backtop


Print 33 comment(s) - last by Keeir.. on Jun 10 at 5:20 PM

Honda leads the EV efficiency pack

Honda is bragging that his new 2013 Fit EV is leading the highest ever mile per gallon equivalency rating for an electric vehicle at 118 MPGe. To put that in perspective, the other EVs on the market come close, but fall just short of that 118 MPGe rating.
 
The Ford Focus Electric has rating of 110 MPGe, while the Prius plug-in hybrid gets 95 MPGe. The Chevrolet Volt is rated for 95 MPGe, and the Mitsubishi I EV has a 115 MPGe rating.
 
Honda estimates that the annual fuel costs for operating the Fit EV will be about $500. The little car promises 100 miles per charge of driving range from the 20 kWh lithium-ion battery pack. The Fit EV has combined city/highway driving range estimated 82 miles.
 
Honda designed the car to be efficient with a highly efficient powertrain design and weight conscious engineering combined with effective aerodynamics so the Fit is able to get a longer driving range from its smaller battery pack than other electric vehicles. The smaller battery pack also means faster charging time. Honda promises the Fit EV can charge in under three hours from the low charge indicator light coming on when connected to a 240 V circuit.

 
"Just as important as the industry-leading fuel-efficiency and fast recharging time, as a Honda, the 2013 Fit EV will be an absolute kick to drive," said Steve Center, vice president of the American Honda Environmental Business Development Office.
 
Honda plans to market the Fit EV in select California in emerging markets starting this summer and then roll the vehicle out on the East Coast in 2013.

Source: Honda



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Available for lease only?
By immortalsly on 6/6/2012 11:36:39 AM , Rating: 2
Other new sources are saying the Fit EV is only available for lease for $399/month. Is that a common practice for electric vehicles or is this just a one-off for Honda (since they're only making 1,100 of them)?




RE: Available for lease only?
By danjw1 on 6/6/2012 11:59:44 AM , Rating: 2
I believe this kind of thing has been done with other cars. I think mostly with alternative fuel cars(i.e. natural gas, electric).


RE: Available for lease only?
By Rage187 on 6/6/2012 12:24:12 PM , Rating: 2
they do this with new technologies in case they decide not to go that route and end up shredding the cars. There is an interesting article about this happening to the original EV1 from GM. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_EV1


RE: Available for lease only?
By Flunk on 6/6/2012 12:16:53 PM , Rating: 2
This is the same sales model that Honda leased the FCX Clarity fuel cell model under. It sounds like this is more of a market trial than a real mass market product.


RE: Available for lease only?
By FITCamaro on 6/6/2012 2:18:21 PM , Rating: 2
/lolspit

$399/month? You could buy a regular Fit to own it for what? $300/month if you didn't put anything down?


RE: Available for lease only?
By tayb on 6/6/2012 3:04:59 PM , Rating: 2
Base model Fit with no upgrades, accessories, or options will be ~$320 depending on APR and loan length. Depending on how much you drive (max ~ 80 miles a day or ~20,000 a year) you could easily come out ahead with the EV.

You don't own the car but a lot of people would prefer to lease an EV due to battery degradation. A lot of people just prefer to lease in general.


By bobsmith1492 on 6/6/2012 3:20:33 PM , Rating: 2
A lot of people are very bad with money management, too...


RE: Available for lease only?
By Calin on 6/7/2012 3:45:43 AM , Rating: 1
If they sell the car to you, they MUST provide service/repairs/components for the rated life of the vehicle. Doing this for a one thousand car run is prohibitely expensive (the vehicle's rated life would be about 10 years).
Low prices come from automated lines churning things by the millions - building one (or hundred) components is very expensive in terms of setup costs


Good to see
By Paj on 6/6/2012 12:48:11 PM , Rating: 1
Rather than being a revolutionary product, this continues the process of iterative development of EVs. Slightly lighter, slightly cheaper for what you get, slightly more range.

Now all the major manufacturers are on board with EVs, the tipping point is drawing closer - eventually the Model T equivalent EV will arrive, and everyone will start buying them. Just a question of which company will get it first.




RE: Good to see
By kmmatney on 6/6/2012 1:31:21 PM , Rating: 2
It is good to see progress, but I think we'll still need hybrid cars for some time. I would love to see a plug-in hybrid with 100 miles of electric range, and a combustion engine to extend the range or to get you by between charges. That would probably be enough for me to buy one.


RE: Good to see
By Paj on 6/8/2012 7:31:04 AM , Rating: 2
Agreed. As soon as these sorts of metrics are achievable, it will be the tipping point. ICE will eventually go the way of the steam train.


RE: Good to see
By Arsynic on 6/6/12, Rating: 0
RE: Good to see
By lennylim on 6/6/2012 2:08:11 PM , Rating: 2
You left out "and has a range of over X miles". I left out the value of X because everyone has a different criteria.


RE: Good to see
By Reclaimer77 on 6/6/2012 2:45:55 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Now all the major manufacturers are on board with EVs


I wouldn't call being forced to provide EV's to meet CAFE fleet averages and other regulations as "being on board".

As long as ICE cars are around and affordable, you can kiss your dream of "everyone" buying EV's goodbye. The Model T had practically no competition, not the same as today.

The Libs and greenies know this which is why they are doing their best to lay down the blueprint for making sure ICE cars aren't around in the future.


RE: Good to see
By Keeir on 6/7/2012 2:01:04 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
The Model T had practically no competition, not the same as today.


Sigh. Why do you do this Reclaimer?

Not only did the Model T have lots of competition, the Model T wasn't even the closet to be the "cheapest" car available at the time. There was several cars cheaper.

The Model T was the first automobile that offered significant value in regards to cost and reached a level of mass production that made it nearly impossible to produce a comparable product at a comparable price. Notably it was neither the cheapest, nor the best feature set. Nor was it the first car produced on an assembly line.

But the Model T does show something. Ford's car immediately proceeding the Model T, the Model N/S was roughly the same price and had similiar performance. As far as I can tell (not being a car historian) the largest difference was the Model T had 4 seats and the Model N/S had 2. With a fair simple change, even without a price reduction, the automobile went from a niche item to a mass market item... in 1 product generation.


RE: Good to see
By lelias2k on 6/7/2012 9:51:45 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Sigh. Why do you do this Reclaimer?


Seriously? You probably haven't read his posts before. lol


RE: Good to see
By Paj on 6/8/2012 7:29:02 AM , Rating: 2
Again, I'm talking about the world, not just the US.

Most European manufacturers are about to launch entire ranges of EVs - small, medium, family, transit - and expect them to sell better in countries that aren't the USA due to the anti-intellectual, anti-green fervour there.


Also the Highest Ever "Ugly Rating"
By Arsynic on 6/6/12, Rating: 0
RE: Also the Highest Ever "Ugly Rating"
By Reclaimer77 on 6/6/2012 12:24:34 PM , Rating: 1
lol yeah they took one of the ugliest cars on the road, the Fit, and managed to make it even worst! That truly IS a feat of engineering worthy of print. I wonder what this team could do with the Pontiac Aztec..hmmmm


RE: Also the Highest Ever "Ugly Rating"
By Paj on 6/6/2012 12:44:16 PM , Rating: 2
Haha its not Aztec bad, surely?

I'm surprised they didn't carry over some styling cues from the latest Civic. I love the way that car looks.


RE: Also the Highest Ever "Ugly Rating"
By BioHazardous on 6/6/2012 1:04:56 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Haha its not Aztec bad, surely?


I used to think it was the ugliest car ever as well until Breaking Bad. Now I'm just kind of used to how it looks. Plus that car can apparently take and/or dish out a beating.


By ppardee on 6/6/2012 3:39:37 PM , Rating: 2
I think it was used in BB to reinforce the 'down and out' aspect of the main character... kinda like "This guy's so bad off, he can only afford an Aztec! I mean, who in their right mind would buy one of these things if they had any other choice?"


By FITCamaro on 6/7/2012 8:59:38 AM , Rating: 2
I actually like the sharp edged looks of my buddies Fit.


How green
By superstition on 6/7/2012 12:50:57 AM , Rating: 1
How green is the coal power that powers many of these?

According to some, plug-in hybrids and EVs are less green than conventional hybrids because of coal plant sourced electricity. I suppose that's especially true for plants that lack mercury traps. Coal power is the primary source of mercury pollution, pollution that has made most fish into the equivalent of toxic waste to a significant degree, especially for pregnant women.




RE: How green
By Keeir on 6/7/2012 2:05:35 AM , Rating: 2
Sigh. Why always this red herring.

US electrical production is sourced from many different areas. Coal power accounts for less than 50% since 2000. Today I think its less than 40%.

An EV that is 100% powered by Coal will be slightly more polluting than a Prius type Strong Hybrid. Its true. But the difference is very slight. When taking the US power grid as a whole into account, EVs are significantly cleaner than even a Prius type Strong Hybrid. If Natural Gas is used (marginal power generation in most areas), then its not even close.


RE: How green
By superstition on 6/8/2012 12:26:27 AM , Rating: 2
"Coal power accounts for less than 50% since 2000. Today I think its less than 40%."

That's a huge amount, hardly an example of herring.

"An EV that is 100% powered by Coal will be slightly more polluting than a Prius type Strong Hybrid. Its true. But the difference is very slight."

Not according to the analysis I read. The analysis I read made it clear that it's simply not green to get a plug-in, let alone a full EV.


RE: How green
By maugrimtr on 6/8/2012 11:02:01 AM , Rating: 2
In the analyses I read, EVs give rise to less pollution. The less % of coal plants in an area, the better. Spreading any one plant's pollution output over N number of appliances makes this a simple math problem that is already widely publicised. The idea of EV's merely shifting the pollution source is just a myth - they are far less polluting than a gas burning ICE.

In any event, we should be rapidly replacing coal plants. Fine, "green" types get the most positive treatment here but building modern nuclear plants where the risk of a meltdown is basically zero (through modern design and the marvels of science invented after the 1950s) should also be pursued.


RE: How green
By Keeir on 6/10/2012 5:20:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
That's a huge amount, hardly an example of herring.


Yes, because most people (like you) who bring up the arguement like to take 100% numbers. If you multiplied by 50% or 40%, then it wouldn't be such misdirection.

quote:
The analysis I read made it clear that it's simply not green to get a plug-in, let alone a full EV.


Post a link. I am sure it's riddled with problems. A few common ones are the "100% Coal" and the "gasoline is free to make" issues.

The -very- best Strong Hybrid sold in the US gets ~50 miles per gallon of gasoline. Too bad gasoline doesn't spring from the ground.

Adding in refinary inefficieny (per Argonne National Lab. and DOE figures) it takes roughly .84 kWh of Oil to be deliered to a refinary to make a Prius go ~1 mile.

If this Honda Fit at ~3.5 miles per kWh of energy from the wall takes into account DOE estimates for transmission losses and power plant efficient, it takes roughly .9 kWh of Coal delievered to power plants to go one mile. (It takes roughly .3 kWh to travel one mile)

As of 2011, the US power grid for large utilities looks like this 42% Coal, 26% Natural Gas, 32% Nuclear, Renewables. This leads to 1 Fit EV mile requiring ~.55 kWh of Coal + Natural Gas and .1 kWh of Renewables/Nuclear.

The Fit EV would use ~35% less fossil fuels per mile that Prius and ~60% than the standard Fit.

(Now in this situation I've assumed it takes roughly the same energy to pump oil from the ground and get it to a refinary per kWh then Natural Gas/Coal. This is not really a great assumption, but insufficient data exists to do a good estimate for the entire US market for these variables)


MPGe == dumb
By chromal on 6/6/2012 2:04:08 PM , Rating: 3
Does anyone else thing MPGe is a stupid metric. Gallons of electricity? What the hell... Wouldn't miles per kilowatt hour (MPKWh) make infinitely more sense? I don't know what 118 MPGe even means. How much will my electric bill go up if I recharge a car so-rated solely at home? Stupid metric.




RE: MPGe == dumb
By lennylim on 6/6/2012 2:18:50 PM , Rating: 2
I agree completely. For now, multiply MPGe by 0.0292 to get miles/kWh. 118 MPGe = 3.45 miles/kWh (according to Wikipedia)

Doesn't quite square up to 1 gallon of gasoline = 34.02 kWh (also according to Wikipedia) but close enough.


RE: MPGe == dumb
By OnyxNite on 6/6/2012 2:39:22 PM , Rating: 2
I believe pure electric ratings are also available but to a consumer who hasn't committed to buying only electric cars the MPGe rating is designed to give them a point of comparison between electric and gas. How would they compare miles per kilowatt hour on the EV they are looking at to miles per hour on the gas car?


meaningless number
By senbassador on 6/6/2012 6:21:45 PM , Rating: 2
Ok, so it gets "118 MPH". Thats a pretty meaningless figure. So how much electricity does it use, compared to the Ford Focus (which only gets 100 MPH)?

Don't get me wrong, electric cars are probably better for the environment and your wallet in the long run; but how are we supposed to be rational consumers if we just know the MPH, but have no idea how much electricity they will use, and how to do a side-by-side comparison.




RE: meaningless number
By Darksurf on 6/7/2012 10:45:39 AM , Rating: 2
NOT MPH! MPGe, you aren't paying attention. And this is new innovation is all great and dandy, but for people who live in states with lots of farms and ranches and drive 60mi one way to work, this car is useless. If they can give me 200mi range, then I'll be set.


"Well, there may be a reason why they call them 'Mac' trucks! Windows machines will not be trucks." -- Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki