Low car weight (or mass) is the most important requirement for improvement in fuel economy. An electric car, a hybrid car, or a hydrogen car will be more fuel efficient if they are lighter. Light weight is dangerous in collisions unless crumple zones for the rear and side of a vehicle are provided.
I have invented a way to make small cars much safer in collisions. If small cars are not perceived as death traps, more Americans will buy them. Please see my website safersmallcars.com
The car companies have rejected my idea. Please tell them you want a safer small car.
Some positive comments from GM's CEO. I hope it's true. Of course if you're a Volt skeptic you'll immediately dismiss any news regarding the Volt that isn't negative.
sounds good. I don't buy that GM is just faking it to get a green reputation. I mean what good does that do?...if they fail it will be a negative for the company's competence rating as a whole. I'm liking what they are saying. We should have some pretty darn good choices in the next few years.
We should have some pretty darn good choices in the next few years.
I agree and none too soon.
As far as GM's press releases they seem to be getting progressively more specific. It's not like they keep saying that we'll produce an EV in 3 years and every year it's always 3 years off.
It's Lutz's job as part of his position to push his team to hit the stated deadline and to smooth the way for his political team to start hitting up Congress for tax assistance for GM and for GM's buyers.
I too think that $48000 is ludicrous but throwing out this figure serves two purposes .. it gives an upper threshold to his political team to begin discussing tax incentives with Washington; .. it gives the GM faithful a worst-case scenario on what this vehicle might cost and opens this sales presentation upon launch... 'Look what we've been able to do for you our valued customer. We estimated our costs to be $48000 to build the Volt but with our intervention in Congress we were able to get you a $10000 tax break plus through our diligent efforts we've been able to hold down costs somewhat so that we can now offer you this wonderful new vehicle at the special low low price of $34,997. Today only of course.. ."
$35000 sounds like the upper limit that this market will bear in the next two years. Consider what it is. It's a 2-door, 4-passenger commuter vehicle. Nothing more.
In reality how many can really afford a $35000 ( net after some tax credit ) commuter. Some herein have railed constantly how the Prius was intended only for the rich yuppies amongst us. The Volt would seem to be a Prius "..with diamonds on her shoes..." to borrow a Paul Simon phrase. What does it do differently than say a Corolla or an Aveo? Here comes that 'Is it worth it.....' discussion.
Ditto the above comment for the eventual Prius PHEV and the Escape PHEV which should also end up in this same $35000-$40000 range IMO.
Now this is a very good point. I too think that mid-next decade we will begin to see significant spot shortages and rationing in addition to sky-high prices. In this scenario petro-burners will really have the 'scarlet letter' affixed to the hoods.
EREVs, PHEVs, along with FlexFuel and Biodiesel burners may easily become the 'gotta-have-to-survive vehicles'.
$35000 might seem a like a fair price to pay for an E85 ICE EREV if you can only buy 15 gal per week of petro-fuel.
Consider what it is. It's a 2-door, 4-passenger commuter vehicle. Nothing more.
I'm not sure what you mean by commuter vehicle. It will have just as much utility as any other 4-passenger car.
GM will have no trouble selling as many Volts as they can make the first couple years. After that I agree the price will have to come down some to appeal to the mainstream buyers. Then again if gas is at or above $5/gallon by 2010 the price won't have to come down much.
The Prius PHEV is only shooting for a 10 mile all electric range. That won't require all that big a battery pack so I'm guessing the price premium over a regular Prius will be no more than $5k.
As I understand the initial presentations/leaks the Volt is based on a Cobalt platform as a 2-door 4-passenger vehicle with a trunk with a good-sized battery pack extending from behind the back seat to the front console.
It won't have the utility of a Prius or an FEH. It will probably will have the best fuel economy of any vehicle on the road when it debuts. It's 40 mi gas-free range will be most interesting to commuters IMO. But for long trips it will be somewhat cramped, it won't be able to carry as much as a Prius or FEH and the 40 mi gas-free range will be diluted the farther it must go from home ( recharging point ). IMO then it will end up being a small commuter. What will be the fuel economy rating when the battery depletes and the ICE generator kicks in fulltime? I don't have a clue?
Now at some time in the near future when recharging points are easily accessible all over the country I can see these even being the standard technology.
Yes I agree that the premium for the Prius PHEV will be about $5K. I believe I sawa that they were planning a 20 mi gas-free range.
I believe ~50 mpg is what is being bandied about for the Volt when the engine kicks in. Not sure if a totally dead battery nixes that.
Intersting possibilities....hypothetically, how does a $30k Volt stack up against something like a 65 mpg Yaris at $19k? Probably room for both in the big picture...at least as the technology advances.
I wonder how many times the prius would be left unplugged if it only got 10 all electric. 20 as you stated seems like a good point to shoot for as minimum all electric range.
I wonder if our cars are going to become more like computers...that is, a five year old model will depreciate to the status of a paper weight as the technology zooms past.
"Of course if you're a Volt skeptic you'll immediately dismiss any news regarding the Volt"
Not a Volt skeptic, but a propoganda skeptic. Hype means nothing. Show me the product, and shut up about it until you do, General Motors.
If they spent less time talking and more time building, the thing would be in showrooms already. This campaign reminds me of the hype surrounding the "stimulus checks" that we're all going to receive ..... someday.
A month and a half ago, I got a notice from the IRS that I would be receiving the check. Then last week I got another notice that I'd be receiving the check. Hey, instead of wasting time and money sending me notices, just shut up and send me the check!
I'm still waiting for it. And, no, I don't need any more notices that it's coming. Just like I don't need any more notices, or TV commercials, or internet forum hype that the Volt is coming. I don't need to see any suggested prices, or possible mpg figures, or tax credit proposals "bandied about." Just build the thing already!
I'm a big boy now, and I can judge a product for myself. If it costs $30K (yeah, right), and goes 40 miles without burning any gas (in your dreams), and gets a fat tax credit (Congress is always doing us favors), then I'll consider it.
If, however, it costs $40K, goes only 10 miles on electric power, and gets some token tax write-off, then GM can kiss my assets goodbye. My money will keep going to Honda.
Considering that the Tahoe/Yukon hybrid costs $50K and gets 21 mpg (vs. 17 for the regular Tahoe/Yukon), a higher price and lower performance numbers for the Volt seem likely. I hope they prove me wrong ..... but that would entail actually building the car.
I'm still waiting for it. And, no, I don't need any more notices that it's coming. Just like I don't need any more notices, or TV commercials, or internet forum hype that the Volt is coming.
Now that you mention it, I do not remember any big hype about the Insight or Civic Hybrid from Honda or the Prius in 2000 from Toyota. I do recall a lot of speculation on the Accord Hybrid and it ended up a big flop. The second gen Prius was given to a few movie stars to drive up to the Oscars. That was enough to launch it into success.
I think that GM is building itself up for a big disappointment with the Volt. It could be years or maybe Never that the battery situation will be resolved. If they cannot get 100 mile range battery down under $7000 I don't think they can compete with the ICE only vehicles.
"I'm a big boy now, and I can judge a product for myself. If it costs $30K (yeah, right), and goes 40 miles without burning any gas (in your dreams), and gets a fat tax credit (Congress is always doing us favors), then I'll consider it."
It was a different world then. Al has half the population believing that we will have to swim to work in 15 years. Peek oil and gas prices have people scared. The insight was introduced in 1999...was gas about a buck back then? The internet was still a very fledgling media. Perhaps those of us here are over-estimating the hype. We are creating our own hype/buzz. I know I've searched the topic more than a couple times.
At any rate...I haven't seen any TV commercials for the Volt, but I don't watch all that much commercial tv. Maybe I am missing all the hype. I wasn't really looking for alt cars back in the old days. Not many were.
The Volt has to deliver close to what was promised and they will not be able to make them fast enough. It is a revolutionary design by a major car company that seems to be putting its back into it. If they fail...so be it. I say, nice try!
This is 99% of the auto news that I get. Quit TV altogether. I am probably not the best judge of hype with my narrow view at Edmund's. I am still skeptical of any current battery technology launching us into EV nirvana.
The battery pack can never be totally dead in the Volt. I believe that the ICE kicks in to start recharging when it drops to 30% state of charge. So even if you never plugged this car in that would be the most depleted the battery pack ever got. The 50 mpg figure is based upon this situation.
At any rate...I haven't seen any TV commercials for the Volt, but I don't watch all that much commercial tv. Maybe I am missing all the hype
I seem to be missing all the hype too. GM has been issuing press releases every few weeks to provide updates on how the Volt program is progressing. But unless you're an interested person looking for these you'll miss them. When I talk to people for the first time about the Volt more often than not this is the first they've ever heard of this car. So if GM is engaging in some big hype/propaganda campaign it isn't all that successful.
I have a first gen 2003 Prius, just rolled 101,000 mi this weekend.
There wasn't much hype back then, I tried to get a 2002 the year before and the dealer said I had to order one online without ever seeing it because they wouldn't stock any.
I likened the spread of hybrids into the public conscience kind of like the spread of AIDS (no offense to anyone infected). At first only a few specialists in the field knew about it, then it was something people had probably heard of but didn't know much about, then you probably knew someone who knew someone who had one, then some movie stars got ems, then everybody knew about it, then everybody knew someone with one, then you really had to think about getting one...
my train of thought jumped the tracks a little. I was thinking of, if the battery wears out and won't hold a charge...do you still have a 50 mpg vehicle and/or will it function at all?
"I was thinking of, if the battery wears out and won't hold a charge...do you still have a 50 mpg vehicle and/or will it function at all?"
Most likely the vehicle requires a battery to run. It would depend upon the implementation, but that is most likely. If it is using regenerative braking, for example, where would the electricity go?
Well, if they are going to fail now...Lutz will have to change his name to Yutz!
Looks like the Volt is charging ahead.
>>>Lutz, who was speaking to Reuters after an address to a Detroit-area business group, said GM engineers had shown the battery packs now being tested could power vehicles to the company's target mileage and beyond.
"They've routinely had it to the high 30s, low 40s and they go up hills with it and everything," said Lutz.
"It never shifts and you just scream along in total silence," he said, in describing his Monday test drive.
It all works real well, it's just that the transition from battery power to the internal combustion," Lutz said. "They said it's still noisy and it's a little rough. But heck, we've got a little more than a year and a half to work on that."http://au.news.yahoo.com/080616/2/17b4l.html
Probably should have phrased that one better. The concept is oxymoronic, and some DailyKos wacko is certain to seize on it as a veiled reference to the old anti-abortion film "The Silent Scream."
"...it's still noisy and it's a little rough. But heck, we've got a little more than a year and a half to work on that."
Yeah, wouldn't want to release this magical, mystical car any earlier than 2010. Just keep pumping out the hype that everything is going well, and all we have to do is keep waiting.
Meanwhile, Honda's already set to release its fuel cell vehicle right now in 2008. How far along do you think THAT car will be in "a little more than a year and a half?" How far along will Honda and Toyota be with their hybrid models by then?
The term 'a day late and a dollar short' comes to mind. Speaking of which, we'll all be interested to see how close to "about $30,000" the Volt's msrp really is.
Honda is releasing 200 fuel cell cars. Only for lease near LA. Each car cost over $500,000 to build. The $600/month lease charge is obviously heavily subsidized. And since they are fueled with hydrogen, have only a 200 mile range, and the only filling stations are in LA, they won't go very far.
Honda's fuel cell cars are a PR event, nothing more. They won't help build the infrastructure to efficiently store and distribute hydrogen. Nor has the price of fuel cells become even remotely affordable.
GM has a much better chance of getting the Volt to market in sizeable numbers (50,000 per year) by 2010 than any manufacturer has to bring a fuel cell car to market in sizeable numbers by 2015.
The term 'a day late and a dollar short' comes to mind. Speaking of which, we'll all be interested to see how close to "about $30,000" the Volt's msrp really is
The only way that comment makes sense is if by the time the Volt becomes available there is already something superior on the market. What might that be?
It won't be the Honda FCX Clarity. It's totally out of the question that a consumer will be able to actually buy this vehicle in 2010 for a reasonable price, less than $40k. My understanding is that the current cost per unit is in the mid 6 figures. And how many people would actually want one given their limited range, the fact that there are only a handful of refueling stations and the cost for a kg of hydrogen, which is the gallon of gas equivalent, really isn't all that cheap? Anyway, GM is also currently releasing it's fuel cell Equinoxes. Whatever credit you want to give Honda for their fuel cell efforts would also apply to GM.
And it won't be Toyota's next generation of Priuses. Maybe they'll get 60 mpg as opposed to today's Prius's 50 mpg. I don't see how that will make the Volt irrelevant. Toyota is planning a plug-in Prius for 2010. So in that regard GM and Toyota share a common goal/vision with a common timetable.
The more hype I hear, the more doubts I have.
By that rational if GM released zero information (hype in your terms) about the Volt program and it's progress you would be more confident in it's ultimate success? I imagine as we get closer to 2010 the "hype" will only increase. It will probably be quite intense in the weeks preceding the cars arrival at the dealerships. So I guess your doubts are destined to increase.
The Honda FCX is not anymore viable than this one from GM, delivered almost 4 years ago to Ahnold. It is all about bragging rights. The Volt will be viable if they can get a good battery and a decent price. I think that Toyota is behind GM in battery research.
10/22/04: General Motors has delivered a hydrogen powered HUMMER to the California Governor's office. The H2H is a HUMMER H2 that was re-engineered to operate on gaseous hydrogen fuel. Its main tailpipe emission is water vapor.
GM hasn't produced squat, but they promise that they will, so it's cool.
Honda actually HAS a fuel cell car on the market (along with second-generation hybrids, and the most efficient lineup of i.c.e. cars), but that's all hype.
You guys should buy a bunch of GM stock, and sell short Honda stock. You'll make a fortune when GM leads the market in fuel efficiency and its stock price soars, while Honda fails miserably, shuts down factories, fires tens of thousands of workers, watches its stock price plummet ...... .
Really? Let's say I want one, how do I get it? The fact is that Honda does not have a fuel cell car on the market. All you can do is submit an application to be one of the test drivers.
Honda is going to hand pick a couple hundred people to drive the FCX Clarity and charge them a token lease amount. The only purpose is to gather some real world data. I'm not sure that Honda has actually delivered any of these cars yet. I believe that GM has already delivered some fuel cell Equinoxes. No the Equinox is not on the market. You have to submit an application to be a test driver, just like with the Honda. So GM is doing exactly what Honda is, collecting real world data on what is a not ready for prime time vehicle.
You seem to be a big Honda fan, or maybe just a GM basher. Maybe a combination. Why did Honda kill the Insight?
Honda didn't kill the Insight, they replaced it with the Civic Hybrid. See, that's what legitimate car companies do: they produce an innovative product, then they improve on it.
As far as being a "GM basher," I don't have to bash them. The auto market and the stock market have taken care of that. But, yes, you could call me a Honda fan. Probably has something to do with Honda producing the cars that GM only talks about. Honda innovating and advancing automotive transportation, while GM churns out the same 100-year-old technology every year, just trying to find the latest trick to boost its stock price (because moving the factories to Mexico didn't quite do the trick).
Speaking of 100-years-old -- that's how long GM has been around. Honda has been in the business half that time. Yet Honda builds a better product. The Civic is the best selling car in the United States. How do you think that happened?
The Civic is the best selling car in the United States. How do you think that happened?
That's an easy question. $4/gallon gas made that happen. If car sales are an accurate indicator of how enlightened or progressive a car company is then up until a couple months ago Ford would be the winner. The F-150 had been the best seller for years. Also, the Civic hybrid can hardly be considered a replacement for the Insight since it is less fuel efficient than a car that was manufactured 8 years ago.
Honda has publicly stated that they have no intention of pursuing a plug-in hybrid. This will be an interesting position to follow over the next couple years. Toyota took the same position a year ago but has since back pedaled. My prediction is that Honda will also reverse course and it will be within a year. We'll see but if I'm right who is the leader and who is the follower? My guess is that you believe Honda's too smart to be influenced by GM's transparent hype. So they'll refuse to join this plug-in boodoggle.
be interesting to see if honda and/or toyota change to the serial hybrid drive. They've been doing paralels so long -and I agree with our friend that they are the two premier car companies- that it really would be major if they did so. You can bet they are looking at it hard. Not like them to get too complacent, though there have been some rumbles about Toyota quality as of late.
"That's an easy question. $4/gallon gas made that happen."
Here's an even easier answer: The lack of planning by GM, Ford, and Chrysler made that happen. All the million-dollar-a-month executives strangely never figured out that rising gas prices might affect consumer buying decisions. Or maybe they just didn't care, since they were only concerned about the stock price this fiscal quarter, not the long-term appeal of their product lines.
Meanwhile, Honda and Toyota pay their execs a fraction of what U.S. car companies do, yet THEY figured it out with no problem. They developed hybrids when gasoline was $1 per gallon, because they figured that someday it might NOT be $1 per gallon.
Isn't that why they call them "executives?" They execute plans for future contingencies that will keep the company profitable in any market condition. .
I think that both Honda and Toyota will eventually pursue serial hybrids but I have my suspicions as to why they'd be reluctant.
In Honda's case it is because they were initially an innovative engine company that finally started making their own cars for these engines. There is no doubt that Honda makes a very fine ICE. So a transition to an era of vehicles powered by electric motors is not something they will want to accelerate.
In Toyota's case I believe they will be reluctant because they have invested so much in developing their proprietary, parallel hybrid system, which is currently the best on the market. A trend towards serial hybrids will erode their technological leadership in this area. .
I agree that the leadership at Toyota and Honda seems a little more savvy at the present time. Their insight didn't seem quite so keen 15-20 years ago when Americans started transitioning away from cars to very profitable trucks and SUVs. Toyota eventually jumped on that bandwagon but lost out on many years where their profits could have been higher had they had an offering in this class.
It's not like GM and Ford have nothing to offer in terms of fuel efficiency. It's my understanding that the Ford Focus, Fusion and Escape hybrid are selling very well. The same can be said for Chevy's Malibu and Cobalt. For the few people that actually need the utility of a full sized SUV or truck GM's two-mode hybrids in this category are industry leaders in terms of fuel efficiency. Ford also has about 20 plug-in Escape hybrids currently being evaluated by some California utility companies.
The civic is a great little car that gets great mileage. How's that? Didn't the previous best sellers include the accord and at some point camry and taurus? I think gas prices have shifted priorities for many people..down from midsize to smaller and civic is about the class of the field now. Plus, it is very hard to get a used one because these kids are turning them all into slot-cars with 10,000 watt stereos. ..so you have to buy new.
Part of our makers problems might be that the US market is actually very big. They may have downplayed to some degree the international market. Gas taxes are considerably higher in say Japan's domestic market..and also space is at a premium...same for europe...thus an emphasis on smaller cars and higher mileage. When the Yaris came to town I was a bit disapointed that we didn't get a shot at the even higher mileage euro models. Certainly at that point it was decided that Americans still favored a certain amount of pep in their cars that was greater than what Euros accept.
But all in all they haven't done the best job in adapting and looking ahead. So why bust chops when they try to innovate? It's about time isn't it?
"Honda actually HAS a fuel cell car on the market (along with second-generation hybrids, and the most efficient lineup of i.c.e. cars), but that's all hype. "
Honda actually has one on the market? Is it that so? Please go down to your local dealer, test drive one, and get back to us on it.
Oh, you don't live in LA? Then you can't get one. And Honda is only building 200 of them over the next three years, so that is a total production of about 67 cars per year, so even if you do live in LA they are probably all spoken for. And the $600/month lease is highly subsidized and doesn't begin to recover the $500,000 cost of the vehicle.
But you call that being "on the market"? I guess we have a different definition of being "on the market."
Honda makes excellent cars. The Civic and Accord are second and third best selling cars on the market now in the US. I owned an Acura for 13 years (135,000 miles) and will probably buy another Honda in the future. I think Honda is an outstanding company and I hold them in very high esteem. I look forward to more information about Honda's upcoming hybrids in 2009.
But that doesn't change the fact that the Clarity is basically an extended prototype test and is totally impractical at this time. There is no infrastructure for widespread production and distribution of hydrogen, let alone doing so economically. Furthermore, even if there was such an infrastructure, no manufacturer has figured out how to economically produce fuel cells. GM, Honda, Ballard Power Systems, etc., have spent billions researching fuel cells for more than 20 years. They still need to reduce the cost of the fuel cell by one order of magnitude.
Honda is planning to sell 67 FCX Clarity fuel cell cars per year for 3 years. GM is planning to sell up to 100,000 Volts per year. Will GM reach that goal? We'll see. A price of $40,000 certainly won't help.
GM has had fuel cell PU trucks in the field several years. They have had the Equinox FCV since 2006. The military and government agencies have them GM has 100 of the Fuel cell Equinox for lease as we speak. So Honda may get all the press. They are not any further ahead or closer to selling a fuel cell vehicles than is GM. Unless you got half a million to spend on a FCV.
I know you like your Civic Hybrid. Not all of us can sit straight up in one to drive it. I checked out both the Accord and Civic hybrid. My head touches the headliner. That is not acceptable. Even if it gets 200 MPG.
I am also skeptical of the Volt making it here by 2010. Lots of obstacles for any EV or PHEV to overcome.
Regarding F.C. pickups, what they build for the gov't and what they build for consumers are two different things. The military has a bunch of vehicles that never make it to the consumer market. I'd love to lease an anti-gravity machine, but I can't. And that's the real criteria -- the consumer market; what you and I can get.
My statement, "that's 200 more than GM is building" is wrong on its face, but I meant "building for consumers," as opposed to building for research.
If the contest were 'who built it first,' then GM and Honda would both lose to Toyota. Their Highlander FCV has been what Car & Driver calls "on the road" since 2005. But you and I can't get one.
I read about the "test fleet" of Equinoxes in NYC, DC, and LA. But only a few "select" consumers were able to get one of the 100 total FCVs, and they got them for FREE! Even the hydrogen was free, courtesy of GM.
That's not "on the market," like Honda's FCX. Consumers have to put up their own money to lease the things ($600/mo), and buy their own fuel -- a true real world test.
Most of the Equinox FCVs went to what autobloggreen.com calls "controlled fleets." The site talks about the few consumers (the GM website calls them "hand raisers") who get to drive them:
"People who are accepted will get one of the Equinoxes for a period of time along with free hydrogen in return for the feedback they provide to GM."
How long a period of time? Who knows? But these cars certainly don't belong to them, by any definition. And that's what the argument boils down to -- purchasing a car vs. leasing a car vs. borrowing a car. Whose money is at stake, and who can get one. .
I believe the "Equinox Driveway program is a 3 month lease to selected individuals. I think the Clarity is also selected individuals. Of course they will be restricted to a small area that hydrogen is available. From what I read they will not get to buy the car when the lease is over. It will be just like the EV-1 program. If what I have read is true the Clarity cost Honda about half a million a piece to build. The buy out would be pretty sizable is my guess. I don't think you will see a mainstream fuel cell for sale to the public for at least another 10 years. Of course that was what the automakers were saying in 1969...
The first fuel cell powered vehicle was a tractor in 1959. Fuel cell technology is over 100 years old. If it was going to be viable I think it would have matured into economically usable vehicles by now. We are a long way from ridding ourselves of the Internal Combustion Engine.
The GM 1966 Electrovan was the automotive industry's first attempt at an automobile powered by a hydrogen fuel cell. The Electrovan, which weighed more than twice as much as a normal van, could travel up to 70mph for 30 seconds.
There are a lot of failed Fuel Cell vehicles on the trash heap of time. I don't think the Civic will be much better. Just more visible with that pretty red color.
Another thought. With the government blocking many eco friendly solar and wind projects for a myriad of reasons, it will be another roadblock in the path of fossil fuel independence. The current process of producing hydrogen is using fossil fuel. So it is not doing much to alleviate our oil independence.
I read about the "test fleet" of Equinoxes in NYC, DC, and LA. But only a few "select" consumers were able to get one of the 100 total FCVs, and they got them for FREE! Even the hydrogen was free, courtesy of GM.
That's not "on the market," like Honda's FCX. Consumers have to put up their own money to lease the things ($600/mo), and buy their own fuel -- a true real world test.
You're right, GM is subsidizing 100% of the cost. Honda's only subsidizing about 90% of the cost. I'm just guessing at that percentage. I'm not sure what the lease price would be on a half million dollar vehicle. But I'm certain it would be a lot more than $600/month. In either case we are not talking about a true market situation. In both cases the companies' primary goal is to obtain user feedback, I'm not sure why charging a nominal monthly fee will make this feedback any more valid. So I don't know why GM's Equinox represents a vehicle built for research while Honda's Clarity represents a vehicle built for consumers. If GM decided to charge these people driving the Equinox would it then become a consumer vehicle?
The Chevy Volt might not make it to the market by 2010 but I'd place a sizable wager that a person will be able to "buy" a Chevy Volt long before they will be able to buy a fuel cell vehicle from any manufacturer. I'm not talking about highly subsidized closed end leases to a handful of selected people.
BTW, Honda's website says that they plan on delivering 150 of these vehicles over the next few years. Do you know how many have actually been delivered? As far as I can tell none have been delivered so far.
So I don't know why GM's Equinox represents a vehicle built for research while Honda's Clarity represents a vehicle built for consumers
There is no difference between the Honda and GM fuel cell programs. They are both to create the illusion that fuel cell vehicles are close to being mass produced. Honda is building 200 over a 3 year period. That is NOT mass production. You will have to be somebody with visibility to get any fuel cell vehicle under lease of free trial. As far as I can tell GM is just putting theirs out for a 3 month stint. Honda for 3 years with NO buyout. One article alluded to someone being the first purchaser of a Honda FCX. I am sure he is a highroller that wants to be the first to own one.
I am positive that GM will have the Volt for sale before any major manufacturer offers a fuel cell vehicle. There are startups selling conversions for existing vehicles. I believe those all burn hydrogen in the existing ICE.
So I don't know why GM's Equinox represents a vehicle built for research while Honda's Clarity represents a vehicle built for consumers
Both are built for either research and/or greenwashing. Neither is viable for volume production. GM has a chance at building the Volt in quantity starting in 2010, selling it for around $40k, and not losing money doing so. Whether they succeed is an open question, but the technology appears to be there.
Neither Honda, GM, nor any other auto manufacturer has a chance at building a fuel cell car in quantity in 2010 and selling it for less than $250k. The fuel cell technology simply isn't there. And even if the fuel cell technology was there, there is no network to supply hydrogen fuel. Right now, it takes a great deal of energy to produce hydrogen, hurting its economics even more.
Plugin hybrid electric vehicles are viable for volume production in the short term, whether from GM, Toyota, Ford, Honda, or any other manufacturer. Fuel cell vehicles simply are not viable for volume production in the short term. Not even Honda, as great a manufacturer as they clearly are, has been able to change that.
From what I am reading the conversion of Natural Gas to Hydrogen is not as clean as just burning the Natural Gas in an ICE, such as the Civic GX. The problem there is similar to hydrogen. Many parts of the USA do not have a good source of natural gas to convert into CNG or Hydrogen. That is why they say we can put hydrogen supplies that will cover 70% of the Nation. What about the other 30%? That leaves about 100,000,000 people without transportation. Or for those in a Fuel Cell vehicle unable to visit those folks. Then of course you have a limited supply of kooks that would spend a quarter of a million bucks on a fuel cell vehicle. I will take a Ferrari if I am spending that much on a car.
Plugin hybrid electric vehicles are viable for volume production in the short term, whether from GM, Toyota, Ford, Honda, or any other manufacturer.
Honda has stated on numerous occasions that they have no intention of pursuing a plug-in hybrid. Personally I don't understand why a company would ignore a technology that has the potential to be viable in a couple years and instead spend their efforts on technology that's much further off in future. Especially in light of how fast fuel prices are rising. I think you could be right when you mention "greenwashing". It's not about providing a solution but in projecting a "green" image.
Actually I heard one Honda spokesperson say that the idea of having both an ICE and an electric motor in a vehicle just didn't make sense. Doesn't the Civic hybrid have an ICE and an electric motor? In fact, isn't that kind of the definition of hybrid?
"Honda has stated on numerous occasions that they have no intention of pursuing a plug-in hybrid. Personally I don't understand why a company would ignore a technology that has the potential to be viable in a couple years and instead spend their efforts on technology that's much further off in future. "
Honda does not have any technology that will allow their cars to run on electric only. Thus it would make no sense for them to pursue plug-in; they would have to develop a dual mode hybrid.
With a plug-in we aren't necessarily talking about a vehicle that uses different sources for it's propulsion. The Chevy Volt will be driven entirely by it's electric motor. If you are capable of building an EV, which Honda has already demonstrated, then it's just a matter of adding an onboard generator. Honda builds generators. I'm sure it's not as simple as that but GM seems to feel confident in being able to develop this technology. It's surprising that Honda, with it's reputation for inovation, isn't up to the challenge.
As I posted previously. I personally don't think it's a matter of Honda not being able to produce this type of vehicle. I think it's a matter of Honda not wanting to go in a direction that takes it away from it's strengths, which is manufacturing ICEs. However if these PHEVs do start hitting the market in 2-3 years and they are popular it's a safe assumption that Honda will reconsider this policy. Especially if they are given EPA mileage ratings of ~100 mpg and the best Honda can offer is a traditional hybrid in the 50-60 mpg range. Not too good for the "green" image.
Especially if they are given EPA mileage ratings of ~100 mpg
You bring up a good point. Can any of the PHEV designs get a good rating from the current EPA test? If they have 70 MPH for a given distance I would think the ICE would kick in and suck up the gas making the Highway mileage fairly low. If Toyota builds a PHEV and it matches the current crop of add-ons it will only go about 30 MPH before the ICE kicks in. It will have an EV range of only 15-30 miles depending on how much battery you want to buy. The Series hybrid such as the Volt will have the advantage over the designs like Toyota uses. The Volt could get a 200-300 MPG rating or more if the test is short in each segment. Looks to me like the EPA needs to go back to the drawing board for testing EVs and PHEVs. Or just let the MFG put whatever claim they feel they can back up.
I wonder if the movie that gave GM such a bad rap on the EV-1 mentioned that Honda did EXACTLY the same thing with their EV offerings?
About 340 or so EV Plus models were produced and released. The EV Plus was taken out of production in 1999 when Honda announced the release of it's first hybrid electric vehicle, the Honda Insight. The EV Plus was made to meet California Air Resources Board requirements for zero-emission vehicles, the same as General Motors' new EV1.
The EV Plus was listed with an MSRP of $53,000, but Honda never allowed them to be sold, instead offering the cars on a 3-year, lease-only program. Honda allowed some customers to extend their EV Plus lease for a few years. At the end of the leases, all EV Plus cars were taken back by Honda and decommissioned.
Comments
I have invented a way to make small cars much safer in collisions.
If small cars are not perceived as death traps, more Americans will buy them.
Please see my website safersmallcars.com
The car companies have rejected my idea. Please tell them you want a safer small car.
Some positive comments from GM's CEO. I hope it's true. Of course if you're a Volt skeptic you'll immediately dismiss any news regarding the Volt that isn't negative.
I agree and none too soon.
As far as GM's press releases they seem to be getting progressively more specific. It's not like they keep saying that we'll produce an EV in 3 years and every year it's always 3 years off.
I too think that $48000 is ludicrous but throwing out this figure serves two purposes
.. it gives an upper threshold to his political team to begin discussing tax incentives with Washington;
.. it gives the GM faithful a worst-case scenario on what this vehicle might cost and opens this sales presentation upon launch...
'Look what we've been able to do for you our valued customer. We estimated our costs to be $48000 to build the Volt but with our intervention in Congress we were able to get you a $10000 tax break plus through our diligent efforts we've been able to hold down costs somewhat so that we can now offer you this wonderful new vehicle at the special low low price of $34,997. Today only of course..
$35000 sounds like the upper limit that this market will bear in the next two years. Consider what it is. It's a 2-door, 4-passenger commuter vehicle. Nothing more.
In reality how many can really afford a $35000 ( net after some tax credit ) commuter. Some herein have railed constantly how the Prius was intended only for the rich yuppies amongst us. The Volt would seem to be a Prius "..with diamonds on her shoes..." to borrow a Paul Simon phrase. What does it do differently than say a Corolla or an Aveo? Here comes that 'Is it worth it.....' discussion.
Ditto the above comment for the eventual Prius PHEV and the Escape PHEV which should also end up in this same $35000-$40000 range IMO.
EREVs, PHEVs, along with FlexFuel and Biodiesel burners may easily become the 'gotta-have-to-survive vehicles'.
$35000 might seem a like a fair price to pay for an E85 ICE EREV if you can only buy 15 gal per week of petro-fuel.
I'm not sure what you mean by commuter vehicle. It will have just as much utility as any other 4-passenger car.
GM will have no trouble selling as many Volts as they can make the first couple years. After that I agree the price will have to come down some to appeal to the mainstream buyers. Then again if gas is at or above $5/gallon by 2010 the price won't have to come down much.
The Prius PHEV is only shooting for a 10 mile all electric range. That won't require all that big a battery pack so I'm guessing the price premium over a regular Prius will be no more than $5k.
It won't have the utility of a Prius or an FEH. It will probably will have the best fuel economy of any vehicle on the road when it debuts. It's 40 mi gas-free range will be most interesting to commuters IMO. But for long trips it will be somewhat cramped, it won't be able to carry as much as a Prius or FEH and the 40 mi gas-free range will be diluted the farther it must go from home ( recharging point ). IMO then it will end up being a small commuter. What will be the fuel economy rating when the battery depletes and the ICE generator kicks in fulltime? I don't have a clue?
Now at some time in the near future when recharging points are easily accessible all over the country I can see these even being the standard technology.
Yes I agree that the premium for the Prius PHEV will be about $5K. I believe I sawa that they were planning a 20 mi gas-free range.
Intersting possibilities....hypothetically, how does a $30k Volt stack up against something like a 65 mpg Yaris at $19k? Probably room for both in the big picture...at least as the technology advances.
I wonder how many times the prius would be left unplugged if it only got 10 all electric. 20 as you stated seems like a good point to shoot for as minimum all electric range.
I wonder if our cars are going to become more like computers...that is, a five year old model will depreciate to the status of a paper weight as the technology zooms past.
Not a Volt skeptic, but a propoganda skeptic. Hype means nothing. Show me the product, and shut up about it until you do, General Motors.
If they spent less time talking and more time building, the thing would be in showrooms already. This campaign reminds me of the hype surrounding the "stimulus checks" that we're all going to receive ..... someday.
A month and a half ago, I got a notice from the IRS that I would be receiving the check. Then last week I got another notice that I'd be receiving the check. Hey, instead of wasting time and money sending me notices, just shut up and send me the check!
I'm still waiting for it. And, no, I don't need any more notices that it's coming. Just like I don't need any more notices, or TV commercials, or internet forum hype that the Volt is coming. I don't need to see any suggested prices, or possible mpg figures, or tax credit proposals "bandied about." Just build the thing already!
I'm a big boy now, and I can judge a product for myself. If it costs $30K (yeah, right), and goes 40 miles without burning any gas (in your dreams), and gets a fat tax credit (Congress is always doing us favors), then I'll consider it.
If, however, it costs $40K, goes only 10 miles on electric power, and gets some token tax write-off, then GM can kiss my assets goodbye. My money will keep going to Honda.
Considering that the Tahoe/Yukon hybrid costs $50K and gets 21 mpg (vs. 17 for the regular Tahoe/Yukon), a higher price and lower performance numbers for the Volt seem likely. I hope they prove me wrong ..... but that would entail actually building the car.
Now that you mention it, I do not remember any big hype about the Insight or Civic Hybrid from Honda or the Prius in 2000 from Toyota. I do recall a lot of speculation on the Accord Hybrid and it ended up a big flop. The second gen Prius was given to a few movie stars to drive up to the Oscars. That was enough to launch it into success.
I think that GM is building itself up for a big disappointment with the Volt. It could be years or maybe Never that the battery situation will be resolved. If they cannot get 100 mile range battery down under $7000 I don't think they can compete with the ICE only vehicles.
As long as you aren't a skeptic.
At any rate...I haven't seen any TV commercials for the Volt, but I don't watch all that much commercial tv. Maybe I am missing all the hype. I wasn't really looking for alt cars back in the old days. Not many were.
The Volt has to deliver close to what was promised and they will not be able to make them fast enough. It is a revolutionary design by a major car company that seems to be putting its back into it. If they fail...so be it. I say, nice try!
The battery pack can never be totally dead in the Volt. I believe that the ICE kicks in to start recharging when it drops to 30% state of charge. So even if you never plugged this car in that would be the most depleted the battery pack ever got. The 50 mpg figure is based upon this situation.
I seem to be missing all the hype too. GM has been issuing press releases every few weeks to provide updates on how the Volt program is progressing. But unless you're an interested person looking for these you'll miss them. When I talk to people for the first time about the Volt more often than not this is the first they've ever heard of this car. So if GM is engaging in some big hype/propaganda campaign it isn't all that successful.
There wasn't much hype back then, I tried to get a 2002 the year before and the dealer said I had to order one online without ever seeing it because they wouldn't stock any.
I likened the spread of hybrids into the public conscience kind of like the spread of AIDS (no offense to anyone infected). At first only a few specialists in the field knew about it, then it was something people had probably heard of but didn't know much about, then you probably knew someone who knew someone who had one, then some movie stars got ems, then everybody knew about it, then everybody knew someone with one, then you really had to think about getting one...
Most likely the vehicle requires a battery to run. It would depend upon the implementation, but that is most likely. If it is using regenerative braking, for example, where would the electricity go?
Looks like the Volt is charging ahead.
>>>Lutz, who was speaking to Reuters after an address to a Detroit-area business group, said GM engineers had shown the battery packs now being tested could power vehicles to the company's target mileage and beyond.
"They've routinely had it to the high 30s, low 40s and they go up hills with it and everything," said Lutz.
"It never shifts and you just scream along in total silence," he said, in describing his Monday test drive.
It all works real well, it's just that the transition from battery power to the internal combustion," Lutz said. "They said it's still noisy and it's a little rough. But heck, we've got a little more than a year and a half to work on that."http://au.news.yahoo.com/080616/2/17b4l.html
Probably should have phrased that one better. The concept is oxymoronic, and some DailyKos wacko is certain to seize on it as a veiled reference to the old anti-abortion film "The Silent Scream."
"...it's still noisy and it's a little rough. But heck, we've got a little more than a year and a half to work on that."
Yeah, wouldn't want to release this magical, mystical car any earlier than 2010. Just keep pumping out the hype that everything is going well, and all we have to do is keep waiting.
Meanwhile, Honda's already set to release its fuel cell vehicle right now in 2008. How far along do you think THAT car will be in "a little more than a year and a half?" How far along will Honda and Toyota be with their hybrid models by then?
The term 'a day late and a dollar short' comes to mind. Speaking of which, we'll all be interested to see how close to "about $30,000" the Volt's msrp really is.
The more hype I hear, the more doubts I have.
Honda's fuel cell cars are a PR event, nothing more. They won't help build the infrastructure to efficiently store and distribute hydrogen. Nor has the price of fuel cells become even remotely affordable.
GM has a much better chance of getting the Volt to market in sizeable numbers (50,000 per year) by 2010 than any manufacturer has to bring a fuel cell car to market in sizeable numbers by 2015.
The only way that comment makes sense is if by the time the Volt becomes available there is already something superior on the market. What might that be?
It won't be the Honda FCX Clarity. It's totally out of the question that a consumer will be able to actually buy this vehicle in 2010 for a reasonable price, less than $40k. My understanding is that the current cost per unit is in the mid 6 figures. And how many people would actually want one given their limited range, the fact that there are only a handful of refueling stations and the cost for a kg of hydrogen, which is the gallon of gas equivalent, really isn't all that cheap? Anyway, GM is also currently releasing it's fuel cell Equinoxes. Whatever credit you want to give Honda for their fuel cell efforts would also apply to GM.
And it won't be Toyota's next generation of Priuses. Maybe they'll get 60 mpg as opposed to today's Prius's 50 mpg. I don't see how that will make the Volt irrelevant. Toyota is planning a plug-in Prius for 2010. So in that regard GM and Toyota share a common goal/vision with a common timetable.
The more hype I hear, the more doubts I have.
By that rational if GM released zero information (hype in your terms) about the Volt program and it's progress you would be more confident in it's ultimate success? I imagine as we get closer to 2010 the "hype" will only increase. It will probably be quite intense in the weeks preceding the cars arrival at the dealerships. So I guess your doubts are destined to increase.
10/22/04: General Motors has delivered a hydrogen powered HUMMER to the California Governor's office. The H2H is a HUMMER H2 that was re-engineered to operate on gaseous hydrogen fuel. Its main tailpipe emission is water vapor.
GM hasn't produced squat, but they promise that they will, so it's cool.
Honda actually HAS a fuel cell car on the market (along with second-generation hybrids, and the most efficient lineup of i.c.e. cars), but that's all hype.
You guys should buy a bunch of GM stock, and sell short Honda stock. You'll make a fortune when GM leads the market in fuel efficiency and its stock price soars, while Honda fails miserably, shuts down factories, fires tens of thousands of workers, watches its stock price plummet ......
.
Really? Let's say I want one, how do I get it? The fact is that Honda does not have a fuel cell car on the market. All you can do is submit an application to be one of the test drivers.
Honda is going to hand pick a couple hundred people to drive the FCX Clarity and charge them a token lease amount. The only purpose is to gather some real world data. I'm not sure that Honda has actually delivered any of these cars yet. I believe that GM has already delivered some fuel cell Equinoxes. No the Equinox is not on the market. You have to submit an application to be a test driver, just like with the Honda. So GM is doing exactly what Honda is, collecting real world data on what is a not ready for prime time vehicle.
You seem to be a big Honda fan, or maybe just a GM basher. Maybe a combination. Why did Honda kill the Insight?
As far as being a "GM basher," I don't have to bash them. The auto market and the stock market have taken care of that. But, yes, you could call me a Honda fan. Probably has something to do with Honda producing the cars that GM only talks about. Honda innovating and advancing automotive transportation, while GM churns out the same 100-year-old technology every year, just trying to find the latest trick to boost its stock price (because moving the factories to Mexico didn't quite do the trick).
Speaking of 100-years-old -- that's how long GM has been around. Honda has been in the business half that time. Yet Honda builds a better product. The Civic is the best selling car in the United States. How do you think that happened?
That's an easy question. $4/gallon gas made that happen. If car sales are an accurate indicator of how enlightened or progressive a car company is then up until a couple months ago Ford would be the winner. The F-150 had been the best seller for years. Also, the Civic hybrid can hardly be considered a replacement for the Insight since it is less fuel efficient than a car that was manufactured 8 years ago.
Honda has publicly stated that they have no intention of pursuing a plug-in hybrid. This will be an interesting position to follow over the next couple years. Toyota took the same position a year ago but has since back pedaled. My prediction is that Honda will also reverse course and it will be within a year. We'll see but if I'm right who is the leader and who is the follower? My guess is that you believe Honda's too smart to be influenced by GM's transparent hype. So they'll refuse to join this plug-in boodoggle.
Here's an even easier answer: The lack of planning by GM, Ford, and Chrysler made that happen. All the million-dollar-a-month executives strangely never figured out that rising gas prices might affect consumer buying decisions. Or maybe they just didn't care, since they were only concerned about the stock price this fiscal quarter, not the long-term appeal of their product lines.
Meanwhile, Honda and Toyota pay their execs a fraction of what U.S. car companies do, yet THEY figured it out with no problem. They developed hybrids when gasoline was $1 per gallon, because they figured that someday it might NOT be $1 per gallon.
Isn't that why they call them "executives?" They execute plans for future contingencies that will keep the company profitable in any market condition.
.
In Honda's case it is because they were initially an innovative engine company that finally started making their own cars for these engines. There is no doubt that Honda makes a very fine ICE. So a transition to an era of vehicles powered by electric motors is not something they will want to accelerate.
In Toyota's case I believe they will be reluctant because they have invested so much in developing their proprietary, parallel hybrid system, which is currently the best on the market. A trend towards serial hybrids will erode their technological leadership in this area.
.
It's not like GM and Ford have nothing to offer in terms of fuel efficiency. It's my understanding that the Ford Focus, Fusion and Escape hybrid are selling very well. The same can be said for Chevy's Malibu and Cobalt. For the few people that actually need the utility of a full sized SUV or truck GM's two-mode hybrids in this category are industry leaders in terms of fuel efficiency. Ford also has about 20 plug-in Escape hybrids currently being evaluated by some California utility companies.
Part of our makers problems might be that the US market is actually very big. They may have downplayed to some degree the international market. Gas taxes are considerably higher in say Japan's domestic market..and also space is at a premium...same for europe...thus an emphasis on smaller cars and higher mileage. When the Yaris came to town I was a bit disapointed that we didn't get a shot at the even higher mileage euro models. Certainly at that point it was decided that Americans still favored a certain amount of pep in their cars that was greater than what Euros accept.
But all in all they haven't done the best job in adapting and looking ahead. So why bust chops when they try to innovate? It's about time isn't it?
Honda actually has one on the market? Is it that so? Please go down to your local dealer, test drive one, and get back to us on it.
Oh, you don't live in LA? Then you can't get one. And Honda is only building 200 of them over the next three years, so that is a total production of about 67 cars per year, so even if you do live in LA they are probably all spoken for. And the $600/month lease is highly subsidized and doesn't begin to recover the $500,000 cost of the vehicle.
But you call that being "on the market"? I guess we have a different definition of being "on the market."
Honda makes excellent cars. The Civic and Accord are second and third best selling cars on the market now in the US. I owned an Acura for 13 years (135,000 miles) and will probably buy another Honda in the future. I think Honda is an outstanding company and I hold them in very high esteem. I look forward to more information about Honda's upcoming hybrids in 2009.
But that doesn't change the fact that the Clarity is basically an extended prototype test and is totally impractical at this time. There is no infrastructure for widespread production and distribution of hydrogen, let alone doing so economically. Furthermore, even if there was such an infrastructure, no manufacturer has figured out how to economically produce fuel cells. GM, Honda, Ballard Power Systems, etc., have spent billions researching fuel cells for more than 20 years. They still need to reduce the cost of the fuel cell by one order of magnitude.
Honda is planning to sell 67 FCX Clarity fuel cell cars per year for 3 years. GM is planning to sell up to 100,000 Volts per year. Will GM reach that goal? We'll see. A price of $40,000 certainly won't help.
Certainly! And while I'm at it, I'll stop by a GM dealer and test drive a Volt.
"Honda is only building 200 of them over the next three years"
That's 200 more than GM is building.
"GM is planning to sell up to 100,000 Volts per year."
And I'm planning to win the lottery.
Was GM planning for its stock to drop 60% this year?. Honda (HMC) is up 3%. So whose planning do you trust?
GM has had fuel cell PU trucks in the field several years. They have had the Equinox FCV since 2006. The military and government agencies have them GM has 100 of the Fuel cell Equinox for lease as we speak. So Honda may get all the press. They are not any further ahead or closer to selling a fuel cell vehicles than is GM. Unless you got half a million to spend on a FCV.
I know you like your Civic Hybrid. Not all of us can sit straight up in one to drive it. I checked out both the Accord and Civic hybrid. My head touches the headliner. That is not acceptable. Even if it gets 200 MPG.
I am also skeptical of the Volt making it here by 2010. Lots of obstacles for any EV or PHEV to overcome.
My statement, "that's 200 more than GM is building" is wrong on its face, but I meant "building for consumers," as opposed to building for research.
If the contest were 'who built it first,' then GM and Honda would both lose to Toyota. Their Highlander FCV has been what Car & Driver calls "on the road" since 2005. But you and I can't get one.
I read about the "test fleet" of Equinoxes in NYC, DC, and LA. But only a few "select" consumers were able to get one of the 100 total FCVs, and they got them for FREE! Even the hydrogen was free, courtesy of GM.
That's not "on the market," like Honda's FCX. Consumers have to put up their own money to lease the things ($600/mo), and buy their own fuel -- a true real world test.
Most of the Equinox FCVs went to what autobloggreen.com calls "controlled fleets." The site talks about the few consumers (the GM website calls them "hand raisers") who get to drive them:
"People who are accepted will get one of the Equinoxes for a period of time along with free hydrogen in return for the feedback they provide to GM."
How long a period of time? Who knows? But these cars certainly don't belong to them, by any definition. And that's what the argument boils down to -- purchasing a car vs. leasing a car vs. borrowing a car. Whose money is at stake, and who can get one.
.
The first fuel cell powered vehicle was a tractor in 1959. Fuel cell technology is over 100 years old. If it was going to be viable I think it would have matured into economically usable vehicles by now. We are a long way from ridding ourselves of the Internal Combustion Engine.
The GM 1966 Electrovan was the automotive industry's first attempt at an automobile powered by a hydrogen fuel cell. The Electrovan, which weighed more than twice as much as a normal van, could travel up to 70mph for 30 seconds.
There are a lot of failed Fuel Cell vehicles on the trash heap of time. I don't think the Civic will be much better. Just more visible with that pretty red color.
Another thought. With the government blocking many eco friendly solar and wind projects for a myriad of reasons, it will be another roadblock in the path of fossil fuel independence. The current process of producing hydrogen is using fossil fuel. So it is not doing much to alleviate our oil independence.
That's not "on the market," like Honda's FCX. Consumers have to put up their own money to lease the things ($600/mo), and buy their own fuel -- a true real world test.
You're right, GM is subsidizing 100% of the cost. Honda's only subsidizing about 90% of the cost. I'm just guessing at that percentage. I'm not sure what the lease price would be on a half million dollar vehicle. But I'm certain it would be a lot more than $600/month. In either case we are not talking about a true market situation. In both cases the companies' primary goal is to obtain user feedback, I'm not sure why charging a nominal monthly fee will make this feedback any more valid. So I don't know why GM's Equinox represents a vehicle built for research while Honda's Clarity represents a vehicle built for consumers. If GM decided to charge these people driving the Equinox would it then become a consumer vehicle?
The Chevy Volt might not make it to the market by 2010 but I'd place a sizable wager that a person will be able to "buy" a Chevy Volt long before they will be able to buy a fuel cell vehicle from any manufacturer. I'm not talking about highly subsidized closed end leases to a handful of selected people.
BTW, Honda's website says that they plan on delivering 150 of these vehicles over the next few years. Do you know how many have actually been delivered? As far as I can tell none have been delivered so far.
There is no difference between the Honda and GM fuel cell programs. They are both to create the illusion that fuel cell vehicles are close to being mass produced. Honda is building 200 over a 3 year period. That is NOT mass production. You will have to be somebody with visibility to get any fuel cell vehicle under lease of free trial. As far as I can tell GM is just putting theirs out for a 3 month stint. Honda for 3 years with NO buyout. One article alluded to someone being the first purchaser of a Honda FCX. I am sure he is a highroller that wants to be the first to own one.
I am positive that GM will have the Volt for sale before any major manufacturer offers a fuel cell vehicle. There are startups selling conversions for existing vehicles. I believe those all burn hydrogen in the existing ICE.
Both are built for either research and/or greenwashing. Neither is viable for volume production. GM has a chance at building the Volt in quantity starting in 2010, selling it for around $40k, and not losing money doing so. Whether they succeed is an open question, but the technology appears to be there.
Neither Honda, GM, nor any other auto manufacturer has a chance at building a fuel cell car in quantity in 2010 and selling it for less than $250k. The fuel cell technology simply isn't there. And even if the fuel cell technology was there, there is no network to supply hydrogen fuel. Right now, it takes a great deal of energy to produce hydrogen, hurting its economics even more.
Plugin hybrid electric vehicles are viable for volume production in the short term, whether from GM, Toyota, Ford, Honda, or any other manufacturer. Fuel cell vehicles simply are not viable for volume production in the short term. Not even Honda, as great a manufacturer as they clearly are, has been able to change that.
From what I am reading the conversion of Natural Gas to Hydrogen is not as clean as just burning the Natural Gas in an ICE, such as the Civic GX. The problem there is similar to hydrogen. Many parts of the USA do not have a good source of natural gas to convert into CNG or Hydrogen. That is why they say we can put hydrogen supplies that will cover 70% of the Nation. What about the other 30%? That leaves about 100,000,000 people without transportation. Or for those in a Fuel Cell vehicle unable to visit those folks. Then of course you have a limited supply of kooks that would spend a quarter of a million bucks on a fuel cell vehicle. I will take a Ferrari if I am spending that much on a car.
Honda has stated on numerous occasions that they have no intention of pursuing a plug-in hybrid. Personally I don't understand why a company would ignore a technology that has the potential to be viable in a couple years and instead spend their efforts on technology that's much further off in future. Especially in light of how fast fuel prices are rising. I think you could be right when you mention "greenwashing". It's not about providing a solution but in projecting a "green" image.
Actually I heard one Honda spokesperson say that the idea of having both an ICE and an electric motor in a vehicle just didn't make sense. Doesn't the Civic hybrid have an ICE and an electric motor? In fact, isn't that kind of the definition of hybrid?
Honda does not have any technology that will allow their cars to run on electric only. Thus it would make no sense for them to pursue plug-in; they would have to develop a dual mode hybrid.
I'm not sure that I believe that. Honda offered an EV in CA during the few years that it was mandated by CARB.
Honda EV Plus
With a plug-in we aren't necessarily talking about a vehicle that uses different sources for it's propulsion. The Chevy Volt will be driven entirely by it's electric motor. If you are capable of building an EV, which Honda has already demonstrated, then it's just a matter of adding an onboard generator. Honda builds generators. I'm sure it's not as simple as that but GM seems to feel confident in being able to develop this technology. It's surprising that Honda, with it's reputation for inovation, isn't up to the challenge.
As I posted previously. I personally don't think it's a matter of Honda not being able to produce this type of vehicle. I think it's a matter of Honda not wanting to go in a direction that takes it away from it's strengths, which is manufacturing ICEs. However if these PHEVs do start hitting the market in 2-3 years and they are popular it's a safe assumption that Honda will reconsider this policy. Especially if they are given EPA mileage ratings of ~100 mpg and the best Honda can offer is a traditional hybrid in the 50-60 mpg range. Not too good for the "green" image.
You bring up a good point. Can any of the PHEV designs get a good rating from the current EPA test? If they have 70 MPH for a given distance I would think the ICE would kick in and suck up the gas making the Highway mileage fairly low. If Toyota builds a PHEV and it matches the current crop of add-ons it will only go about 30 MPH before the ICE kicks in. It will have an EV range of only 15-30 miles depending on how much battery you want to buy. The Series hybrid such as the Volt will have the advantage over the designs like Toyota uses. The Volt could get a 200-300 MPG rating or more if the test is short in each segment. Looks to me like the EPA needs to go back to the drawing board for testing EVs and PHEVs. Or just let the MFG put whatever claim they feel they can back up.
About 340 or so EV Plus models were produced and released. The EV Plus was taken out of production in 1999 when Honda announced the release of it's first hybrid electric vehicle, the Honda Insight. The EV Plus was made to meet California Air Resources Board requirements for zero-emission vehicles, the same as General Motors' new EV1.
The EV Plus was listed with an MSRP of $53,000, but Honda never allowed them to be sold, instead offering the cars on a 3-year, lease-only program. Honda allowed some customers to extend their EV Plus lease for a few years. At the end of the leases, all EV Plus cars were taken back by Honda and decommissioned.