# Honda skipping the plug-in hybrids....



## webbie (Nov 6, 2007)

They may have a point:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119313344275568239.html?mod=yahoo_hs&ru=yahoo

""My feeling is that the kind of plug-in hybrid currently proposed by different auto makers can be best described as a battery electric vehicle equipped with an unnecessary fuel engine and fuel tank," Mr. Fukui told a group of journalists Tuesday at the company's research and development center here, north of Tokyo."


----------



## jjbaer (Nov 7, 2007)

Webmaster said:
			
		

> They may have a point:
> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119313344275568239.html?mod=yahoo_hs&ru=yahoo
> 
> ""My feeling is that the kind of plug-in hybrid currently proposed by different auto makers can be best described as a battery electric vehicle equipped with an unnecessary fuel engine and fuel tank," Mr. Fukui told a group of journalists Tuesday at the company's research and development center here, north of Tokyo."



sounds like sour grapes to me............most trips around town are well under 40 miles and so most people on daily short trips will be running this car on electricity.  Since it recharges from a standard A/C outlet, most people can use this car and recharge it in their own garages.  This also means that your "fuel" cost per mile is about a whopping 2-3 cents/mile as opposed to 15 cents/mile for a gas car (assumes $3/gallon gas and 20 MPG around town).  Even the Prius (realistically gets about 44 MPG in town) costs about 7 cents/mile for fuel in town........

And....drum roll....for you eco weenies out there, emisisons at power plants are about 20% less than if the same energy was provided from a car engine because emisisons from a few large plants are easier to control than are those coming from 100 million individual tail pipes.....


----------



## webbie (Nov 7, 2007)

Time will tell. Even Toyota seems to say that the Hydrid is an in-between measure, so perhaps it is smart business for Honda to allow them to take that market while they concentrate on leapfrogging. In other words, not every car company is going to take each evolutionary step.

In terms of complexity, it goes without saying that a hydrid is vastly more complex than a gas only or a battery-only model. 

I think you are right on the central plants being less polluting - the difference could be even greater if plants were tuned up and cleaned up more. That still does not solve the transmission and generation losses, but multiple small scale bio, solar, wind, geothermal and even other (oil, gas) units could.

When I was in Denmark they proudly showed me the oil generation station (electric) in their tiny town. It had a glass front - like a brewery, and you could eat off the floor in there. It was a way of saying "we're not hiding anything". Since it was all grid-tied, and windmills provide a lot of night time power, the local oil plant was turned on only in the middle of the day.

There will never be a time when technology stops marching forward....and that is a good thing.


----------



## jjbaer (Nov 7, 2007)

Webmaster said:
			
		

> Time will tell. Even Toyota seems to say that the Hydrid is an in-between measure, so perhaps it is smart business for Honda to allow them to take that market while they concentrate on leapfrogging. In other words, not every car company is going to take each evolutionary step.



My guess is that GM will be continually trying to improve those batteries and when able, they'll make the leap to an all-electric vehicle and discard the engine. So I don't think others will beat them to it but it will be interesting watching them get there. Then comes the rub: I can foresee a time, very soon, when the flood of all electric cars into the market out-strips our current generating capacity.............then the cost of power rises and some of the allure of a previously cheaper all-electric car fades........




			
				Webmaster said:
			
		

> When I was in Denmark they proudly showed me the oil generation station (electric) in their tiny town. It had a glass front - like a brewery, and you could eat off the floor in there. It was a way of saying "we're not hiding anything". Since it was all grid-tied, and windmills provide a lot of night time power, the local oil plant was turned on only in the middle of the day.
> 
> There will never be a time when technology stops marching forward....and that is a good thing.




Saw something similar in Norway....don't know if it was a generating plant because I didn't see any stack....


----------



## myzamboni (Nov 7, 2007)

Honda comes out with the technology . . .and Toyota captures market share with said technology.


----------



## webbie (Nov 7, 2007)

Well, today GM reported a quarterly loss of 39 billion, the 2nd largest loss in US history...of any corporation. This amounts to about $68 per share - never mind that the shares sell for less than $35. Putting that in perspective, this is like telling you that you should invest $30 with me and make profits. Then in three months I tell you the $30 is gone and you owe me $38 more to get to square one.

Toyota today also announced record profits, beating estimates.

Given GM's history, I would have to see a LOT more from them than one Chevy. I simply will not support a car company that has turned its head and built Hummers for the past decades while Rome burned. Corporate "mission" DOES matter, and their seems to have been build whatever some one might buy. (even Osama is rumored to have a fleet of Suburbans)...

No, if I am going to vote with my $$$, it is going to be for a car company that at least seems to be headed in the right direction.


----------



## jjbaer (Nov 7, 2007)

Webmaster said:
			
		

> No, if I am going to vote with my $$$, it is going to be for a car company that at least seems to be headed in the right direction.



I see.....so GM coming out in less than 10 months with a plug-in vehicle isn't "heading in the right direction".........is that correct???????


----------



## KeithO (Nov 8, 2007)

If you believe the statement you just made, then you know something that a lot of us pretty close to detroit do not know.  The Volt appeared in a trade show as a concept car.   GM is probably at least 2-3 years from being able to build the thing and that is if they don't decide to cancel the program and import more smaller cars from Korea and China.  And if they do build the Volt, there is nothing to say that they will not have recall after recall and lose money on it head over heels.  Toyota and Honda have been at it for quite a while and getting it right.



			
				castiron said:
			
		

> Webmaster said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## webbie (Nov 8, 2007)

Cast knows all....that is, until anyone who actually knows says anything

 %-P


----------



## KeithO (Nov 8, 2007)

I don't know who cast is and so i won't pretend to know what he knows.  What I can say though is that the development cycle of any new car runs at least 3 years.  Thats how long it takes to develop the prototype, fix the specification, find vendors, get the vendors tooled up, check that the vendors can actually produce what they committed to and meet the specification etc etc etc.  Not to mention the hundreds of thousands of miles of accelerated durability testing.

All of the above is enough of a job (in a game that the big 3 are currently losing).  Now consider that one of the big 3 are saying that they are not only going to beat their "regular" launch performance, but they are going to do it with a completely new (to them) technology....

I think it is all posturing to try to influence the stock value without any committment to any finite long term plan.

Just to get back to the primary topic of this thread, being plug in Hybrids:

There is absolutely nothing wrong with the plug in hybrid concept.  In fact, it is the adaption that is needed to fit the demographics of the USA, which is after all a big country with a lot of wide open space and winter cold enough that you might freeze to death trapped in your all electric car if you run out of juice in the wrong place.  When you combine plug in hybrids with your own PV and wind generation, you have just kicked the butt of the oil companies in the worst possible way.  Yes, PV and wind may not be able to compete with coal station electricity, but compared to putting ever more expensive gas in your car, it wins hands down.   Now if the place you need to go is outside of reliable battery range, then of course you burn a litle gas and give the batteries a recharge.  Who can argue with that.

There is a reason why the plug in retrofit for the Prius is so popular, it increases commuting economy to close to 100mpg for very little cost.  To say that the market wouldn't adopt this in the form of a totally practical and sensible package like the Prius is complete BS.


----------



## jjbaer (Nov 8, 2007)

KeithO said:
			
		

> If you believe the statement you just made, then you know something that a lot of us pretty close to detroit do not know.  The Volt appeared in a trade show as a concept car.   GM is probably at least 2-3 years from being able to build the thing and that is if they don't decide to cancel the program and import more smaller cars from Korea and China.  And if they do build the Volt, there is nothing to say that they will not have recall after recall and lose money on it head over heels.  Toyota and Honda have been at it for quite a while and getting it right.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Keith,

Good catch.....guess I missed it by about 18 months....looks like 2010...it's in the latest UAW contract.  You're correct that it may not make it to production but they should be out in 2010.  here's a link:

http://groovygreen.com/groove/index.php?tag=production


My bottom line still stands though....are we to understand that according to Craig that if GM produces a car like this that this is NOT heading in the right direction?  Think not because the next step is a fully electric vehicle so this is the first step.


----------



## KeithO (Nov 8, 2007)

The best thing GM could do would be to bring European small cars to the US as soon as possible.  They work, get good milage, and actually look OK. They have quite good small turbo diesels that get 50mpg plus that I am certain would sell well here.

I personally believe that fully electric vehicles will NEVER "make it" in the US so that is a dead end street.  There may be a limited market for pure short range commuters, but many families can only afford 1 car and a fully electric vehicle is very very limited in that application.

Something you don't seem to consider at all in this VOLT speculation is how much consumers would be prepared to pay for this gimick.  Would you pay $30k for one ?  How much would you pay ?  $25k ?  Remember that the Toyota Prius is $22k right now, not in 3 years time if it ever happens..  And the Prius is sold world wide and benefits from substantial production numbers.  The Volt, if it ever makes it is going to be greeted by a very sceptical US market.  Initial sales would most likely be dismal.  Within the next 3 years the US is going to see a huge influx of small turbo diesels from VW, BMW, Mercedes, and Toyota.   There may be no market for the Volt by the time all is said and done, when for $17k you can get a really efficient small turbodiesel with none of the superhightech associated with hybrids.



			
				castiron said:
			
		

> Keith,
> 
> Good catch.....guess I missed it by about 18 months....looks like 2010...it's in the latest UAW contract.  You're correct that it may not make it to production but they should be out in 2010.  here's a link:
> 
> ...


----------



## the_guad (Nov 8, 2007)

Anybody that hasn't heard of the Rocky Mountain Institute's Hypercar program, needs to check it out.  They basically designed a new concept vehicle from the ground up as not only an energy conserving transport, but an energy PRODUCING transport.  There was a great story about the program on the Science Channel a few weeks ago and it went into their theory that if you can get all of the cars on the road to run on fuel cells using the technology that they are pioneering that you would have 7x the electrical output being put into the grid as is being produced by the grid right now.  The cars would be so efficient that you would be plugging them into your home at night in order to sell power back to the grid instead of charging your vehicle.  

This is, supposedly (everyone must leave room for skepticism), going to be accomplished by creating cars with things like double paned windows and lightweight panels and chassis materials.   The double paned windows sound crazy until they explain that once you can control the amount of energy that it takes to heat/cool a vehicle that you can cut weight on things like the AC and battery.  Additionally, ultralightweight materials cost a lot of money to manufacture but they're combating this by creating these vehicles out of 14 pieces instead of the hundreds of pieces that cars currently have going into them.

It's a long way from the road, but these are the types of ideas that I think (IMHO) are going to change the world.

http://www.autobloggreen.com/2007/09/04/video-rmis-hypercar-a-100-mpg-suv-featuring-amory-lovins/


----------



## webbie (Nov 8, 2007)

castiron said:
			
		

> My bottom line still stands though....are we to understand that according to Craig that if GM produces a car like this that this is NOT heading in the right direction?  Think not because the next step is a fully electric vehicle so this is the first step.



Those are business decisions - but watching GM commercials and seeing them tout all their giant cars and trucks because they burn corn (which no one does) does not endear the company to me. That is all I am saying. So if they are just betting 5% of their R&D;on the volt, while Honda and others are spending 70% of their R&D;on various green technologies, I am going to vote with my $$ and support the company with the ideals closest to mine.

That is all I am saying.

If Lockheed Martin or Exxon produced a great woodstove, I probably would not buy it. Same thing, if I have a choice I'd rather feel slightly good about where my money is going. I know that is a game that is tough to win, but it works in a crude fashion.


----------



## TMonter (Nov 8, 2007)

> Honda comes out with the technology . . .and Toyota captures market share with said technology.



Actually the technology between the Honda version and the Toyota versions is quite different.



> Those are business decisions - but watching GM commercials and seeing them tout all their giant cars and trucks because they burn corn (which no one does) does not endear the company to me. That is all I am saying. So if they are just betting 5% of their R&D;on the volt, while Honda and others are spending 70% of their R&D;on various green technologies, I am going to vote with my $$ and support the company with the ideals closest to mine.



Actually you'd be better off on rewarding those who produce the best features that meet your needs. Doing this encourages the most useful technologies to advance.



> Anybody that hasn’t heard of the Rocky Mountain Institute’s Hypercar program, needs to check it out.  They basically designed a new concept vehicle from the ground up as not only an energy conserving transport, but an energy PRODUCING transport.  There was a great story about the program on the Science Channel a few weeks ago and it went into their theory that if you can get all of the cars on the road to run on fuel cells using the technology that they are pioneering that you would have 7x the electrical output being put into the grid as is being produced by the grid right now.  The cars would be so efficient that you would be plugging them into your home at night in order to sell power back to the grid instead of charging your vehicle.



Fuel cells have some pretty major limitations because of the air quality required entering the cell without poisoning the exchange membrane. It's a cool technology but I think it's at least 15 years out from a commercially viable product for the transportation industry.


----------



## KeithO (Nov 9, 2007)

Fuel cells were 15 years out .... 7 years ago.  Its like the pursuit of the holy grail.

Here is the VW Fox with 1.4 Tdi  56mpg highway  Costs $12k euro (about the same as what I paid 5 years ago, how about that for non inflation)  Now about $16800 (back then it was $10k, shows you which way the wind blows).   Does 110mph comfortably and handles / breaks like a dream.   With the turbo, it won't run out of steam in the rocky mountains at 14000 ft.


----------



## KeithO (Nov 9, 2007)

Citroen C1  54hp turbo diesel.  69.85 mpg highway cycle  11 250 Euro or $15 750

http://www.citroen.com/CWW/en-US/RANGE/PrivateCars/C1/default/C1_Presentation.htm


----------



## KeithO (Nov 9, 2007)

Toyota Aygo  1.4 Tdi 55hp  69.85 mpg highway  11150 Euro or $15610

http://www.toyota.nl/cars/new_cars/aygo/index.aspx


----------



## titan (Nov 9, 2007)

With the exception of different badges on the front grilles,those 3 cars are nearly identical.


----------



## KeithO (Nov 9, 2007)

Jeez, even my eyesight is better than that.  German, French and Japanese...  I bet the only thing that is on them that might be the same would be the tires and perhaps the fasteners, since they are metric.  The 3 different car makers couldn't possibly have more different aproaches to designing and building cars.


----------



## titan (Nov 9, 2007)

Those 3 toasters may come from geographically diverse manufacturers,but they were styled by some granny with the same old cookie cutter.


----------



## KeithO (Nov 9, 2007)

Wow, the same couldn't possibly be said of cars built in the USA ?



			
				Titan said:
			
		

> Those 3 toasters may come from geographically diverse manufacturers,but they were styled by some granny with the same old cookie cutter.


----------



## webbie (Nov 9, 2007)

The reason that a lot of cars look similar these days is that best wheel is round, and the best shape for cutting through the wind also looks a certain way. There is some flexibility, but not too much.


----------



## KeithO (Nov 9, 2007)

Craig, dont you feel cheated that you can't go down to the car dealer and buy an honest 60mpg car for less than $16k ?   I had to give up my VW Lupo when I moved to the US.  In retrospect that was a mistake.  Here are some numbers on drag coefficient x frontal area for vehicles sold in the US.  Interesting numbers.  The EV1 still holds the record.

CdA ft² Automobile model 
3.95 1996 GM EV1 
5.10 1999 Honda Insight 
5.71 1990 Honda CR-X Si 
5.76 1968 Toyota 2000GT 
5.80 1986 Toyota MR2 
5.81 1989 Mitsubishi Eclipse GSX 
5.88 1990 Nissan 240SX 
5.92 1994 Porsche 911 Speedster 
5.95 1990 Mazda RX7 
6.00 1970 Lamborghini Miura 
6.13 1993 Acura NSX 
6.17 1995 Lamborghini Diablo 
6.27 1986 Porsche 911 Carrera 
6.27 1992 Chevrolet Corvette 
6.35 1999 Lotus Elise 
6.40 1990 Lotus Esprit 
6.54 1991 Saturn Sports Coupe 
6.57 1985 Chevrolet Corvette 
6.77 1995 BMW M3 
6.79 1993 Toyota Corolla DX 
6.81 1991 Subaru Legacy 
6.90 1993 Saturn Wagon 
6.93 1982 Delorean DMC-12 
6.96 1988 Porsche 944 S 
6.96 1995 Chevrolet Lumina LS 
7.02 1992 BMW 325I 
7.04 1991 Honda Civic EX 
7.10 1995 Saab 900 
7.14 1995 Subaru Legacy L 
7.34 2001 Honda Civic 
7.39 1994 Honda Accord EX 
7.48 1993 Chevrolet Camaro Z28 
7.57 1992 Toyota Camry 
7.69 1994 Chrysler LHS 
7.72 1993 Subaru Impreza 
8.70 1990 Volvo 740 Turbo 
8.70 1992 Ford Crown Victoria 
8.71 1991 Buick LeSabre Limited 
9.54 1992 Chevrolet Caprice Wagon 
10.7 1992 Chevrolet Blazer 
11.6 2005 Ford Escape Hybrid 
11.7 1993 Jeep Grand Cherokee 
16.8 2006 Hummer H3 
17.4 1995 Land Rover Discovery 
26.5 2003 Hummer H2


----------



## TMonter (Nov 9, 2007)

> Craig, dont you feel cheated that you can’t go down to the car dealer and buy an honest 60mpg car for less than $16k ?



Actually there is a reason for that. Diesels until recently could not meet stringent US NOx standards. There are also far less cars and open spaces in Europe. I have to drive at least an hour, usually two to get to another city here, when I was in Europe that was almost unheard of.


----------



## velvetfoot (Nov 9, 2007)

No.
The reason there haven't been more diesel cars is Detroit's efforts sucked.
I've driven my TDI Beetle to Utah and back and it's very comfortabe and gets 50 mpg-currently have 210k miles on it.
Now, it seems to me the barrier will be the high price of diesel.
However, the siren call is strong:
http://www.vw.com/vwbuzz/browse/en/...debut_at_New_York_International_Auto_Show/136
http://www.autoblog.com/2007/05/08/diesel-vw-jetta-sportwagen-a-real-fuel-sipper/


----------



## titan (Nov 9, 2007)

Here's a candidate for a bio-diesel retrofit:maybe that would offset the high c.d.a.


----------



## TMonter (Nov 9, 2007)

> The reason there haven’t been more diesel cars is Detroit’s efforts sucked.



If this were the case other car manufacturers would be offering diesels but they are not. The fact is most diesels could not meet the 2005 and 2008 NOx standards which is why they were not offered.


----------



## velvetfoot (Nov 9, 2007)

???

Remember the Diesel Olds of the '80's?  Probably not.

Yes the NOx finally knocked off most diesel cars here, but VW sold them in 2006.
http://motors.search.ebay.com/searc...ch&fgtp;=&sadis2=100&fpos2=ZIP/Postal&lsot2;=

I think Mercedes came back sooner than VW.

http://www.mbusa.com/models/main.do?modelCode=E320BTEC


----------



## TMonter (Nov 9, 2007)

> Remember the Diesel Olds of the ‘80’s?  Probably not.



Actually I do. My roommate in college had a 79' VW rabbit. It was underpowered, noisy and hard starting in the winter. Mileage was all it had going for it. (about 40 MPG)



> Yes the NOx finally knocked off most diesel cars here, but VW sold them in 2006.



As I said most car manufacturers did not offer a diesel in recent years because of emissions. No one wants to go through engine development for a model that will only sell for three maybe four years before being illegal to sell.



> I think Mercedes came back sooner than VW.



Bah Mercedes is basically an overpriced VW.

base price is more than 50k, no way they'll sell more than a handful of cars in relative terms.


----------



## webbie (Nov 9, 2007)

Die, Hummer!


----------



## KeithO (Nov 9, 2007)

The BIG change in emissions in the USA came late summer of 2006.   Prior to that, most diesel vehicles in the US didn't have ANY form of aftertreatment other than a silencer and possibly some EGR.   Soot filters have been introduced in Europe in 1999, so it took 8 years of naysaying until they arrived here (mandated by the EPA).  Most of the current crop of European diesels will meet NOx requirements in the US until 2010.  Then selective catalytic reduction (Urea injection) will be required in most cases.   But guess what, the european regulations will require similar amounts of NOx reduction just a few years later, so the OE's will lose nothing by developing the technology for the US market earlier.

Just so we remember, SCR for NOx reduction has been in production in Europe on Mercedes trucks since 2003, which means that the technology would have been in production for 7 years before it becomes commercially available here in the US in 2010.

So the answer is not that the emission limits couldn't have been complied with.  The reality is that gas has historically been so cheap that the car manufacturers (and many consumers) didn't give a damn.  Add to that the fact that the US diesel quality has lagged behind the rest of the world (comparable to Russia) in terms of sulphur content and that is why better emission controls were not seen until the 2007 EPA regs FORCED the sulphur in the diesel to be cleaned up.  With that, a lot of the odor problems associated with diesel will go away.   Once many americans get to see what great motors the present generation of diesels are, they will never consider another gas motor again.  70% market share in Europe for diesel engines wasn't achieved because they ran like buckets of nails.



			
				TMonter said:
			
		

> > Remember the Diesel Olds of the ‘80’s?  Probably not.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------

