The Honda FCX 2008 fuel cell car

[Blotan Hunka]

Honda is releasing the first commercial fuel cell car in 2008. The Honda FCX runs on hydrogen and emits water vapor as waste.

http://www.autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061023/FREE/61013008/1009/VEHICLEREVIEWS

Get in Honda’s FCX sedan, go for a ride and as you would expect from any Honda product, there is little drama: Put your foot to the drive-by-wire throttle pedal and off you go. It zips to 100 miles per hour, and it stops just as well. FCX gets a reported 270 miles on a full tank. There is sufficient room in back for two large adults, and its lines are almost avant-garde.

We expect this of a mainstream Honda sedan. Throw in that the FCX is hydrogen powered and filled by a “pump” hooked to your house’s natural gas supply, and even casual observers realize this so-called lack of drama is itself dramatic.

It says they are working on solar cell driven cars now too. Those Japanese engineers are as impressive as hell. My question is, how and where can you fuel up if you are on a road trip??

 

[exile]

My question is, how and where can you fuel up if you are on a road trip??

That, of course, is the catch. But if the thing works from an engineering standpoint, and gets milage anywhere close to what's mentioned in the story, you can bet that a bunch of other manufacturers will get in on the act, and at that point, there will be a ready niche for some entrepreneur to open the first chain of fuel-up stations to cash in on the new technology. It would make most sense, actually, if the larger gasoline suppliers did it: they already have the physical infrastructure, so it would just be a matter of adding hydrogen fuel dispensers to their current offerings. We'll see. There's bound to be a bit of a lag; people may be reluctant to invest in the supply side for this new engine design until it's proven itself; but things could move quite quickly if the industry insiders think it's going to work...

 

[tellner]

When petroleum powered cars were first introduced it was a problem. When there was real money to be made it got solved.

There is a couple things that bothers me:

1. Right now the hydrogen is produced by, you guessed it, using fossil fuels. If the fuel cell is that much more efficient than the internal combustion engine you could end up saving energy. But I'll be a lot more enthusiastic when they are using some input that makes more sense. For instance, slashdot reported a couple days ago that there were serious breakthroughs in hydrogen generation through improved strains of cellulose-metabolizing bacteria. That begins to be interesting. Likewise, the new advances in solar efficiency and the DOE's admission that we could directly power over 70% of all ground transportation through electricity wasted during off-peak generation.
2. We're seeing the oil and coal companies and Archer Daniels Midland subverting and corrupting the push for energy alternatives. "Clean coal" and coal gasification don't even work thermodynamically let alone ecologically. So they make up the difference by suckling off the Federal teat. Similarly, biofuels research has been stalled at the Federal level. Instead of actual research and development it's all going as direct payments to ADM to pour food into gas tanks. Again, ridiculous. There's no need to even discuss the ownership of the White House and most of Congress by the oil industry
3. The companies that used to be American auto manufacturers screwed the pooch on electric cars (cf. Who Killed the Electric Car), hybrids and fuel efficient internal combustion engines. Instead we got SUV ads featuring 9/11. They've kept saying "Fuel cells" and "hydrogen" as ways of ignoring their apparent inability to make decent products. Is there any possible reason to believe that they'll get that recto-cranial occlusion treated in time to survive?

 

[Blotan Hunka]

Eh. I have to give credit for doing something. Ultimately they are perfecting the battery driven car. Where the energy comes to charge those batteries will be easier to figure out down the road.

 

[CoryKS]

Sounds great. I like the drive-by-wire concept a lot, too. We'll most likely see slow, gradual progress up to a tipping point where everything starts to happen at once. Traditional wisdom holds that the fossil-fuel people will shut this down, but once people find a way to make money in the new system it's a done deal.

Here's an article dealing with the "cheap hydrogen" breakthrough that tellner mentioned. I look forward to us getting weaned from the gasoline teat, and remain optimistic that it will happen sooner rather than later.

 

[Doc_Jude]

Electric cars would be so much better, what with the NiMH battery technology that's currently being suppressed by Big Oil. Of course they're pushing Hydrogen, that way they can keep the fuel money within their grasp with fuel stations instead of people doing most of their refueling/recharging at home off of the Grid.

Go watch "Who Killed The Electric Car?". EV technology is much more feasible.

[not to say that I'm not totally for alt-fuel advancements, but the EV-1 and other hybrid models have been around for awhile and just aren't getting the R&D or were discontinued and scrapped, even while drivers that were leasing the vehicles had capitol to purchase most of the vehicles outright.

 

[Rich Parsons]

Honda is releasing the first commercial fuel cell car in 2008. The Honda FCX runs on hydrogen and emits water vapor as waste.

http://www.autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061023/FREE/61013008/1009/VEHICLEREVIEWS




It says they are working on solar cell driven cars now too. Those Japanese engineers are as impressive as hell. My question is, how and where can you fuel up if you are on a road trip??

GM released last year 100 Fuel Cell Chevy Equinox's to the US government to be used in the DC area.

In the last month or so they have released another 100 vehicles but this time to the general public (* Free Lease type trial - I have no idea who these people are or how they were chosen *). These vehicles are in the NY City area, DC area and Southern California Area I believe. As these are the only areas where there is a refueling station outside of a manufacturing companies proving grounds, such as GM's in Milford.

The infrastructure here in the USA is an issue.

The other issue is the energy required to "Crack" molecules and get the Hydrogen into the storage unti.

 

[Doc_Jude]

Honda Rebel Electric Conversion
It's really not very hard to do and vehicles like these make great commuters.

The Tale of the EV-1: Who Killed The Electric Car?

 

[Doc_Jude]

GM released last year 100 Fuel Cell Chevy Equinox's to the US government to be used in the DC area.

In the last month or so they have released another 100 vehicles but this time to the general public (* Free Lease type trial - I have no idea who these people are or how they were chosen *). These vehicles are in the NY City area, DC area and Southern California Area I believe. As these are the only areas where there is a refueling station outside of a manufacturing companies proving grounds, such as GM's in Milford.

The infrastructure here in the USA is an issue.

The other issue is the energy required to "Crack" molecules and get the Hydrogen into the storage unti.

They did the same kind of thing with the EV-1 and then recalled and destroyed all of the cars even though people wanted to keep them or purchase them outright.

 

[Rich Parsons]

They did the same kind of thing with the EV-1 and then recalled and destroyed all of the cars even though people wanted to keep them or purchase them outright.

I have argued and discussed this many times.

Please answer the following questions:

1) Please name the Japanese suppliers and vehicles manufactured during the EV-1 ? (* You can also name the European manufactures as well if you like. *)
2) If everyone wanted it then why did they have problems leasing them. So where was the demand?
3) Do you know why they leased and would not allow a sale?

4) Can you also tell me about the super secret carb that got 40 or 50 or better Miles per Gallon?


I will answer number four for you. Just before they (* All the manufactures *) went EFI for emission controls and CARB (* California Air Resource Board *) requirements, they had some improvements that got 40% or 50% improvement, i.e. from 8 miles per gallon to upwards of 12 miles per gallon. Some of these were rolled out, but the EFI (* electronic fuel injection *) got better fuel economy and emissions. A side note the racing industry used to lead and the production vehicles would take advancements from them, but after the EFI and controller inductions later, the racing teams started taking from the production development as it got better control of the system for better performance.

 

[Doc_Jude]

I have argued and discussed this many times.

Please answer the following questions:

1) Please name the Japanese suppliers and vehicles manufactured during the EV-1 ? (* You can also name the European manufactures as well if you like. *)
2) If everyone wanted it then why did they have problems leasing them. So where was the demand?
3) Do you know why they leased and would not allow a sale?

there were a few non-American EV's that were either in production or on the table, but huh, they aren't now. I wonder why?
They had no problem leasing them, they were VERY limited in #'s and the selection process for leasers was stringent, for some reason, esp. since so many people wanted to purchase them after they were recalled. They were in California in very limited #'s, most people didn't even hear about them until they had been recalled, especially with word of the NiMH batteries that would extend the range to almost 300miles with 1hr charging times. Go see the movie "Who Killed The Electric Car?" There were MANY MANY MANY people that wanted the EV-1, but it got squashed to push the Hummer. Try Google.

 

[Rich Parsons]

there were a few non-American EV's that were either in production or on the table, but huh, they aren't now. I wonder why?
They had no problem leasing them, they were VERY limited in #'s and the selection process for leasers was stringent, for some reason, esp. since so many people wanted to purchase them after they were recalled. They were in California in very limited #'s, most people didn't even hear about them until they had been recalled, especially with word of the NiMH batteries that would extend the range to almost 300miles with 1hr charging times. Go see the movie "Who Killed The Electric Car?" There were MANY MANY MANY people that wanted the EV-1, but it got squashed to push the Hummer. Try Google.

First off can you clarify this RECALL you mention? I know they had them all returned after the lease. A recall is something issued by a legal entity such as CARB or EPA, unless it is a voluntary recall to usually fix something. I am very curious to see what you mean.

As to Nickle Metal Hydride batteries I am glad you brought this up. I cannot speak to the absolute of this, but I know there were legal issues around batteries and GM at that time that dated back to properly disposed of batteries in the 30's and 40's (* Of course the laws then and now are much different *) where the disposal company went out of business and the state sold the land to a developer who built homes and then went out of business. So who does one bring suit against? The ot of business companies? No one cannot. Canone bring suit against the State? Nope they and the Fed is protected as well. So you go back further and bring suit against the company that is still in business and has more people on their payrolls as retirees than most other companies have active.

Look at the roll out of the Japanese hybrid with their large NI batteries. And look when Others got involved later. Yes they were late to the market, but enough time had gone by, in my opinion, that precedant has also been set in the parket so one cannot bring suit against only one company.

GM and other companies are in business to make money for the stock holders. They are not there to protect the enviroment nor are they they to give solcial welfare to towns or regions. i.e. having the grand father and his three kids two boys and a girl all working there, and then the grand kids expecting they do not need to graduate college and have the local company no matter who it is, give them a job just because it is expected as they are currently employing their aunt and uncle and dad and grandfather. They follow the laws to sell their product, (* Hmm there was a Californai Law that REQUIRED 2% of all sales - of course they did nation wide sales, I wonder why Californai is always worried about national sales and not just Californai Sales - 2% of all sales to be zero emissions at the tail pipe. I repeat what did the other companies produce to get this number? I will tell you - Electric Golf carts. Even GM bought into it just to be safe in case they did not lease enough vehicles. So where was this large demand? I still do not see it. I admit there were some people who had media attention who all wanted to buy it, but I am not seeing all those lost leases that you seem to think that is out there?


Who killed the electric car? Nice propaganda movie in my opinion. If this is the only source for your information, look at the Number of sales (* yes leases count as sales for these statistics *). Check this link: It looks like they pulled something from a GM site that is no longer up but it was quoted. http://forums.subdriven.com/zerothread?id=2691989 Hmm 800 Sales or leases.

Yes there was a pre-list of 5000 but only 50 took the lease when the vehicle showed up. 800 total vehicles leased, this is not the monthly launch or a yearly number, but the life time, if I read it properly.

I think one needs to have 1000 built in a single model year to qualify as an actual production model. The muscle car guys can bring more data on this to the table as if it had less than 1000 vehicles in a year it was qualified as a special run or something else.

So, I guess if all 800 wanted to buy them, that would have been nice. But where are the numbers to suport a production run and service support, and keeping parts around for service which is required by law for ten years from the date of the last model year.


As to overal battery improvement, I have a saying I quoted from someone, "Liar Lair Battery Supplier". The internal data and experience I have is that these great advancement in battery technology works just great for the PhD's in a nice controlled lab. Put it into the real world and then you get extreme heat and cold and there are lots of issues that modern customer buyers usually want to work.

On a side note, I heard that the Prius and Insight buyers in the Pheonix area, keep their windows rolled down as it gets too hot during the day for them to restart their vehicle if they do not.

Now people are going to say why is it that some will accept this and maybe others will not? It is the type of person who buys a car.

Look at the old Toyota Celica and Chevy Nova. The JD Power numbers were so different on these cars but they were both designed by Toyota and built at the Joint plant owned by both companies. (* Current Production out this plant is the Toyota Matrix and Pontiac Vibe *) People who ad the Celica liked it. The complaints from the Nova was:

did not climb the hill
Could not tow with it
Did not cross the water

Further investigation was that people came from Chevy full size 4x4 trucks and bought the nova because it was a Chevy and complained it could not do what their last Chevy did. So this is all perception.

I say this because there is this perception that there is this huge demand for the EV-1, but I cannot see it. The numbers are just not there. I think a lot of people think it is a good idea. But they want someone else to own it and save the planet (* Another arguement as coal burning power plants produce more emissions then a gasolene burning vehicle *) and they can continue to drive the vehicles they want. GM does not build large SUV's because they are forcing people to buy them, they are building and selling them because that is what the market is buying. Yes they are building more and more Hybrids and other technologies including Fuel Cells. So look at there real impact this year, they went after the large SUV market where they have a presence and can actually make a difference in gasolene usage. Yet, people want perfection form GM and other US car companies, while the others peopel accept what is there. If you see GM's plans for Hybrids they have small veicles in the mix as well.


I hope Fuel Cell technology is there soon. And by soon I think it can be a decent amount of the market in 5 plus years. I think Hybrids will be around for the short term, of the teens and early 20's. At that time the market may have changed where people want specialized vehicles such as an all electric charged vehicle with a 50 to 100 mile range for a single day's travel before recharge.

 

[Doc_Jude]

The EV-1 is all propaganda? Well, you can tell one side of the story, I'll tell the other, & we'll all be happy.

I know of a company that does electric conversions and as soon as I have the money saved, I have about half of it, I will be getting both a VW GTI and a Beetle converted to electric. They run great. You can believe what you like. All I know is that GM would have made over 1MIL selling their EV-1s and they chose to scrap them instead and turn their backs on the money. They already had made the vehicles, why not take the money? It's not a mystery, but propaganda according to you. Believe what you like.

 

[Rich Parsons]

The EV-1 is all propaganda? Well, you can tell one side of the story, I'll tell the other, & we'll all be happy.

Well here comes a warning to me most likely. :bs:


I said the movie you referenced about Who killed the Electric Car? was a propaganda movie. It was presented with a slant and with an agenda.

I never said the the EV-1 the electric car that everyone references, but only 800 were leased. WOW now that is impact to the system.

I guess Honda and Toyota sure did follow the California regulations and make a zero tail pipe emission vehicle back in the mid 90's?

Nope it is all the fault of the one who did try and got all the negative press for it.

You did not address anything about the legal issue with Lead.

You did not mention anything about the MANY MANY MANY you reference and bring forth how many in actual numbers.


You are right you can tell your story, and I will continue to quote data.

We can even start a poll to see how many people think your emotional arguements stand the test versus the reference to some data.

I know of a company that does electric conversions and as soon as I have the money saved, I have about half of it, I will be getting both a VW GTI and a Beetle converted to electric. They run great. You can believe what you like. All I know is that GM would have made over 1MIL selling their EV-1s and they chose to scrap them instead and turn their backs on the money. They already had made the vehicles, why not take the money? It's not a mystery, but propaganda according to you. Believe what you like.

:bs:

GM would not as they did not have the sales. There was no money, but money they spent. Did you even read the reference of 800 vehicles and $1,000,000,000 spent. Not a very good return at any price.

Takign the money and then getting sued I mentioned for not being socially above board and what happens to all those lead batteries. They get dumped, and who do people bring legal cases against, oh wait I already said so, those with perceived deep pockets.

Yep go ahead and keep your emotions going. Never look at any data.

Once again I repeat:
What electric car did Toyota build?
What electric car did VW build?
What electric car did Honda Build?

I agree there are others out there, and many of them are performance vehicles know with 6 figures to get into one. $100,000 Plus to get one. Real cost effective there.

If it was so great why did not more people lease them?

People are mad because they could not buy them, fine. I agree, but the lawyers were involved and determined to high a risk for disposal of batteries. So, is it the fault of the only company who made a production model and tried to sell them to the general people, or is it the fault of the legal system.

The best thing GM and any long time company could do would be to close their doors for a lenght of time to not be sued anymore and then re-open their doors under a new name. Walk away from all legal obligations. Of course this would be a major issue for the workers and also for customer loyalty and brand name recognition. So, it might not be the best soltution. So instead they make ust like other companies decisions based upon risk and exposure. Be mad yes. Do not buy from them becuase you are mad fine. But get the data correct, and make honest statements not half statements to true to skew things to the way you feel so you can feel batter about your anger.



Good luck on the conversations. I do not know about them, and will investigate.

Is it 100% electric?
Is it Hyrbid?
If Hybrid what is the electric usage?
i.e. amount of electric availablility before the IC engine has to be used?
i.e. what type of improvement does it give to fuel economy?
Does the conversation kit also switch the fuel system to actualy make it a PZEV (* Patial Zero Emission Vehicle *)?

What type of batteries are used?
Who is the supplier of the batteries?

 

[Blotan Hunka]

[sarcasm]You think a company should PROFIT?? Rich, dont you know that THIS IS FOR THE CHILDREN!! GM should be building these things out of a sense of social/eco responsibility.[/sarcasm]

 

[Doc_Jude]

I said the movie you referenced about Who killed the Electric Car? was a propaganda movie. It was presented with a slant and with an agenda.

Yeah, unlike any other marketing program. What do you think the "agenda" was?

I never said the the EV-1 the electric car that everyone references, but only 800 were leased. WOW now that is impact to the system.

It could have been. It was definitely an impact upon those that GM allowed to lease. They loved them.

Nope it is all the fault of the one who did try and got all the negative press for it.

They got bad press not for what they tried to do but for what they did do, and then covered up. Such as making a great EV, with new batteries that were twice as good being right around the corner, and THEY KNEW IT.

You did not address anything about the legal issue with Lead.

Yes, lead and cadmium batteries are bad, but they were going to replace them with NiMH batteries from Ovonics, & all they had to do was SAY THAT. Ovshinky had already had good demonstration. See HERE.

You did not mention anything about the MANY MANY MANY you reference and bring forth how many in actual numbers.

Thousands of people wanted them, GM only allowed a fraction of those that applied for leases to actually drive them. You know that. But it's just propaganda, huh?

You are right you can tell your story, and I will continue to quote data.

We can even start a poll to see how many people think your emotional arguements stand the test versus the reference to some data.



:bs:

GM would not as they did not have the sales. There was no money, but money they spent. Did you even read the reference of 800 vehicles and $1,000,000,000 spent. Not a very good return at any price.

Check research figures. How much money is spent on most vehicles, when you combine R&D & Marketing?

Besides, GM made the EV1 to comply with California Emissions regs. I doubt that even they thought it would work so well, especially with the NiMH batteries that were less than two years away.

GM: Sell Us Your EV1 Cars!

Large NiMH batteries are perfect for EVs, and were developed and patented by Ovonics Battery. However, in 1994, General Motors acquired a controlling interest in Ovonics's battery development and manufacturing, including patents controlling the manufacturing of large nickel metal hydride (NiMH) batteries. In 2001, Texaco purchased GM's share in GM Ovonics. A few months later, Chevron acquired Texaco. In 2003, Texaco Ovonics Battery Systems was restructutred into Cobasys, a 50/50 joint venture between Chevron and Energy Conversion Devices (ECD) Ovonics. Now they will only sell large NiMH batteries in enormous quantities, quantities that would only fulfill orders for an entire car model's annual production.
GM could have been on the cutting edge of EV production and development, but NO, they caved to Big Oil. Who would have thunk it? Yeah, industry only exists to make money for their stockholders and execs. That's the way to think. Why spend $1BIL when you're going to be selling ev's world-wide? Doesn't make any sense at all... :wink2:

Takign the money and then getting sued I mentioned for not being socially above board and what happens to all those lead batteries. They get dumped, and who do people bring legal cases against, oh wait I already said so, those with perceived deep pockets.

It wouldn't have mattered since the NiMH batteries were ready to install. No more Cadmium, no Lead batteries. NiMH batteries have longer life, hold more charge, and are easy to recycle. But, then the EV1 wouldn't make as much as the Hummer, so let's dump it. GM doesn't need to be socially responsible, or ethical, huh?

Yep go ahead and keep your emotions going. Never look at any data.

What data? I'm posting the only valid info.

Once again I repeat:
What electric car did Toyota build?
What electric car did VW build?
What electric car did Honda Build?

Why don't you tell us, you seem so excited about it.

I agree there are others out there, and many of them are performance vehicles know with 6 figures to get into one. $100,000 Plus to get one. Real cost effective there.

That's because the company is passing the cost onto the consumer, unlike internal combustion models. I thought you claimed to know how this all worked.

When a new design for a viable large hi-cap battery comes out, it gets bought up by Big Oil. Why is that?

If it was so great why did not more people lease them?

The question is "Why did not more people GET TO lease them?"

People are mad because they could not buy them, fine. I agree, but the lawyers were involved and determined to high a risk for disposal of batteries. So, is it the fault of the only company who made a production model and tried to sell them to the general people, or is it the fault of the legal system.

Who knows? Who cares? With Industry greasing palms all over the place, from medications to toys, why didn't Detroit use its influence to get the EV rolling? That's a question that we all know the answer to. They made more money off of the Hummer, with it's low MPG and many replaceable parts. But, you already know all this.
It's all about the Benjamins...

The best thing GM and any long time company could do would be to close their doors for a lenght of time to not be sued anymore and then re-open their doors under a new name. Walk away from all legal obligations. Of course this would be a major issue for the workers and also for customer loyalty and brand name recognition. So, it might not be the best soltution. So instead they make ust like other companies decisions based upon risk and exposure. Be mad yes. Do not buy from them becuase you are mad fine. But get the data correct, and make honest statements not half statements to true to skew things to the way you feel so you can feel batter about your anger.

Or.... they (GM) could produce and market an actual EV line, such as the new EV1 and S10 EV (cough) with the new& improved large NiMH batteries that were such a threat that GM bought the battery manufacturer before too many found out about them. Thumb their nose at Big Oil, produce a reasonable EV line, sell the hell out of them and earn the respect and loyalty of the American Consumer again. I have a great marketing slogan. "Screw it to Terrorism: Buy an EV!" With the new batteries out there, the only vehicles that would need hybrid tech would be work trucks and the like and those could easily be bio-diesel or ethanol. I doubt that our domestic trucking fleet could be totally EV, so get Volvo or PB or KW to start making Bio-Diesel tractors.

Good luck on the conversations. I do not know about them, and will investigate.

Yeah, I'm looking forward to the conversations. Heh.

I'd share more with you... but I don't want to.

 

[Rich Parsons]

[sarcasm]You think a company should PROFIT?? Rich, dont you know that THIS IS FOR THE CHILDREN!! GM should be building these things out of a sense of social/eco responsibility.[/sarcasm]

MY apologies. :asian:

 

[Rich Parsons]

Yeah, unlike any other marketing program. What do you think the "agenda" was?


It could have been. It was definitely an impact upon those that GM allowed to lease. They loved them.

They got bad press not for what they tried to do but for what they did do, and then covered up. Such as making a great EV, with new batteries that were twice as good being right around the corner, and THEY KNEW IT.

Yes, lead and cadmium batteries are bad, but they were going to replace them with NiMH batteries from Ovonics, & all they had to do was SAY THAT. Ovshinky had already had good demonstration. See HERE.


Thousands of people wanted them, GM only allowed a fraction of those that applied for leases to actually drive them. You know that. But it's just propaganda, huh?




Check research figures. How much money is spent on most vehicles, when you combine R&D & Marketing?

Besides, GM made the EV1 to comply with California Emissions regs. I doubt that even they thought it would work so well, especially with the NiMH batteries that were less than two years away.

GM: Sell Us Your EV1 Cars!

Large NiMH batteries are perfect for EVs, and were developed and patented by Ovonics Battery. However, in 1994, General Motors acquired a controlling interest in Ovonics's battery development and manufacturing, including patents controlling the manufacturing of large nickel metal hydride (NiMH) batteries. In 2001, Texaco purchased GM's share in GM Ovonics. A few months later, Chevron acquired Texaco. In 2003, Texaco Ovonics Battery Systems was restructutred into Cobasys, a 50/50 joint venture between Chevron and Energy Conversion Devices (ECD) Ovonics. Now they will only sell large NiMH batteries in enormous quantities, quantities that would only fulfill orders for an entire car model's annual production.
GM could have been on the cutting edge of EV production and development, but NO, they caved to Big Oil. Who would have thunk it? Yeah, industry only exists to make money for their stockholders and execs. That's the way to think. Why spend $1BIL when you're going to be selling ev's world-wide? Doesn't make any sense at all... :wink2:




It wouldn't have mattered since the NiMH batteries were ready to install. No more Cadmium, no Lead batteries. NiMH batteries have longer life, hold more charge, and are easy to recycle. But, then the EV1 wouldn't make as much as the Hummer, so let's dump it. GM doesn't need to be socially responsible, or ethical, huh?

What data? I'm posting the only valid info.

Why don't you tell us, you seem so excited about it.

That's because the company is passing the cost onto the consumer, unlike internal combustion models. I thought you claimed to know how this all worked.

When a new design for a viable large hi-cap battery comes out, it gets bought up by Big Oil. Why is that?



The question is "Why did not more people GET TO lease them?"


Who knows? Who cares? With Industry greasing palms all over the place, from medications to toys, why didn't Detroit use its influence to get the EV rolling? That's a question that we all know the answer to. They made more money off of the Hummer, with it's low MPG and many replaceable parts. But, you already know all this.
It's all about the Benjamins...



Or.... they (GM) could produce and market an actual EV line, such as the new EV1 and S10 EV (cough) with the new& improved large NiMH batteries that were such a threat that GM bought the battery manufacturer before too many found out about them. Thumb their nose at Big Oil, produce a reasonable EV line, sell the hell out of them and earn the respect and loyalty of the American Consumer again. I have a great marketing slogan. "Screw it to Terrorism: Buy an EV!" With the new batteries out there, the only vehicles that would need hybrid tech would be work trucks and the like and those could easily be bio-diesel or ethanol. I doubt that our domestic trucking fleet could be totally EV, so get Volvo or PB or KW to start making Bio-Diesel tractors.


Yeah, I'm looking forward to the conversations. Heh.

I'd share more with you... but I don't want to.

So you are hung up not on the cost to the company.

Not on having valid data but relavent to yourself.

To answer your question, thee were no other EV vehicles in the market at the time for a reasobale price if you consider the EV priced reasonable in the first place.

The batteries are still not there for the durability cycles. Anyone can make one work. Yes Toyota and Honda have them out there, and they did a good job. No disrespect to them or their products.

How does one address having to leave open your windows to keep your battery from over heating in the hot south east, oh I get it since it is nto GM which you obvious dislike just everyone else who is green or in the media, or wants to point out how much they have failed, and not reference that they have more cars of 30 mpg for sale. Of course this is before the new Fuel economy calculations that are now out. Note: Check out the manufactures and see which ones dropped the most. You might be surprised to see GM and Ford at the top or their numbers on the sticker being closer than what real world gets on other vehicles.

Agendas, yes companies build things to sell. If people do not buy them they do not sell they unload them and they build something else if they get a chance. The EV one did not have the numbers. The current hybrid numbers are not good either. But GM has a partner ships with Chrysler, Diamler, BMW and possible others, to develop the hardware and control strategy and then sell it to these partners. The new Chrysler and Diamlers and BMW willhave the GM system in them. The return is nto expected to be great, but because of the negative backlash of the EV-1 and other such issue, they are required even if you only sell 1,000 to 13,000 of a name plate a year. This way you can claim hybrid presence and have good press. And spend lots of money on the development and even in this case I do not think it is $1,000,000,000 (* Yes Billion Dollars *). A new engine program or transmisison program that costs $500,000,000 is alot. When all said in done the new hybrid systems might total out over to a billion, but without the partnership the costs would not be affordable.

GM also developed a new 6 speed transmission and went and sold it to Ford. they did the control strategy, and the reason Imention this is that the press liked the GM more thna the Ford. So, we one of the partners goes off and develops their own control strategy you might realize that it is their software and algorithms and not the EVIL GM's.

 

[Doc_Jude]

[EDIT] Scratch that. I'm out. Enjoy your world view of greed and social irresponsibility.

 

[Carol]

Moderator Note:

Attention All Users

Please keep the conversation polite and respectful.

Thank you,

- Carol Kaur -
- MT Moderator -