backtop


Print 87 comment(s) - last by Fireshade.. on Dec 15 at 11:39 AM


In a recent interview Honda's CEO says that making clean diesel vehicles is too challenging for his company.  (Source: Dealer Connection)

He says that his company would prefer to launch a mass-market fuel cell vehicle like the Honda FCX, but is currently unable to, due to lack of infrastructure. He says and EV is a possibility, but that EV's aren't much fun.  (Source: Web Wombat)

Honda's 2010 Insight hybrid vehicle has done moderately well, but been outsold by the Toyota Prius. Honda's CEO complains that Toyota is beating his company in green image due to a poor job by his company's salespeople.  (Source: Auto North)

Takanobu Ito has been CEO of Honda since February. He has worked for the company for 31 years.  (Source: AutoBlog)
He also comments that fuel cell technology is not ready for prime time due to infrastructure problems

In a recent interview with Autocar.co.uk, Honda's new CEO Takanobu Ito opened up about a variety of topics, including challenges facing his company.  Honda has long struggled under the role of playing second fiddle to Toyota in the green car market, despite being the first Japanese automaker to offer a limited-release hybrid vehicle.

Mr. Takanobu blames his company's salespeople in Europe for failing to convince customers that Honda is greener than Toyota (at least in the European market).  He states, "Our European sales people are largely to blame. We tried to enhance our position with the Civic hybrid but failed. But the CR-Z and Insight will help us enhance awareness that Honda is a green car maker. We also want to introduce the FCX to Europe and have started testing here."

He says that plans to offer more hybrid models in the U.S. or Europe, which has fewer Honda models, aren't likely.  He says his company thrives on efficiency and that more models would be damaging.  On the topic of platform reduction, he says that his company is working on that.  He states, "We will try to reduce the number of platforms, but this will take time."

When asked about why the company's clean diesel research was dropped, he blamed how tough it was to develop the technology.  He states, "It was too challenging to produce a commercialized clean diesel. We got it to work at a research and development level, but we couldn’t make it work commercially."

He sees electric vehicles as a possibility, but inferior to fuel cell vehicles.  He states, "The performance of batteries is evolving and there are possibilities. But the energy that can be stored is less than an internal combustion engine can produce, and with current battery technology electric vehicles are city commuters." He adds, "Honda has, from an early stage, worked on fuel cell vehicles. Battery EVs are heavy, not fun to drive and aren’t reliable, and when it comes to cars lighter is better. FCVs are going in that direction."

He says that fuel cell cost cuts are going well, stating, "We can do cost reduction and mass production of the technology. It’s simple to produce fuel cells; it’s the chemicals they use that cost money, along with the precious metals. But we can cut the cost of those, too."

However, he says FCVs (fuel cell vehicles) are unlikely to hit the mass market anytime soon due to lack of a hydrogen fuel infrastructure.

While some of Mr. Takanobu's comments may come off as blunt or controversial, one must consider that the CEO's career began as an engineer in the field of chassis design, and he is well grounded in technical matters, as well as business.  He began his career with Honda in 1978 and was named new CEO of the company this February.  In closing the interview, he said that Honda's focus in Europe and elsewhere would continue to be on making great small cars.



Comments     Threshold


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

What's wrong with Electric being "City Commuters"?
By Shig on 12/11/2009 11:36:17 AM , Rating: 2
Isn't human geography telling us that the vast majority of all people in the US will be living in metropolitan areas by 2025? With the majority of people's commutes being under 100 miles.




By corduroygt on 12/11/2009 11:49:54 AM , Rating: 5
More population density = more people living in places without garages = no way to charge their EV's.


RE: What's wrong with Electric being "City Commuters"?
By Shig on 12/11/2009 11:52:12 AM , Rating: 3
Good point. I guess we're always coming back to the infrastructure problem.

But that's still solveable.


By TheRequiem on 12/11/2009 12:10:26 PM , Rating: 5
I think the perception that we will transition very quickly to eletric vehicles is greatly exagerated. An infrastructure problem is in fact, solvable. However, it will take an extremely long period of time for a transition like this to take place. It will be 20 years from now and we will still see integration taking place and people driving gasoling engines.

While I think electric vehicles are the way of the future, I don't see them being part of everyday life for awhile.


By Shining Arcanine on 12/11/2009 4:13:02 PM , Rating: 1
That would force many college students to drop out of school. It would be better to just place a steep sales tax on new vehicles that either are inefficient or burn <insert fuel you want to eliminate here>. That way the transition will occur without pulling rugs out from under people.


By JediJeb on 12/11/2009 4:55:39 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Slap a $3/gallon tax on gasoline and watch how fast the transition happens.


More likely watch how fast our economy tanks. And what happens to those who have a 100mile one way commute? Or even a 50 mile commute when the EV range is not up to it? I guess they just have to go broke paying for fuel.

Making the EVs afforadable ( as in less than $20k) and reliable and have a range of 300 miles will make the transition faster, not forcing some tax on the fuel. Seems that was tried once before with Tea and a whole new nation was born.


By Zoomer on 12/11/2009 6:16:26 PM , Rating: 1
Instead of a $3/gal tax all at once, just phase it in linearly over a few years. It would mitigate the impact and cause a behavioural change without too much short term stress.


By lco45 on 12/13/2009 6:19:36 PM , Rating: 2
It is complicated. Perhaps keep the tax burden constant by reducing tax on other things (such as income).
Still, the people who have a hard time affording fuel probably aren't paying much tax in the first place so wouldn't get much benefit by a drop in income tax.
Complicated...

Luke


By Solandri on 12/11/2009 6:42:19 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Slap a $3/gallon tax on gasoline and watch how fast the transition happens.

Most of Europe has gas taxes around that level. They still drive mostly gasoline/diesel vehicles.

quote:
Aren't reliable? Like replacing 500 moving parts with a battery and some electric motors isn't going to eliminate most maintenance and car problems.

I think he meant the capacity/power output of batteries isn't reliable. It varies considerably with ambient temperature.


RE: What's wrong with Electric being "City Commuters"?
By lco45 on 12/13/2009 6:16:51 PM , Rating: 3
They do drive more efficient vehicles though, and it's not because Europeans are some different species that only wants small cars, it's just too costly to drive a big car in Europe.

Luke


By seeker353 on 12/14/2009 6:52:38 PM , Rating: 2
European vehicles are also not required to meet as stringent emissions requirements as ours are (ironic isn't it?). This allows the manufactures to tune their vehicles for higher mileage, instead of lower emissions.


By Fireshade on 12/15/2009 11:39:42 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
European vehicles are also not required to meet as stringent emissions requirements as ours are

Sorry, but that's totally crap. Please don't keep this myth alive.

Look up the EPA CO2 emissions and compare them between US and EU models. E.g. a Mazda 6 2.5L 4cil. 2WD Manual 6-speed (built 2009):
This model has an EPA greenhouse gas score of 6 for the state California, meaning 494-560 grams CO2 per mile on average (city/highway-combined).
A European model with the same engine and drive train produces 308 grams CO2 per mile on average, based on the NEDC test cycle.

Of course the EPA test cycle and the European NEDC aren't fully comparable, but even then the difference would not be that big (>60%!) in the EU version's advantage.

It's not the "stringent" emissions that sets the US apart from the EU. It's the more stringent safety requirements that make the US cars heavier, thus needing more fuel for the same mileage.
In the case of the abovementioned Mazda 6, the US version is a full 440 lbs heavier.


By seeker353 on 12/14/2009 6:53:43 PM , Rating: 2
You are right though. All you really see in Germany are small cars and station wagons. Very rarely will you ever see a SUV or a pick-up.


By seeker353 on 12/14/2009 6:50:41 PM , Rating: 1
Yes, says the typical EV driving liberal trying to force his minority opinion on others. It's always good to raise taxes as long as someone else has to pay for them.


RE: What's wrong with Electric being "City Commuters"?
By log on 12/11/2009 1:04:58 PM , Rating: 2
Well, it's time to use public transport then, no? I mean that's one of the advantages of living in a high density area making things within reach of walking and bike distance with public transport for more distant travel.

Anyway, I don't agree with the argument that you can't charge EVs without a garage. The current proposals for EV infra-structure is that you can charge at home, at special power point for short but more potent charge (20min), and to automatically replace the batteries within 3 minutes on a dedicated charging station, say a current gas station but with EV infra-structure. And you don't even have to leave the car for that. It's better than liquid re-fuelling!

Anyway, except for proximity police patrols, true I haven't seen any EVs around but due to a local marketing campaign/ advanced market study, I already have a charging point on my doorstep! It is going to happen. It is happening already!


By Reclaimer77 on 12/11/2009 1:39:56 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Well, it's time to use public transport then, no?


No.


RE: What's wrong with Electric being "City Commuters"?
By Spuke on 12/11/2009 2:23:56 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Anyway, I don't agree with the argument that you can't charge EVs without a garage. The current proposals for EV infra-structure is that you can charge at home, at special power point for short but more potent charge (20min), and to automatically replace the batteries within 3 minutes on a dedicated charging station, say a current gas station but with EV infra-structure. And you don't even have to leave the car for that. It's better than liquid re-fuelling!
Where can I go where any of this is happening? Cause it's not happening where I live.


RE: What's wrong with Electric being "City Commuters"?
By log on 12/11/2009 3:12:15 PM , Rating: 1
There are ideias coming in place with the business model coming together. I think in 2/3 years all this will become more common. And once it gains momentum things will happen very fast.Nno one will want to pay an expensive "fuel" when there is a cheaper option. Not considering that people able to install their own PV panels or windmills, which will become a standard in buildings, will pay near to nothing to charge/ partially charge their vehicles.

Follow the links:

RENAULT
http://www.renault-ze.com/uk/#/uk.html

PORTUGAL
http://www.mobi-e.pt/uk/index_uk.html

Switzerland
http://www.park-charge.ch/

ISRAEL
http://www.betterplace.com/

UK
http://www.elektromotive.com/html/index.php

And the wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charging_station

I'm sure there are plenty of other examples.


RE: What's wrong with Electric being "City Commuters"?
By Nfarce on 12/11/2009 3:31:15 PM , Rating: 2
First of all, I don't know where you are getting your pipe dreams that everyone in metropolitan cities should take public transportation. Take my metro city, Atlanta for example. It down town (where the big skyscrapers are and stuff), you can get by without owning a car for work, recreation, and of course going to the store or restaurants and getting food. Easily.

However, that is not a viable option for these two real world scenarios, both of which I have done:

1) Living inside the city limits and commuting to the suburbs to work.

2) Living in the suburbs and commuting into the city to work.

Of the two, #2 was the only one I could have even remotely considered using public transportation, and even then, that was only after I would have to drive my car to the nearest train or bus terminal to take me there.

I'm not sure where you live, but here in America, over half of the population lives outside of major cities like New York City and cities larger than 100,000 people.

http://www.citypopulation.de/USA-Cities.html

We have the land to do so, and many people choose to enjoy the freedom of living outside of the confinement, pollution, crime, and hassles of city life.

quote:
Not considering that people able to install their own PV panels or windmills, which will become a standard in buildings


Americans have a bad habit of NIMBY syndrome (not in my back yard). People don't want ugly windmills disturbing their views of the sunsets, and even though solar panels have been in use in the US since the 1970s, they are STILL only used in a supplemental manner, for both household and commercial use.

That big state of Texas has a wind mill farm somewhere that supplements a few small towns with power, but when the wind stops blowing, guess where that power has to come from? And it's always an interesting read watching "green" lobbyists try and hide the failures of said technology:

http://30x35.blogspot.com/2008/03/puc-investigatin...


By R6Raven on 12/11/2009 4:05:18 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
First of all, I don't know where you are getting your pipe dreams that everyone in metropolitan cities should take public transportation. Take my metro city, Atlanta for example.


I've lived in various parts of Atlanta all my life and I think a lot of our problem is that the cities/suburbs and mass transit don't connect in a way that makes it feasible to adopt this city-wide and I'm sure the same goes for other densely-populated areas.


RE: What's wrong with Electric being "City Commuters"?
By Nfarce on 12/11/2009 4:20:07 PM , Rating: 1
Exactly. I live on the north side and see cars from Cobb county commuting over across to Gwinnett county and vice versa. There are seemingly infinite variations in the way greater Atlantans commute from north to south to east to west, an impossibility for public transportation networks to realistically solve.

That of course is due to the way the city grew out into what used to be farm lands which are now huge business parks, retail locales, and of course the ubiquitous suburban housing developments. And like you said, that goes for most other major metro areas as well.

My point I guess is that I just have to laugh at some people with no clue who just mindlessly say "can't we all just use public transportation?"


RE: What's wrong with Electric being "City Commuters"?
By log on 12/11/2009 8:47:18 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
"can't we all just use public transportation?"

That's not what I said, and not what I meant, but if a place is of such a density that people can't have their garage, then maybe it's dense enough to consider public transport. Of course, if there is one! Because public transport makes sense in dense areas, because there is enough people per sqm towards a particular destination to make public transport a solution.

Public transport may not be a viable solution to everyone, of course, certainly for people commuting from afar or between suburban areas as public transport tends to work raially to the city centre.

But you did hint on an inport aspect. City and land planning. And a good city planning will allow for good and rational public transport network. But again it is closely related to density, and it's use depending on lifestyle options or constraints.


RE: What's wrong with Electric being "City Commuters"?
By Nfarce on 12/11/2009 8:52:51 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
But you did hint on an inport aspect. City and land planning. And a good city planning will allow for good and rational public transport network.


Cities in America aren't "planned." They GROW. As I stated for my city, if you live inside the city limits and not on the outskirts, you can get by without a car. But, the majority of Atlanta's metro population is outside of the city limits, as are the jobs. Them's the facts.


By Spuke on 12/11/2009 10:30:42 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
But, the majority of Atlanta's metro population is outside of the city limits, as are the jobs.
Out here in SoCal, home prices, even in this market are horrendously expensive if you want to live near where all the work is. Millions of people do it, for sure, but even more live out in the suburbs where you get MUCH more house for less money. Assuming you could even find a 2.5 acre (10k sqm) lot in the LA area (say Burbank), that lot would cost $800k. That's an empty lot with no utilities or anything. To put a house on it would cost you another $700k (my house is 2000 sq ft/185 sqm and Burbank costs per sq ft are around $350). In reality, with the rarity of a 2.5 acre lot in the LA area, a house like mine would go for well over $5 million. I've been told $8 million but that was a couple of years ago.

Ok, sell the horses, the trailers, the truck, the car, the house and some of the furniture. Move into a regular house in the LA area. Burbank median home prices are $600k and the typical house is 1400-1800 sq ft (130-167 sqm). We lose our privacy, friendly neighbors and space, pick up some crime, live part time on the freeway or "ride or die b!tch" with La Eme on the bus, wife loses her love of animals and I lose my love of cars, we pay more in mortgage, taxes, energy, trash, water, etc., just so we can not use the car as much?

No.


By Shining Arcanine on 12/11/2009 4:15:50 PM , Rating: 1
Well, wind mills have major environmental problems. They require a great deal of land be cleared for them, they kill birds and they slow down the earth's rotation (i.e. they move us closer to the 25 hour day).

It would be much better to use nuclear power in its place. That way you can use a fraction of the land and you will not kill any wildlife.


By peter7921 on 12/11/2009 6:31:55 PM , Rating: 5
Lol that is one of the funniest comments I have ever seen on Daily tech. Good Job!!!

Number 1: They don't require that much land at all. Here on Wolfe Island they put them on farmers fields. They barely take up any space just the size of the base.

Link to a Picture:
http://windconcernsontario.files.wordpress.com/200...

Number 2: Wind turbines spin at a slow rate and although they kill some birds the rate is actually quite small.

In fact power lines kill 130 million -- 174 million birds a year and cats kill hundreds of millions of birds every year!!!

Oh and windows kill over a hundred million birds every year to lol!!! Lets Ban all windows and power lines!!!!

Number 3: LOL LOL LOL Slows the earths rotation!!! LOL LOL LOL LOL

PS I do agree about using Nuclear, but seriously use some good arguments against Wind turbines.


By Spuke on 12/11/2009 10:44:07 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Number 1: They don't require that much land at all. Here on Wolfe Island they put them on farmers fields. They barely take up any space just the size of the base.
Zoning laws don't allow windmills in most cities and towns out here in CA. Besides, most of the manufacturers require at least 1 acre of land. I live outside of town so windmills are not a problem. A few of my neighbors have them. It's a windy area so they're generating power most of the time (how much I don't know) and they're MUCH cheaper than solar.


By btc909 on 12/12/2009 12:03:10 AM , Rating: 2
I need to go yell at my cat then. "Stop catching live birds & bringing them in the house!"

Ok I purposely put bird seed in the back yard to attract the birds for my cats entertainment but this comment should be ignored.


RE: What's wrong with Electric being "City Commuters"?
By log on 12/11/2009 8:14:51 PM , Rating: 2
My point was more about the infrastructure and not so much about public transport, altough I did start my post by commenting public transport. So mea culpa here. But we'll discuss that further.

As to the infrastructure, I noted that no one commented the subject again. I'm not sure that I conviced everyone (unlikely) that this is not so much of an issue as it can fit in the current infrastructure layout. Just fit battery replacing bays on current gas stations. The aim is that the battery replacement procedure takes 3min., which is comparable to refuelling with gas. However, regarding the availability of infrastructure I would say that EVs are in advantage as you can "refuel" them at home, work, parking or even when you're on stand-by if vehicles start using PV. This last option though has limited effect.

Now the way infrastructure ties with the ability of using EV is autonomy, and this is indeed an issue as current infrastructure assumes a certain mile range that EV cannot yet deal with a single charge. But, as with everything, this will go away. Remember cell phones when they showed up? You'dd be lucky if they lasted a day on the early models and now, the span many days.

You will note that I intially posted after corduroygt who related population density with inhability to charge EVs. This because on a more dense occupation it is more likely that people will live without a garage, which I agree.

My comment regarding public transport was trying to see things the other way around in the way that a more denselly populated area allows for the use of public transport, with advantage to individual transport. To the point that you can do away with a car completly.

Of course, public transport is not for everyone. The same way that Evs for a long time will hardly be an option for all (long haul, heavy duty, etc.) But I was far from suggesting that whoever has to commute for a 100 miles should go for public transport. Of course not! Only that in high density populated areas, public transport is, and it should be, an option. The same way high density allows you to walk to work, walk your kids to school, walk to shopping, museums, and so on, and thta is because things are closer together. And no, I'm not suggesting that everyone should live in cities and I have nothing against whoever chooses otherwise. It's a lifestyle option, conditioned, of course, by individual constraints.

For the ones that enjoy more open living, or freedoom as you mentioned, they will probably will still have to commute, or at least drive to the closest transport hub because public transport is not an efficient solution for low density areas. Individual trasnport probably is.

Wind power comes in various sizes and design options too. And as part of building design too. But I accept some people won't like them.

As to green lobbyist, it is something I'm not, but I am in favour of less carbon emission, less dependency on oil and more efficient designs.
Needless to say EVs are as green as the power they use comes from. But contrary to combustion engines its power can be sourced not only from fossil fuels but from renewables too.


RE: What's wrong with Electric being "City Commuters"?
By Nfarce on 12/11/2009 8:49:28 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
As to the infrastructure, I noted that no one commented the subject again. I'm not sure that I conviced everyone (unlikely) that this is not so much of an issue as it can fit in the current infrastructure layout.


So who's going to fund said infrastructure?

quote:
My comment regarding public transport was trying to see things the other way around in the way that a more denselly populated area allows for the use of public transport, with advantage to individual transport. To the point that you can do away with a car completly.


And my point is that said people are in a minority in the greater United States populate. But, taxation without representation (or the needs of the "service" by government for that matter) means little to some.

quote:
Wind power comes in various sizes and design options too. And as part of building design too. But I accept some people won't like them.


You need that Texas wind power experiment link again

quote:
But contrary to combustion engines its power can be sourced not only from fossil fuels but from renewables too.


Seriously. I doubt one single DT geek here wouldn't not like living free from a utility power bill or drive something that doesn't require a gas station. But, that's just not the case. As I stated, we've had wind and solar power technology for nearly four decades now in supplemental venues. At what point does anyone with any rational thought process realize that our current way of living will have to DRASTICALLY change to meet those meager output requirements in full?

Second, I'm a private pilot and enjoy flying small planes. I'm also a boat owner and enjoy skiing and pulling people skiing. I also have a HUGE yard that requires a gas powered riding tractor lawn mower. A cute little electric powered metrosexual hand pushed one just won't cut it, so to speak, for my needs.

Now, exactly what non-petro alternatives are there like that for recreational and home needs for people like me?


By log on 12/13/2009 6:52:42 PM , Rating: 2
Nfarce,

The infrastructure is funded by private companies, but the nature of the stakeholders does change in the different geographies. However, there are some obvious companies interested in getting involved like:

- power companies - they produce electricity and want to sell more of it;
- Petrol retailers - they already have an infrastrucure in place that covers the road network. Along side with petrol they probably can sell electricity, in this case quick charge mode or battery replacement bays. They will want to sell electricity if they don't want to turn down EV costumers.
- Auto makers - at least the ones selling EVs. I note Renault-Nissan are linked to the Israeli and the the Portuguese initiatives. They have 4 models anounced for 2011 or 2012;
- Governements - Where it gets them publicity/ votes, but it is also a way to reduce oil dependence and an opportunity to create new jobs in areas that are likely to grow.

Governements do tend to be involved, not necessarily by derectly funding the infrastrucure, but to pressure for private companies to ge together and get up a new business. They do partially fund new buyer with tax incentives or in some way, the auto-makers by legislating that a certain percentage of new vehicles for the adimnistration need to be EV.

By doing this, they are putting more EVs on the streets. As the number rises, the cost of new EV will drop (albeit slowly) and demand for infrastrucure will increase.

Last, thank you for sharing your lifestyle, but you are the only one who needs to care about it. I haven't critised your lifestyle, and I won't. Much less tell you to change it.

But, as you mentioned above, cities just grow, and that can be unfortunate, because if they were planned, when they get to the point where people won't have space for their own garage, then there could be a public transport alternative, and perhaps less/ short commuting.


By Spuke on 12/11/2009 9:55:08 PM , Rating: 2
Gee, none of those places are near where I live. LOL! You know, I just remembered there are a couple of charging stations at a strip mall about 16 miles from my house but I don't think they're functional. They're kind of rusty and I've never seen a car hooked up to them. BTW, I live in a rural area about 80 miles from LA. My wife and I's jobs are also in this rural area although our commutes are roughly 60 miles round trip each.

We've considered installing solar but it's still too expensive. Yes, the tax credits would help but tax credits aren't cash. We would still have to come out of pocket anywhere from $30k to $50k depending on how much power we want it to supply. Not to mention, to really benefit we would have to switch our furnace over to all electric.

It might happen in your country in 2 to 3 years but we're no where near that and with 3.5 million sq miles (9.6 million km2) of real estate, it's not going to be cheap nor will it happen fast. Dude, there's no planning other than talk at this point. Nothings happening and with our grid situation, nothing will happen for a long time.


By JediJeb on 12/11/2009 5:12:04 PM , Rating: 2
What public transport? I have to drive 100 miles to the nearest city that has it.


By AnnihilatorX on 12/11/2009 7:00:18 PM , Rating: 2
How do you own a car without a garage?
You either own a car with a parking space or you don't.


By bigdawg1988 on 12/12/2009 3:46:23 AM , Rating: 2
They'd still have to park somewhere, even a parking space on the street. Just put in parking meter type charging stations that you pay for with a debit card. The charging station would cut off if it was unplugged, to keep someone from plugging it into their car instead. Would require some infrastructure changes, but should be doable, especially if you charge a little extra to help pay for it.


RE: What's wrong with Electric being "City Commuters"?
By Hulk on 12/11/2009 11:50:18 AM , Rating: 2
I think Honda is very smart and they understand their niche. "Lighter is better." I like that. Nothing wrong with them staying with IC and hybrids until they are ready for a fuel cell vehicle. Or some other technology they can perfect and feel good about producing.


RE: What's wrong with Electric being "City Commuters"?
By Spuke on 12/11/2009 12:44:32 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
"Lighter is better." I like that. Nothing wrong with them staying with IC and hybrids until they are ready for a fuel cell vehicle.
I like this also. Unfortunately, they offer no sports cars (S2000 is dead) and that's all I like to drive. I DO like the Civic Si but it's FWD and as well as automakers have done to remove understeer as the primary handling trait, it's still there and takes tons of money and trail and error to remove it. Toyota's making a RWD, inexpensive sports car why can't Honda do this?


By Headfoot on 12/11/2009 2:19:03 PM , Rating: 2
+10000000

This is so true. Honda has shown they can make great sporty cars (affordable ones that is)... S2000, Prelude, Integra, Civic Si. They're not out-of-this-world performers but they are nimble and fun with a reasonable price tag.

We need a new Prelude imo. Although that CRZ looks pretty sweet, hopefully they can utilize the torque advantage of the electric motor.


By Alexvrb on 12/11/2009 8:26:27 PM , Rating: 2
If you must have a Civic and you want the fastest one available, the Civic Si is the one for you. Otherwise it's a bit underwhelming at that price, and since the Si requires premium (91+) anyway to make its power, you'd be better off with a car with forced induction. Like a Genesis L4 coupe or for a little more, a Cobalt SS.


By Spuke on 12/11/2009 10:51:42 PM , Rating: 2
If I were buying in that price range right now it would be a Cobalt SS or Mazdaspeed3. The Cobalt SS is a serious car for a FWDer. Check out Car and Driver's Lightning Lap. Impressive is an understatement.


By Reclaimer77 on 12/11/2009 1:45:13 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I think Honda is very smart and they understand their niche.


Their niche was affordable and practical vehicles for the masses. Electric cars and fuel cell cars are not affordable, not practical, and not for the masses.

Honda is throwing their entire consumer base under the buss for nothing more than a fad based on fraudulent scientific nonsense. Good luck Honda, you'll need it.


By Headfoot on 12/11/2009 2:21:28 PM , Rating: 2
Fast/fun, "green", affordable.
Pick two.

Lets just pull that "green" out of the mix and just have fun and affordable!


By KentState on 12/11/2009 3:34:45 PM , Rating: 3
Why should food be tasty? It's primary purpose is nourishment.

Why should sex be fun? It's primary purpose should be procreation.

Why should a house be decorated? It's primary purpose is shelter.

Why should I wear dress shoes? Their primary purpose is protection from the terrain.

The reason is that people find entertainment in different things, otherwise we are just a boring mass of autonomous humans. Maybe cars are just an appliance to you, while others like blasting through a back country road hearing the roar of the engine.


RE: What's wrong with Electric being "City Commuters"?
By Keeir on 12/11/2009 3:38:35 PM , Rating: 2
Hrm... ever add up the time you spend in your car?

I've driven 100,000 miles in roughly 6.5 years. My car says I travel on average 36 mph. Assuming this is correct, over 6.5 years, I have spent 2,777 hours in my car or 115 days! (Full 24-hour days) or roughly 5% of my day, every day. Or since I spend a good 66%+ every day sleep, working, doing chores needed to live, approx 15% of my free time. I spend nearly as much time driving as eating!

Now if your the type of person who only ever eats boring food that is cheap/bland/etc but provides a good healthy diet, great.

If you strip out the fun of a car, that time becomes chore rather than play. I'd rather have more fun in my day than more chores.


By Spuke on 12/11/2009 10:54:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If you strip out the fun of a car, that time becomes chore rather than play. I'd rather have more fun in my day than more chores.
My commute is roughly 80 minutes a day and I would much rather drive it in a fun car than a boring one.


By bigdawg1988 on 12/12/2009 3:33:00 AM , Rating: 2
Maybe you need to get a better stereo system in your car. ;)
Get you some great tunes and blast away! Sometimes I drive past the house just so i can finish listening to a song. I lived in ATL and the traffic sux, but with a good stereo system it's not that bad. Beats riding MARTA, that's for darn sure!


By FITCamaro on 12/11/2009 12:36:40 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe where you live. Not here.

Yes my commute is far less than 100 miles but I need a car that can go however far I want provided I can put fuel in it. Not 200 miles a day.


RE: What's wrong with Electric being "City Commuters"?
By Suntan on 12/11/2009 12:53:13 PM , Rating: 4
As I've said before, bring your electric car up here to Minneapolis and try it out for one commute, then tell me how ready for prime time it is.

I live less than 20 miles from my job. Yesterday it took me 90 minutes to get to work and about 60 minutes to get home as it was -8°F and there was ice on the roads.

Drive your electric car for 150 minutes in sub zero temps and see how long your car runs with the heater on full power. Conversely, see how long your circulatory system runs with the heater off...

-Suntan


By Keeir on 12/11/2009 3:55:39 PM , Rating: 2
I think its the hieght of coicendental humor that during at the start of the climate conference the majority of the US is experiencing colder than normal (or at least normal) temperatures.

But Traffic (regardless of weather) is a real issue for -any- EV. Why do American's have range anxiety when it comes to gasoline? Because they are afraid of getting caught between two gas stations. I think EVs are even worse. It you have 100 freeway miles (more than any sub 50,000 EV sold or planned for sale), and you plan to travel 60 miles, waiting in a backup for 1 hour or 2 is not going to be comfortable.


By eddieroolz on 12/12/2009 1:40:56 AM , Rating: 2
Just a thought..

If it took you 90min to travel 20miles, then it implies extreme congestion, right?

If even 10% of the cars were taken off the road - via better city planning, improved public transportation, or light rail system like SkyTrain or MRT, then wouldn't the congestion be far less than what you experience currently?

Of course the other solution is to built more freeways. I don't live in the US, so I don't know how much more room you guys got for freeway expansions, but as a student using public transportation every day, I am obviously biased towards better funding for public transportation.


By neothe0ne on 12/14/2009 1:44:17 AM , Rating: 2
Have you really never seen ice on the roads before?


By Headfoot on 12/11/2009 2:15:06 PM , Rating: 2
By 2025 I'll still be driving my 1997 Civic!!
Durable little buggers.


By JediJeb on 12/11/2009 5:09:58 PM , Rating: 2
I will probably still be driving my 96 F150 also at that time.


By Nfarce on 12/11/2009 4:08:21 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Isn't human geography telling us that the vast majority of all people in the US will be living in metropolitan areas by 2025? With the majority of people's commutes being under 100 miles.


Suburban sprawl may have slowed and more people are deciding to move back to cities, but it has got a LONG way to go to catch up to suburban flight growth that's been going on since the 1950s. In addition, judging by the Census data of the largest 11 metro cities, that would be a tall order to fulfill in 15 years for a population of 306,000,000 people:

1...New York, NY...........8,363,710
2...Los Angeles, CA......3,833,995
3...Chicago, IL..............2,853,114
4...Houston, TX............2,242,193
5...Phoenix, AZ.............1,567,924
6...Philadelphia, PA.......1,447,395
7...San Antonio, TX.......1,351,305
8...Dallas, TX................1,279,910
9...San Diego, CA.........1,279,329
10..San Jose, CA.............948,279
11..Detroit, MI.................912,062

And regarding daily commute time and distance, between 1990 and 2000 those figures grew by an average of 13%. Between 2001 and 2010, the figures are estimated to decrease in growth rate but still grow at between 7-10%. Finally, for a reference point, commutes are usually measured in time, not miles. A 15 mile commute means nothing if it takes you an hour to do it in stop and go traffic.


By aqaq55 on 12/15/2009 7:59:30 AM , Rating: 1
http://ta.gg/3yu

fr ee sh i pp ing

(jordan shoes) $32

(air max) $34

+++

wow


By aqaq55 on 12/15/2009 8:05:09 AM , Rating: 1
http://ta.gg/3yu

fr ee sh i pp ing

(jordan shoes) $32

(air max) $34

+++

wow


Possible market niche??
By roostitup on 12/11/2009 11:54:01 AM , Rating: 3
So, Honda says it cannot/will not develop clean diesel vehicles eh? This seems like a very good opportunity for US automakers to jump in and take a market that their main competitors will not. US automakers are already ahead of the game in terms of fuel cells so they can take a back burner for a little while in order to develop a good clean diesel market. I wonder if we will see more clean diesel from US automakers in the near future?




RE: Possible market niche??
By rgsaunders on 12/11/2009 12:42:36 PM , Rating: 2
Strange that Honda couldn't develop a clean diesel, European manufacturers seem to have succeeded admirably at this task. I was really hoping to see a 3.0L Turbo Diesel from Honda for the Ridgeline, Pilot and Odessey. The current 3.5L gasoline engine is lacking in low end torque and is not very fuel efficient.


RE: Possible market niche??
By Suntan on 12/11/2009 2:00:56 PM , Rating: 2
European makers have also had many years to develop and sell diesels that would not have been permitted in Japan or America. Therefore, they have a much better foundation to build on.

It is a tall order for one company, with little to no experience with the tech, to expect to come up to speed on something with the stringent set of requirements that today’s (within the last couple years) clean diesels require, in one or two rounds of development. Doubly so when the company has traditionally tried to meet more efficiency with smaller, lighter, higher revving gas engines.

Keep in mind, the Germans have been building diesels for many, many years. Diesels make up a significant percent of their vehicle sales, but even they had to sit a large percentage of their vehicles out on diesel sales here for a couple of years because they did not have engines that could meet the specs.

-Suntan


RE: Possible market niche??
By Oregonian2 on 12/11/2009 2:13:14 PM , Rating: 2
I also understand that that the 'quality' of diesel fuel in the US is less than that distributed in Europe. If true, that may also affect being able to meet new auto requirements.


RE: Possible market niche??
By Spuke on 12/11/2009 3:19:23 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I also understand that that the 'quality' of diesel fuel in the US is less than that distributed in Europe.
In the last few years the US has switched over to Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel which is what Europe was using I believe. USLD was required for diesels to meet current emissions in the US (among other things).


RE: Possible market niche??
By Solandri on 12/11/2009 7:01:26 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I also understand that that the 'quality' of diesel fuel in the US is less than that distributed in Europe.

That's sort of backwards. The oil the U.S. typically gets has a higher sulfur content, so sulfur in diesel emissions was a greater problem here. This resulted in the U.S. placing more stringent emission standards for diesel cars than in Europe. Consequently, diesel cars sold in Europe typically cannot meet the emissions standards of the U.S., and are prohibited from the market here. They have to be re-engineered to meet the stricter pollution standards, resulting in additional cost, less power, and lower mileage. Many manufacturers didn't feel it was worth it, or weren't able to make it competitive with gasoline vehicles, so never converted their European diesel designs into a U.S. version.


RE: Possible market niche??
By walk2k on 12/11/09, Rating: -1
RE: Possible market niche??
By Suntan on 12/11/2009 1:18:53 PM , Rating: 2
They also have traditionally had fuel taxes, car taxes, insurance rates and pollution standards that have highly favored diesel technology compared to the US.

It's too simplistic to just say that the US doesn't like diesels the way the EU does. The reality is that diesel has had significant, measurable benefits vs. petrol in the EU compared to, at best, parity it may have had in the US for many years.

-Suntan


RE: Possible market niche??
By bupkus on 12/11/2009 1:13:57 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
This seems like a very good opportunity for US automakers to jump in and take a market that their main competitors will not.

Perhaps, but I'm thinking about that recent post of a very heavy experimental diesel engine for trucks posted recently. It used a much higher pressure injector for a finer mist spray of fuel resulting in a cleaner burning less sooty exhaust. My point is, I don't see diesel ever becoming a light weight engine. Sure, it's a step in the right direction, but the weight offsets the gains in mileage and limits its optimized state.
I would think the less an engine of whatever design weighs the better it would be. That weight saving could go towards a superior and safer shell for passengers.
I don't know how much an engine that feeds off a fuel cell weighs but if it is substantially less it would meet that one important criteria.


RE: Possible market niche??
By Spuke on 12/11/2009 3:27:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Perhaps, but I'm thinking about that recent post of a very heavy experimental diesel engine for trucks posted recently.
That experimental diesel engine uses direct injection but current diesels use common rail diesel tech. It's the same tech as DI and DI used in cars was developed from common rail tech. Any newer (say 6 years or so) diesel truck engine (commercial and otherwise) uses common rail diesel.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_rail


Yet MB, BMW, and VW got clean diesel to work
By Lord 666 on 12/11/2009 11:25:55 AM , Rating: 3
Try again Honda, was counting on you.




By Iaiken on 12/11/2009 11:37:12 AM , Rating: 2
Shhhhh... don't let on that the competitive marketplace is driving innovation or you'll embarrass him...


RE: Yet MB, BMW, and VW got clean diesel to work
By tastyratz on 12/11/2009 1:12:01 PM , Rating: 2
agreed
the real problem is honda has a very late start for entry into the diesel market. Other manufacturers have great entries that are excelling well... they are just plain and simple too late to the party.

a smarter better move in the meantime might be a partnership deal cross licensing diesel technology from one of the excelling competitors at this time.

Fuel cells are a great technology, and his blundt comments generalizing electric vehicles are largely true... but diesel is NOW.


RE: Yet MB, BMW, and VW got clean diesel to work
By davej420 on 12/11/2009 2:34:22 PM , Rating: 2
couldn't agree more. its diesel now and hydrogen in the future. we can solve one issue of global warming by making gigantic off shore solar powered hydrogen platforms to balance out the rising sea levels. haha. I feel that there will eventually be a completely separate niche for low-cost compact EVs' specifically designed for commuting in the future.


By randomly on 12/11/2009 3:19:13 PM , Rating: 2
Hydrogen is very unlikely. There is currently no way to produce Hydrogen cheaply enough for it to make any economic sense. Even the largest fuel cell maker in the US, Ballard Power Systems, abandoned their automotive fuel cell program because there just isn't any real future in it.

Hydrogen powered cars only remain on the radar as a an Eco-green marketing tool. They are no more efficient that regular gas cars, and vastly more expensive.


old honda insight
By zornundo on 12/11/2009 11:36:53 AM , Rating: 3
So they have/had the most fuel efficient vehicle in recent times and they kill it and then bring out a prius clone? Ouch. The old insight was a beast for high mpg! So what if it were a two-seater?




RE: old honda insight
By piroroadkill on 12/11/2009 11:45:45 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah, the old Insight was really awesome. A geniunely fuel efficient vehicle


RE: old honda insight
By nshoe on 12/11/2009 1:07:21 PM , Rating: 2
They killed it because nobody was buying it. Fewer than 2000 were sold in 2005 and fewer than 1000 were sold in 2006 prior to it being killed in Sept of that year...


www.greencollareconomy.com
By caseyverdant on 12/11/2009 3:31:29 PM , Rating: 2
The move to electric, clean cars can be quick and easy if there are enough tax incentives and trade-in credits for the upgrade. If you’re interested in clean cars or any other alternative energies or green technologies, check out http://www.greencollareconomy.com. It has hundreds of case studies on emerging green technology. It's also the largest b2b green directory on the web.




RE: www.greencollareconomy.com
By Suntan on 12/11/2009 4:51:54 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The move to electric, clean cars can be quick and easy if


No it won’t.

It will still be long and costly. In your scenario all you would be doing is making the alternative (which is basically people’s lives as they know them right now) artificially painful such that they would look at your silly ideas as a relief.

You probably wouldn’t think too kindly if I made you sit on a bumpy rock all day long. But if I force you to sit on a couple of up turned nails for a couple of hours first that rock starts to look pretty inviting…

-Suntan


RE: www.greencollareconomy.com
By JediJeb on 12/11/2009 5:28:33 PM , Rating: 2
If this were a boom time economy maybe just maybe people could be coerced into moving to EV, but with the current economy with very tight cash flows it would be a killer to try to force it. Many people today are just trying to put food on the table and keep from losing their home. If you can replace their current car at no cost then maybe that would work.

Also everyone thinks that if everyone were to change to EVs in the next two years the price of electricity would magically stay the same it is now. I believe electricity will behave much like gasoline with supply and demand driving it higher. Is there enough supply to meet the demand of a vast majority of vehicles being electric with surplus left over? Will the grid support all of them? This dream of a 2-3 year changeover is just a dream, our whole electrical infrastructure would become even more fragile than it is now with that much demand added so quickly.


Huh?!
By drycrust on 12/11/2009 2:18:40 PM , Rating: 2
In case you haven't noticed, one of the top selling items in China is an electric bicycle.
As I recall, Mr Honda started out by making a low cc rated motorcycle after WW2 because there was no other vehicles being made in Japan, yet there isn't a single mention of the word "cycle" in this whole article. It's as though they consider motorcycles as a sideshow and not the main event, yet I believe more people have an awareness of a Honda motorcycle than a Honda motorcar.
Is there a market for an electric cycle akin to a low cc rating scooter?
As I see it, since Honda don't want to embrace diesel technology, nor hybrid technology, nor any electric technology in general, I believe they are restricting their future.




By dr3widgh05t on 12/11/2009 9:51:15 PM , Rating: 2
Or is Japan one of those countries where your first name is your family name. Guess I could google his name to be sure but this way hopefully someone at dailytech will get called to the floor for such lousy proofreading/editing.

Then again this is dailytech.
The article says CEO Takanobu Ito. So then should it not read Mr Ito?bpd6ny




Don't Care
By btc909 on 12/12/2009 12:16:02 AM , Rating: 2
Honda was first to have a hybrid, ok so what, you didn't continue to make a hybrid. Excuses, blah, blah.

Honda are you pissed that you sunk a bunch on money into the Hydrogen powertrain & it looks like it isn't going to pan out. Maybe in a large to mid size city but that's it.

You can't make clean diesel profitable is what I'm reading between the lines. I'm also reading "clean diesel won't allow us to keep our existing vehicles in their current price point". Honda was never known to have a large lineup.

I would use the Acura brand to sell one none gasoline powered car. Or gasoline assisted powered car. Use that car to build awarness, confidence that it can work, sell the green moniker. As the cost to produce goes down then you can filter the tech down to the Honda brand.

The Insight is a minor failure. Built too cheap. It won't take much to resolve this.

Everything really does happen slowly in the US especially when it comes to infrastructure changes.




CEO honesty
By mwnl on 12/13/2009 1:20:15 PM , Rating: 2
It is refreshing to read unvarnished admissions of limitations of R&D efforts from an auto CEO. When will we see that from US automakers?




bendan
By aqaq55 on 12/15/2009 7:50:49 AM , Rating: 1
http://ta.gg/3yu

fr ee sh i pp ing

(jordan shoes) $32

(air max) $34

+++

wow




"We shipped it on Saturday. Then on Sunday, we rested." -- Steve Jobs on the iPad launch














botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki