HONDA COULD KILL TOYOTA

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Oct 29 2006, 09:44 AM) [snapback]340278[/snapback]</div>

Had they offered the identical technology in the early 90's, it would have revolutionized the industry. Heck, it would have even screwed up the deutilization of the SUV. But they didn't.

Their reluctancy to abandon dependence on the engine should be obvious, just look at their entire product-line. The automotive division is just a portion of what they offer overall.

With such diversity, all of which require an engine, going electric beyond just prototypes is something they simply are not ready to do. Too bad, good old-fashion competitive banter is great for everyone.

 

Most people only own one car. By far the majority of those people are not going to buy an electric-only vehicle. Electric-only cars just aren't practical right now until:

1. They get at least a 200 mile range per charge
2. They can be completely charged in just a few minutes or less
3. There is a EV charging insfrastructure in place to accomodate them

It's really that simple.

Vince

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(john1701a @ Oct 29 2006, 08:22 AM) [snapback]340286[/snapback]</div>

I am not convinced that a pure electric car would be a strong seller - but a plug-in hybrid would. I think there are 3 technological limits and at least 2 psychological limits that would prevent a completely electric car from selling in any kind of real numbers now.

Technical:
1. Battery recharge time remains a problem. I can fill up a gas-electric hybrid at a fuel station in 5 minutes, and then be good for 600 miles. It takes 2-4 hours to fill the fastest electrics like the Tesla and that's with a 240v charger. On plain ol' 110v, you're looking at 2x that long. Can you imagine driving your Tesla from San Francisco to Santa Barabara and having to pull off at Cambria for 5 hours with an extension cord in your hand looking for a power outlet?

2. Battery cycles are also a problem. There aren't any production battery technologies I know of that permit more than 400-600 "deep" cycles before the battery is toast. Toyota avoids this problem in the Prius by carefully keeping the battery neither fully charged or fully discharged. Unless a purely electric car battery could last 8-10 years like a conventional car before a pack replacement (or if the pack was $1000), people would avoid it.

3. Energy density. The Prius battery pack contains approximately the same energy density as 1 PINT of gasoline...and yet the battery weights almost 100 pounds vs. the 1 pound of the gasoline. Lithium Ion could cut this in half, but you're still talking about major energy density differences. For example, Gasoline has 9700 watt-hours per liter, and 12,200 wh per kilogram. A lithium ion battery has 300wh per liter and 110 wh per kilogram.

Psychological:
1. The cars won't work for 90% of the people 10% of the time. This is the converse of the famous quote from Ed Begely in "who killed the electric car." Statistically, about 75% of SUV buyers believe they might - someday - go off road. And less than 10% do (except for certain SUVs like the Jeep Wrangler). But people like the idea that they COULD do it if they wanted to. In the electric car world, a city-dweller who never drives more than 30 miles a day still wants to know they could drive from San Fran to Salt Lake if the really wanted to. Or from LA to Vegas. Buying an electric car means they can't ever do the things they now can do rarely. Of course, they could rent a car for those trips, but they won't like the idea. A plug-in hybrid doesn't have this problem.

2. Running out of power. There are gas stations all over, but how many places could a driver "pull over" and plug in their car for 4 hours? And if you run out of juice somewhere, you can't walk to a service station and get a can of electrons. People don't want that worry.

I personally think that what we need are 80% electrics. That is, a plug-in hybrid that is MOSTLY an electric car, but with a very small gasoline engine and fuel tank for those occasions when you need extra range or stamina. That seems to combine the best of both worlds. Honda could easily build a 150hp electric car with a 1 liter gas engine as backup...and the gas would only be used if the main battery pack was drained down. Such a car could still have 40-60 mile all electric range but would suffer none of the disadvantages of a purely electric vehicle.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Bryanmsi @ Oct 29 2006, 10:57 AM) [snapback]340296[/snapback]</div>

The "90/10" rule is gospel in my occupation: Computer Programming. Satisfying 90% of the requirements consumes 10% of the resources available. Providing that final 10% is absolutely awful. Striving to deliver the remaining chunk really does burn up 90% overall. So at work, we typically don't promise that up front. Our milestones are set for 90% fulfillment instead. Then when deliver that, we re-evaluate. Is that next step really worth the cost? If so, we budget accordingly. If not, we move on to another project.

I strongly believe the same approach should be taken for electric propulsion. Plug-In hybrids makes a whole lot more sense than battery-only designs, for now. Later on, the story could change (and hopefully will). A technological advancement, or just greater support from the market, would allow the next step to be realistically taken. That approach would please 90% of the need quickly with only minimal risk. The plug-in feature could be offered as a special option, much like any other limited-time factory upgrade you can order. Then based on its acceptance, you decide step to take next.

Why eliminate the engine entirely? They are cheap, reliable, and the size can be significantly reduced. Using it less and less with each generational advance makes a whole lot more sense... especially if each generation is delivered quickly, on the same 5-year cycle as new models... which has already proven a well accepted industry practice.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Tideland Prius @ Oct 29 2006, 11:05 AM) [snapback]340298[/snapback]</div>

Where the heck is the competition for Camry-Hybrid?

Both Ford & Saturn/GM are scrambling to deliver a 4-cylinder sedan hybrid to compete with Toyota. All we get from Honda is the muscle hybrid Accord. If their design is less complicated and easier to produce, why haven't they delivered a 4-cylinder version yet... nor even have plans to in the next few years?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(john1701a @ Oct 29 2006, 09:37 AM) [snapback]340311[/snapback]</div>

I think you're right on target with keeping the petrol engine but progressively de-emphasizing it and shrinking it as technology improves. Its the most practical way to get from here to there (with there being pure electric).

In general, I agree with the 10% comments. The question becomes how severe the missing 10% is to the intended use of the product. Imagine a car that failed to run 10% of the time. "But it starts 90% of the time." the salesman might say. NOBODY would buy it. Even a software product that failed to launch 10% of the time would be unacceptable. I think most people, given that they only have one car, would see a distance limit of less than 200-300 miles without a 6 hour recharge as being a fatal flaw, even if they rarely drive that far.

But even that kinda misses the point, I think. If you have a pure 'lectric with a 200 mile range, you only get that range if you fully charge it every time you drive. Imagine a person with a commute like my wife - 65 miles daily. Let's say she doesn't plug the car in Monday night after driving to work. By the time she gets home Tuesday, she only has 70 mile range left. If she doesn't plug in Tuesday night and let the car soak up a charge, her wednesday trip is questionable...and she can't just pull off the freeway on the way home and charge up in 10 minutes at any one of a hundred service stations.

Once the battery folks fix the quick charge problem, I think you'll see electrics really take off.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Tideland Prius @ Oct 29 2006, 01:05 PM) [snapback]340298[/snapback]</div>

And that's why IMA does make a lot of sense for Honda. Their engines are more efficient than Toyota (Honda's known for the engines, I doubt anyone will ever say, "Listen to that Toyota purr"). A small efficiency gain on their part will equal out to keeping up with the Toytota-eses.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Bryanmsi @ Oct 29 2006, 12:21 PM) [snapback]340332[/snapback]</div>

That simply wouldn't happen. Before work even begins, it must be approved. Reliability isn't something likely to be sacrificed. On the other hand, how long the product lasts/operates is. And that's how battery-only vehicles were introduced. They couldn't perform as long as a traditional vehicles, but that wasn't deemed a major priority for the initial audience.

And for the plug-in hybrid, the sacrifice is quite different. With that technology, the big issue is price... which is why a phase approach could work really well. Test the waters first to find out how much joe average is actually willing to pay, then adjust the battery capacity appropriately. That approach is much harder with a battery-only vehicle, since there is no secondary power source available.

Of course, that's the very reason I don't support "assist" hybrids. With them, you don't have the plug-in option. So Honda has a lot more work to do if they really want to kill Toyota.

 

Hope you don't mind a Honda Insight guy interjecting - promise I'll behave.

Toyota has the edge, but I'd put my stock in Honda well before taking a chance on GM or Ford.

While I've been very pleased with my 2000 Insight over 111,000 miles, I'll acknowledge limitations with the IMA system. Part of it is my lead foot the first two years :mellow: - the other part is in the 1st year there were battery and software problems. When my hybrid battery pack was replaced (cost $6500 - I paid only $450) and the State of Charge is much better - including when it was driven off the lot new.

Coupling a five-speed with a hybrid is a double-edged sword. CVT transmissions are better than the traditional fluid tranmissions, but I'm not convinced they are the equal of a manual transmission. The CVT Insight does not touch the 5-speed Insight in fuel economy. My dream car would have a full hybrid and still allow a manual transmission - wish there was such a thing. The cavet is the driver has to be alert with the 5-speed. It's like the difference between programming in a high-level language and machine language. It's more inconvient doing machine language, you can tear things up easier, but you have more power and efficiency.

If one documents the hybrid battery pack failures, I'm pretty sure Honda's early 5-speed hybrids (2000-2002) failed the most, with the 2000 Insight heading that list. I attribute this to it being harder to do deep discharges on hybrids with CVTs. I'm sure that's why Honda no longer makes 5-speed hybrids.

The Insight was built to deliver the best possible fuel economy back in 1999 (aluminum construction, aerodynamics, very efficient ICE). Occasionally, it will get in the hands of gearheads who can easily tear it up. The Insight was NOT meant for the 10% of the population with the heaviest feet or very hilly terrain like the Rockies or SF. The car is fine in responsible hands, but we live in a litigous society and no automaker wants to deal with excessive recalls or lawsuits.

We live in a society with aggressive drivers and drivers that use that 2nd hand to phone, not shift and automakers have to factor in some user abuse into their products. You see that expressed in general auto forums and even some green ones - it's depressing.

_________________________

Did I digress? In the next five years, Honda's biggest threat to other automakers is their plans to make a clean diesel by 2009. This would be as big as their CVCC engine back in 1973 that was clean enough to go without a catalytic converter. Clean diesels would keep Honda competive with Toyota, but I suspect not enough to overtake them. Detroit should be concerned about their technology lag, however.

I have also seen what looks like a the generation after the 2006 Civic as a fuel cell vehicle in an article. Honda may be on the cutting edge on FCV, but many of you know the barriers to putting affordable fuel cell vehicles on the market - it's going to takes some more years and a new infrastructure.

__________________________

Toyota's ace would be to develop plug-in hybrids. The 2006 hybrid Civic does respectfully against the Prius, but only one of them can be converted to a PHEV. Lack of a PHEV option for the IMA is what will hurt Honda.

__________________________

Let's say five or ten years from now my Insight is just wheels off. A plug-in hybrid is probably what I'd look at. Wikapedia states in the worst case, EV efficiency matches my Insight. I hope Honda does better with their subcompacts than with the Fit (36mpg?) They traded Honda's historically great fuel economy for an automatic and performance. Even before Mr. Honda died, they were getting away from fuel economy and I think it has hurt Honda. For example - the hybrid Accord.

What I buy in five or so years is a good question.

___________________________

This is a view from the Honda side.

 

On another thread someone offered the advice "NEVER buy a new model in its first year". I think it had to do with comparing the proposed Altima hybrid to the Prius. Someone else said "If everyone took that advice, no first year models would ever sell and all car companies would go out of business" or something like that.

It is the same with EVs. Some of the arguements against them are based on the world without them and not how it would be with them. Sure they don't run if they are not charged. Gas cars don't run without gas. If you want them to run, you do what you must. Most folks do.

What bugs me is that because EVs are not perfect for everyone, NOBODY gets one. What cars are made for everyone? I don't know of any. We are among a very large number of two car families. I want one car that I can make the energy for. Is there any but an EV that works for that realisticly? Am I the only one who feels that way? I think not. I think there is a market out there that deserves to be served and which will grow. Why do we have to wait and wait and wait. We are after all, mortal.

So Darelldd gets his. There must be a market. His EV is worth almost twice what he paid for it several years ago. Heck we can't even buy a PHEV yet.

I am with daniel!

 

Thank you for the welcome.

I have to confess to almost zero experience in a CVT - a couple of miles on Wolfman's hybrid Ford Escape. My frame of reference is still fluid automatics and five-speeds. Hope to meet with D/FW hybrid owners and try out a Prius sometime...

My previous car was a 1988 Honda CRX HF with nearly 250,000 miles on it. In Sept 2000 it was rear-ended my a driver that probably was on her cell phone - died the next day of an oil hemmorage (i.e. tailpipe impact ruptured the oil seal) This was just before the Prius was offered in the US.

It would be an accurate statement to say the Insight is an aluminum CRX HF with a hybrid powerplant. Most subcompacts today seem to be more like the CRX Si - performance over economy.

I expect a lot of advances in hybrid technology in the coming years. Supercapicators were considered for the Insight prototype - when perfected this would be a low-cost, and superior alternative to batteries (no problems with battery failure or extreme climates).

One of the things that makes me skeptical of Mr Lutz bragging on the Sequel FCV is you need hybrid technolgy for decent acceleration.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(john1701a @ Oct 30 2006, 02:37 AM) [snapback]340311[/snapback]</div>

Honda already announced they are going to introduce new hybrid in 2009 and their target annual number is 100,000 in the US and 200,000 worldwide.
http://world.honda.com/news/2006/c060517MidYearCEOSpeech/

Ken@Japan

 

If you read the book "The Prius That Shook The World", Prius was born out of EV (Rav 4 EV) failure. Toyota engineers from different departments made fun of the EVs as "battery carriers". The battery technicality may be the reason it failed at that time. The point is, they gained experience from that. Where was honda at that time? I don't think they had any EV project..... just Fuel Cell cars.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(usbseawolf2000 @ Oct 30 2006, 12:57 PM) [snapback]340495[/snapback]</div>

Honda EV Plus

Ken@Japan

 

Ken,

Thanks for the link. So they did test 10 EVs in US. I guess they never leased or sold it to public. Intestesting things is, the EV resemble their Fuel Cell concept car.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(usbseawolf2000 @ Oct 29 2006, 07:57 PM) [snapback]340495[/snapback]</div>

Even allowing for massive energy loss in the form of waste heat from ICE (something around 70%), gasoline still carries a 100x higher energy density than lithium ion, 200x higher than NiMH, and 500x higher than lead-acid. It takes a 150lb lithium pack in the prius to push the car as far as 2-3 lbs of gasoline...and that's at lower speeds.

Battery tech has to come a LONG way before pure EVs will be both cost-competitive and range competitive with hybrids.

But I think they are complimentary. With enough battery for 50-60 miles, most people could drive purely on EV 90% of the time. This obviously saves huge amounts of gasoline. But, for those rare, longer trips, the ICE and its incredible stamina due to the energy density of gasoline chips in and stretches out the miles.

Plus, I doubt that the 350-500LB weight penalty of carrying a helper ICE is really any worse than hauling the equivalent battery weight to stretch range up to 200 miles or so. Didn't the GM EV have 1500 pounds worth of batteries?