to be - you guessed it - Exon/Mobil. People will start hanging on to older cars as their total operating costs per mile are lower than the new ones, after you factor in all new car related expenses. SUV's and P/U trucks will eventually become rolling dinosaurs, as people start waking up and bailing out of them. The resurgence of the "Muscle Car" market will be ill conceived and short lived. Could you afford to run such vehicle's at let's say $10.00 a gallon. Alternative fuel vehicles will become more and more important as a choice for new vehicle purchases. Maybe future households will consist of one "Hybrid" for extended family travel, and the "Electric" for in town commutes. With more and more of the family budget being eaten up by transportation costs, at what point do people start saying "enough", and start making the hard choice to do things differently. One thing is for sure, increasing fuel costs are right up there with death, and taxes. Count on it!
An old Civic HF is probably the best choice going for those on limited resources. Too bad Honda forgot how to build high mileage cars
I doubt an old Civic HF could meet today's crash and emissions standards. Now if this vehicle was modified to be in compliance with today's standards I'd be interested to see what kind of mileage it delivered.
When Honda announced the upcoming release of the FCX Hydrogen car a few weeks ago, I wondered about the price of Hydrogen fuel. Now Edmunds.com has provided the answer:
"Lease terms, which include maintenance and insurance, will be for three years at $600 per month. And the car will be available only to Southern California residents who live near existing hydrogen fuel-pump facilities in Irvine, Torrance and Santa Monica. The fuel costs about $5 per gallon right now, but since the Clarity gets 68 mpg, filling the tank is still a bargain."
So comparing hydrogen at $5/gal. to gasoline at $3, the new FCX will get a gasoline-cost-equivalent mpg of 40.8 -- not a bargain compared to hybrids or even small i.c.e. cars, which can be leased for 1/3 the price of the FCX.
I'm sure that luddites will jump on this as further reason to criticize alternative fuel vehicles. But they should remember that the new FCX will have ZERO emissions because it will burn ZERO gasoline. That means that owners of such cars will contribute ZERO to OPEC after buying the vehicles. I say "after" buying, because many of the materials used to build cars consist of petroleum products, so OPEC still gets a piece.
But this is a big step in the right direction. And the demand for the FCX should fuel technological improvement and price reductions in hydrogen cars, plus a reduction in hydrogen prices as the scale of the market widens.
Even the luddites would agree that we're better off powering our transportation with the most plentiful element in the universe, rather than a substance concentrated in countries whose citizens want to kill us.
Said the luddite - hydrogen cars are nothing more than a nice PR exercise and science experiment until two things happen. First, the vehicles (fuel cells) have to cost less than the GNP of Luxemburg. That can be argued to be a technology development issue, fine. Second, and much more difficult, hydrogen generation and distribution has to occur in some economic manner that's a net gain over existing oil/natural gas/coal/electricity options in terms of net energy use and CO2 emissions. I'm not aware of any method that does that today, or in the forseeable future. It's hard to see where hydrogen can beat out the much more mature (but still in need of development) electric car.
That's my current setup, I have a minivan to haul the kids around, but I commute in a Miata.
That combo works well - the Miata is a great city car, easy to park, nimble, good city fuel economy. I get about 28mpg. I'm sure my van would get 20mpg at best in a purely city commute.
No, that doesn't offset the extra cost with the fuel savings, but that's not really why I got it.
I did get it used, so the Miata only cost me $7800, and I've already had it for 6 years, plus it's still worth more than half that in resale.
Problem is - insurance. I pay about $500/year, so that alone offsets the fuel savings.
One thing, though, is that is keeps the miles off my other, new cars, so those aren't depreciating as much.
I certainly don't come out ahead in terms of costs, but it doesn't increase your costs as much as you might think, especially if you buy the 2nd, fuel efficient car used.
SUV's and P/U trucks will eventually become rolling dinosaurs, as people start waking up and bailing out of them.
Seems like people were saying that would happen when gas hit $3 a gallon. But "it turns out that used car dealers are doing a brisk business selling SUVs that make their way to used car lots."
Even the luddites would agree that we're better off powering our transportation with the most plentiful element in the universe,
It may be the most plentiful element. It takes a LOT of Natural Gas to get it into a tank so that it can be used. You are still burning a fossil fuel to generate the hydrogen. Last I read the car costs Honda about $100,000 to build. Makes the EV Tesla seem like a real bargain.
What happens is when gas prices are high, used SUV prices drop, making them good values.
It is a great time to buy that SUV you have always wanted. We just made a quick trip to Phoenix first of this week. I was trying to see just how much I could squeeze out of a gallon on our new Sequoia. I was cruising up Interstate 8 at about 70 MPH when this Prius just blew past us going at least 85 MPH. I told my wife that he is still probably getting 35 MPG compared to our 16-17 MPG nursing it along at 70 MPH. About 10 miles up the road we passed the same Prius going about 40 in the slow lane. The wind had picked up and I imagine he was getting tossed around a bit. I was able to cut through the wind and maintain my 70 MPH all the way to Phoenix. I would guess I was a lot less tired of driving than the Prius driver fighting the wind. The Sequoia is a pleasure on the highway in spite of spending a few more dollars on gas. Lumbar support and adjustable seats give you a variety that many small cars do not offer. One of many reasons to own a luxury SUV if it fits your budget. Gas would have to top $8 per gallon before I would re-think owning a smaller vehicle.
But you have to admit, sometimes Luddites are right---consider the atomic car, the flying car, the dirigible and even the electric car (they've been trying to market a good one for just about 100 years now).
Besides, the term "luddite" isn't accurate. A real Luddite actually smashes the technology he despises---your hydrogen car is safe in my driveway, I assure you!
It's hard to see where hydrogen can beat out the much more mature (but still in need of development) electric car.
A fuel cell vehicle is an electric vehicle. They've simply added hydrogen storage tanks and a fuel cell to supplement and recharge the battery pack. Honda is working with Plug Power to develop a device for home refueling. I imagine this will involve extracting hydrogen from water by electrolysis. I wonder how much you will pay in electricity to produce a gallon's equivalent of hydrogen?
There's the problem - electrolysis is very inefficient. Why buy a super-expensive fuel cell and hydrogen creation/storage/pumping facility (in your own home!) when you could take that electrical energy straight to a set of batteries and achieve the same thing at much lower cost and higher efficiency?
Yeah, smashing a hydrogen car could have some really unpleasant side effects.
That mileage isn't bad for something as big as a Sequoia. That just under my around town for the Ody which is loads lighter. Of course the highway on it is almost 10 mpg higher but you have to be OK with driving a minivan.
2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
I really don't understand the fixation on Hydrogen. It sounds cool to have a Hydrogen powered car, byt the reality is that is a terribly inefficient way to power a car from a "save the environement" point of view. While the element Hydrogen is plentiful, elemental Hydrogen (H2) is not. It is far too reactive in these here parts to last very long. There is all sorts of Hydrogen present in water (which is plentiful in most places) but water is one of the most chemically stable compounds around. It has a very high boiling point relative to it's molecular weight due to hydrogen bonding.
I see the major breakthrough coming from the electricity production and battery development sides of technology. I could see gas stations being replaced by battery stations where you could swap out a dead battery for a fully charged one.
There's the problem - electrolysis is very inefficient.
Yes in any thermodynamic chemical conversion there are always irretrievable losses. It is much less efficient to take natural gas, burn it at an electric power plant, then transmit the electricity to your house or a service-station, and perform electrolysis on water to create hydrogen.
This makes me question why Honda didn't choose CNG instead of H2. It seems the infrastructure is there mostly nationwide. Though i think the supply of CNG runs low some winters.
Whether you're talking CNG or H2, there really is no excess production capacity for either. Where does the electricity come from for electrolysis when areas of the country are already experiencing rolling-blackouts on some days?
While the element Hydrogen is plentiful, elemental Hydrogen (H2) is not. It is far too reactive in these here parts to last very long.
May I also add that H2 is a very small molecule, and is thus more difficult to contain. Another example of atomic-size being a factor is that tires filled with nitrogen lose pressure faster than those filled with air. Having near perfect seals would be critical.
I could see gas stations being replaced by battery stations where you could swap out a dead battery for a fully charged one.
That idea is being seriously considered. A start-up called Project Better Place has raised over $200 million in venture capital for just such an enterprise. Personally I'm not all that excited about the idea. I believe battery packs can vary widely depending on how they've been used and maintained. I just assume keep the one I paid for as opposed to throwing it into a community pool of battery packs. Besides, companies like Aerovironment have developed fast chargers that can deliver 35 kWh of electricity in 10 minutes. I don't see the process of swapping battery packs being much faster than that.
A reporter seeks consumers who are planning or have decided to keep their vehicle longer than anticipated due to economic conditions. Please send your daytime contact information to ctalati@edmunds.com no later than Monday, December 3, 2007.
It turns out this home unit won't use electrolysis. I do agree that batteries seem like the simplest way to go but hydrogen does have it's merits. Let the best technology win. However it turns out we'll still be driving electric vehicles.
I still don't understand why people spend good money to fill tires with compressed Nitrogen. Hello. The air is about 70% Nitrogen anyway.
I will put this with the list of other things I don't understand. The popularity of reality TV, the ending of 2001:A Space Oddesey, honest-to-god Marxists, women...
Could you please tell me where all this extra electricity to create hydrogen is going to come from? I believe many states like CA. and the northeasts use every bit of electricity we can generate. In fact there already is a crisis in needing more electricity generating plants for future population and economic growth.
So where are these extra power plants? And more importantly what reliable (fossil or nuclear) energy source do they run on?
Right now the most reliable and cost effective options are either coal or nuclear. NG is just way too expensive to operate without sticking it to the consumer. For proof, look at your heating bill over the last few years. The problem with CA is that they have mandated "no new coal plants", so they get expensive NG plants. Is it cleaner? Sure, in some ways, but it is much more expensive.
I think nuclear is going to be the only viable option going forward. It is the least objectionable from an environmental standpoint (that is debatable) and is just as reliable as coal and NG. Don't get me started with wind. It is not a viable option in a lot of parts of the country. And, if the wind does not blow... you get the point. And it is rough on local bird populations. Solar is not to the point of being economical in non-desert areas.
Many of France's nukes are nearing the end of their ~30 year life span and it will be interesting to see how they deal with the waste as they decommission plants.
Seems like we see stories like this one every month too:
It turns out this home unit won't use electrolysis.
Good, I couldn't imagine how that would work. Instead, they're taking NG and turning it into H2 and CO2 - guess what! The car doesn't put out CO2, but the home fueling station does! Kind of a CO2 shell (no pun intended) game. I also agree with the comment, just use NG, like the Civic GX. Established infrastructure and engine technology, good gains in CO2 and other emissions, and relatively cheap.
I know intimately that NG is too expensive. Philadelphia Gas Works is already crooked and expensive enough without the price of NG going any higher! It's going to be another l-o-n-g expen$ive winter!
There are plenty of small, reasonably fuel efficient vehicles that will easily rival driving an SUV for long range comfort. And they will have better handling characteristics to boot. My Audi can manage > 35 mpg at > 70 mph and it has awd for the snowy stuff.
SUV's tend to do poorly at handling lateral forces (ie: they roll over more readily than cars) and take longer to stop. The IIHS (Insurance Institute for Highway Safety) site gives good accident data for all vehicles and some of the results are counter intuitive.
But personally I can't see driving a vehicle that gets poor gas mileage, even if I can afford the fuel. I'm pretty certain that the world's petroleum production is just about maxed out at around 86 mmbpd. Global production might make it up to 88 or 89 mmbpd but I'm not gonna bet on it. Saudi Arabia and Russia account for around 22% of current global production and while I believe that SA can maintain their roughly 9 million barrels per day for probably years, I don't feel that Russia can. With proven reserves at maybe 70 billion barrels and production near 10 mmbpd, Russia may well start showing production declines within a couple of years. When Russian production starts going into decline, we will really feel the supply squeeze.
And with our nearly insatiable thirst for petroleum come numerous geo political and economic consequences as money flows from the importers (especially the U.S.) to hostile countries in South America, the middle east, and Russia.
Petroleum is basically a one time gift of stored sunlight. It has allowed for the green revolution, plastics, and personal transportation. Even at four bucks a gallon, it's a fantastic deal.
For all intents and purposes it is useless, you're paying almost $13K for an additional car, not a replacement. Plus you said that it is usable for short trips (a few miles at a time) well that $13K will pay for an awful lot of gas for those short trips.
IAn adjustment in behavior, seems to me, is concurrent with any discussion about saving energy, or money, or resources, or even one's surrounding landscape.
Since the car, as you say, will be used for the short trip errands the energy savings will be rather small. I really can't see using this saving and money, FWIW I see people going this route spending more money. As for resources I see that as a tossup.
What's "useless" to me would be a tool that costs the same as the one you replace and doesn't do ANYTHING better.
Thats just the point, I can't see this car being a replacement for 99.9% of the households in this country. One car families will have to keep their gas car and two car families usually need a second car with a longer range. This car will replace very few gas powered cars.
I find it humorous that you can find usefulness in this car and be so negative about the Smart which has far more abilities than this car.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
But they should remember that the new FCX will have ZERO emissions because it will burn ZERO gasoline. That means that owners of such cars will contribute ZERO to OPEC after buying the vehicles.
How are you going to get the Hydrogen? Sure driving the car won't create emissions and burns zero oil but getting the Hydrogen may not.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
The best technology has already lost. We had a technology that had plentyful fuel which can be found alongside the road and in many other areas, its emmissions were biodegradable and benificial to the environment and it was self replecating.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Well to be fair, back in mid-2004, when gas went up over $2.00 per gallon and fairly consistently stayed there, it did put a crimp in sales of larger SUVs. Not pickup trucks so much, as they're somewhat insulated from fuel prices as people tend to actually need those more (or at least THINK) they need them!)
How high did gas prices go during the 1973-74 oil embargo? That certainly got people out of their big cars, and even ensured that cars would radically shrink in the near future. The full-sized car as we knew it would be extinct after 1979.
I vaguely remember my Mom paying around $1.10 per gallon for gas around late 1979/early 1980. That second oil embargo ensured that even the radically downsized full-sized cars were all of a sudden still way too big, and many of them were dropped. Big cars of the Caprice variety did enjoy a bit of a comeback in the early 80's, but they would never again be the dominant force. All of a sudden, cars that were Celebrity or Taurus-sized were the new standard. And still are today, as evidenced by the likes of cars like the Accord, Camry, Altima, etc.
Of course, an outgrowth of all this was that pickup trucks, minivans, and SUVs exploded on the market, and passenger cars became less and less important.
Just don't walk in the gutter :surprise: Seriously, went to Macinac (sp?) island, the one with the horses only? What a stink pit. No thanks. Puddles of ... everywhere.
Agreed...my mother has two horses, and IMO those things are a pain in the butt to take care of, clean up after, etc.
Every once in awhile, I'll see horse droppin's on the local bike trail. No big deal, really, but just imagine what it would be like if EVERYBODY had a horse!
Comments
Absolutely no need/value of a hybrid for you, I agree. I'm coming out of a '96 ES300, need more room, and want similar acceleration. The 4 cyl. Camry I drove was too slow. I still need to test drive the hybrid, but the reports I've seen have it performing about the same as my ES, with much improved mpg.
Sure, a $10,000 Kia will get me there, but I won't buy it. My base, non-negotiable requirements: more than 100 cu ft interior, 9 sec or less 0-60. Camry hybrid meets those, gets good milage, and I can get leather without a sunroof. The latter two keep me out of a new Accord 4-cyl. Only alternative I see out there would be a diesel Accord, but I bet they'll all come with sunroofs. My other point: the vast majority of cars are sold with $1,000s of 'unnecessary' options, but those don't get scrutinized. As for 'saving the environment', I work in the oil industry and see major shortages possible in the next 5-7 years, so I just want to 'save my wallet'!
Its more in the realm of "how long does it take for the savings to add up to the extra investment" which is a very good question to ask.
If you wanted to go out and buy a Miata as a second vehicle nobody would question it yet it obviously will never pay for itself.
Unlike EV buyers Miata buyers don't talk up a storm about how much money they are saving in fuel. If they did I am sure they would get the same results.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
yeah but you can also walk from new York to LA but would you want to?
While it is built on the same chassy what is done to that chassie is different between the two different transmissions. A manual has a clutch hence a clutch pedal that has to be installed with all its linkage that may not have passage through the firewall let alone the mounts and what not for the pedal,
The mounts of a automatic transmission (both to the chassie and the transmission) may be different than a manual. Even the location and or size of the hole that the gear selector/gearshift might be different requiring a modification there.
What you are doing is not a simple transmission replacement but a rather complicated modification to your car. I will guarantee that you will not get this done mistake or problem free and it will take a while.
I just don't think it is worth it.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
http://www.autobild.de/artikel/Themen-Testberichte-Von-wegen-Spritsparwunder_453- 344.html
Generally, the observed FE is disappointing in regard to the manufacturer's claims. difference can go as af as 50% higher consumption. They all measured FE with a reference car to keep results consistant, namely a Smart for2
and here is the l/100km to mpg converter
http://www.eforecourt.com/l_100km_mpg_convert.htm
so a car returning 5l/100 km will translate into 47 MPG.
the lowest real word city MPG is reached by the Fiat panda 1,3 diesel with 51 MPG.
The Smart micro hybrid (mhd) is disappointing with 50% more consumption than claimed.
The truth is a lot of people will be hanging on to older cars as the price of gas rips a hole in their budget. An old Civic HF is probably the best choice going for those on limited resources. Too bad Honda forgot how to build high mileage cars.
I doubt an old Civic HF could meet today's crash and emissions standards. Now if this vehicle was modified to be in compliance with today's standards I'd be interested to see what kind of mileage it delivered.
"Lease terms, which include maintenance and insurance, will be for three years at $600 per month. And the car will be available only to Southern California residents who live near existing hydrogen fuel-pump facilities in Irvine, Torrance and Santa Monica. The fuel costs about $5 per gallon right now, but since the Clarity gets 68 mpg, filling the tank is still a bargain."
So comparing hydrogen at $5/gal. to gasoline at $3, the new FCX will get a gasoline-cost-equivalent mpg of 40.8 -- not a bargain compared to hybrids or even small i.c.e. cars, which can be leased for 1/3 the price of the FCX.
I'm sure that luddites will jump on this as further reason to criticize alternative fuel vehicles. But they should remember that the new FCX will have ZERO emissions because it will burn ZERO gasoline. That means that owners of such cars will contribute ZERO to OPEC after buying the vehicles. I say "after" buying, because many of the materials used to build cars consist of petroleum products, so OPEC still gets a piece.
But this is a big step in the right direction. And the demand for the FCX should fuel technological improvement and price reductions in hydrogen cars, plus a reduction in hydrogen prices as the scale of the market widens.
Even the luddites would agree that we're better off powering our transportation with the most plentiful element in the universe, rather than a substance concentrated in countries whose citizens want to kill us.
That's my current setup, I have a minivan to haul the kids around, but I commute in a Miata.
That combo works well - the Miata is a great city car, easy to park, nimble, good city fuel economy. I get about 28mpg. I'm sure my van would get 20mpg at best in a purely city commute.
No, that doesn't offset the extra cost with the fuel savings, but that's not really why I got it.
I did get it used, so the Miata only cost me $7800, and I've already had it for 6 years, plus it's still worth more than half that in resale.
Problem is - insurance. I pay about $500/year, so that alone offsets the fuel savings.
One thing, though, is that is keeps the miles off my other, new cars, so those aren't depreciating as much.
I certainly don't come out ahead in terms of costs, but it doesn't increase your costs as much as you might think, especially if you buy the 2nd, fuel efficient car used.
Seems like people were saying that would happen when gas hit $3 a gallon. But "it turns out that used car dealers are doing a brisk business selling SUVs that make their way to used car lots."
Traditional SUVs are making a comeback! (Straightline)
A new Expedition can hit $40k, even 50k. Yet you can probably find a 3 year old used one with some warranty left in it for $19,999.
If gas were $2/gallon, I bet that same SUV would be worth $25k.
It may be the most plentiful element. It takes a LOT of Natural Gas to get it into a tank so that it can be used. You are still burning a fossil fuel to generate the hydrogen. Last I read the car costs Honda about $100,000 to build. Makes the EV Tesla seem like a real bargain.
It is a great time to buy that SUV you have always wanted. We just made a quick trip to Phoenix first of this week. I was trying to see just how much I could squeeze out of a gallon on our new Sequoia. I was cruising up Interstate 8 at about 70 MPH when this Prius just blew past us going at least 85 MPH. I told my wife that he is still probably getting 35 MPG compared to our 16-17 MPG nursing it along at 70 MPH. About 10 miles up the road we passed the same Prius going about 40 in the slow lane. The wind had picked up and I imagine he was getting tossed around a bit. I was able to cut through the wind and maintain my 70 MPH all the way to Phoenix. I would guess I was a lot less tired of driving than the Prius driver fighting the wind. The Sequoia is a pleasure on the highway in spite of spending a few more dollars on gas. Lumbar support and adjustable seats give you a variety that many small cars do not offer. One of many reasons to own a luxury SUV if it fits your budget. Gas would have to top $8 per gallon before I would re-think owning a smaller vehicle.
Besides, the term "luddite" isn't accurate. A real Luddite actually smashes the technology he despises---your hydrogen car is safe in my driveway, I assure you!
Shiftright
Visiting Host
A fuel cell vehicle is an electric vehicle. They've simply added hydrogen storage tanks and a fuel cell to supplement and recharge the battery pack. Honda is working with Plug Power to develop a device for home refueling. I imagine this will involve extracting hydrogen from water by electrolysis. I wonder how much you will pay in electricity to produce a gallon's equivalent of hydrogen?
That mileage isn't bad for something as big as a Sequoia. That just under my around town for the Ody which is loads lighter. Of course the highway on it is almost 10 mpg higher but you have to be OK with driving a minivan.
I see the major breakthrough coming from the electricity production and battery development sides of technology. I could see gas stations being replaced by battery stations where you could swap out a dead battery for a fully charged one.
Yes in any thermodynamic chemical conversion there are always irretrievable losses. It is much less efficient to take natural gas, burn it at an electric power plant, then transmit the electricity to your house or a service-station, and perform electrolysis on water to create hydrogen.
This makes me question why Honda didn't choose CNG instead of H2. It seems the infrastructure is there mostly nationwide. Though i think the supply of CNG runs low some winters.
Whether you're talking CNG or H2, there really is no excess production capacity for either. Where does the electricity come from for electrolysis when areas of the country are already experiencing rolling-blackouts on some days?
May I also add that H2 is a very small molecule, and is thus more difficult to contain. Another example of atomic-size being a factor is that tires filled with nitrogen lose pressure faster than those filled with air. Having near perfect seals would be critical.
That idea is being seriously considered. A start-up called Project Better Place has raised over $200 million in venture capital for just such an enterprise. Personally I'm not all that excited about the idea. I believe battery packs can vary widely depending on how they've been used and maintained. I just assume keep the one I paid for as opposed to throwing it into a community pool of battery packs. Besides, companies like Aerovironment have developed fast chargers that can deliver 35 kWh of electricity in 10 minutes. I don't see the process of swapping battery packs being much faster than that.
honda home refueling
"It is a great time to get that bone marrow transplant you have always wanted." :sick:
We had a rental Malibu and it was so-so.
I will put this with the list of other things I don't understand. The popularity of reality TV, the ending of 2001:A Space Oddesey, honest-to-god Marxists, women...
As if that would be the deciding factor in choose a small crossover... :P
So where are these extra power plants? And more importantly what reliable (fossil or nuclear) energy source do they run on?
I think nuclear is going to be the only viable option going forward. It is the least objectionable from an environmental standpoint (that is debatable) and is just as reliable as coal and NG. Don't get me started with wind. It is not a viable option in a lot of parts of the country. And, if the wind does not blow... you get the point. And it is rough on local bird populations. Solar is not to the point of being economical in non-desert areas.
Nuclear plant in Ohio shut down (CNN)
Many of France's nukes are nearing the end of their ~30 year life span and it will be interesting to see how they deal with the waste as they decommission plants.
Seems like we see stories like this one every month too:
Fire shuts key Canada-US pipeline (Reuters)
Good, I couldn't imagine how that would work. Instead, they're taking NG and turning it into H2 and CO2 - guess what! The car doesn't put out CO2, but the home fueling station does! Kind of a CO2 shell (no pun intended) game. I also agree with the comment, just use NG, like the Civic GX. Established infrastructure and engine technology, good gains in CO2 and other emissions, and relatively cheap.
SUV's tend to do poorly at handling lateral forces (ie: they roll over more readily than cars) and take longer to stop. The IIHS (Insurance Institute for Highway Safety) site gives good accident data for all vehicles and some of the results are counter intuitive.
But personally I can't see driving a vehicle that gets poor gas mileage, even if I can afford the fuel. I'm pretty certain that the world's petroleum production is just about maxed out at around 86 mmbpd. Global production might make it up to 88 or 89 mmbpd but I'm not gonna bet on it. Saudi Arabia and Russia account for around 22% of current global production and while I believe that SA can maintain their roughly 9 million barrels per day for probably years, I don't feel that Russia can. With proven reserves at maybe 70 billion barrels and production near 10 mmbpd, Russia may well start showing production declines within a couple of years. When Russian production starts going into decline, we will really feel the supply squeeze.
And with our nearly insatiable thirst for petroleum come numerous geo political and economic consequences as money flows from the importers (especially the U.S.) to hostile countries in South America, the middle east, and Russia.
Petroleum is basically a one time gift of stored sunlight. It has allowed for the green revolution, plastics, and personal transportation. Even at four bucks a gallon, it's a fantastic deal.
For all intents and purposes it is useless, you're paying almost $13K for an additional car, not a replacement. Plus you said that it is usable for short trips (a few miles at a time) well that $13K will pay for an awful lot of gas for those short trips.
IAn adjustment in behavior, seems to me, is concurrent with any discussion about saving energy, or money, or resources, or even one's surrounding landscape.
Since the car, as you say, will be used for the short trip errands the energy savings will be rather small. I really can't see using this saving and money, FWIW I see people going this route spending more money. As for resources I see that as a tossup.
What's "useless" to me would be a tool that costs the same as the one you replace and doesn't do ANYTHING better.
Thats just the point, I can't see this car being a replacement for 99.9% of the households in this country. One car families will have to keep their gas car and two car families usually need a second car with a longer range. This car will replace very few gas powered cars.
I find it humorous that you can find usefulness in this car and be so negative about the Smart which has far more abilities than this car.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
How are you going to get the Hydrogen? Sure driving the car won't create emissions and burns zero oil but getting the Hydrogen may not.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
People were saying that when gas hit $2 a gallon.
When I started driving people were saying that people would drop their large cars when gas will hit $1 a gallon.
In a few years we will be saying that people will drop their trucks and SUV's when gas hits $5 a gallon.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
The best technology has already lost. We had a technology that had plentyful fuel which can be found alongside the road and in many other areas, its emmissions were biodegradable and benificial to the environment and it was self replecating.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Well to be fair, back in mid-2004, when gas went up over $2.00 per gallon and fairly consistently stayed there, it did put a crimp in sales of larger SUVs. Not pickup trucks so much, as they're somewhat insulated from fuel prices as people tend to actually need those more (or at least THINK) they need them!)
How high did gas prices go during the 1973-74 oil embargo? That certainly got people out of their big cars, and even ensured that cars would radically shrink in the near future. The full-sized car as we knew it would be extinct after 1979.
I vaguely remember my Mom paying around $1.10 per gallon for gas around late 1979/early 1980. That second oil embargo ensured that even the radically downsized full-sized cars were all of a sudden still way too big, and many of them were dropped. Big cars of the Caprice variety did enjoy a bit of a comeback in the early 80's, but they would never again be the dominant force. All of a sudden, cars that were Celebrity or Taurus-sized were the new standard. And still are today, as evidenced by the likes of cars like the Accord, Camry, Altima, etc.
Of course, an outgrowth of all this was that pickup trucks, minivans, and SUVs exploded on the market, and passenger cars became less and less important.
Every once in awhile, I'll see horse droppin's on the local bike trail. No big deal, really, but just imagine what it would be like if EVERYBODY had a horse!