Fresh Cars Reviews: general chat

Показаны сообщения с ярлыком general chat. Показать все сообщения

2008’s most satisfying cars

Consumer Reports has just released their list of 2008’s most satisfying cars, and the results aren’t what I would have guessed!

Topping the list (for the 5th year in a row so I guess that’s not TOO surprising!) is the:

Toyota Prius!

2008-prius-hybrid-8

Ninety three percent of owners said they’d buy or lease another one.

A very close second was:

The Corvette Z06

2008z06corvette

Yes, more people would buy their Prius again than would buy their Z06 again. Still 92 percent of owners wouldn’t think twice about plunking down the cash for this American gem of a car that can beat a 911 Carerra and a Jaguar XK8 to 60.

And coming in third…

The Mini Cooper Clubman

minicooperclubman_1_440

Hey, it’s kinda like a Suburban. Only smaller. And German.

At the other end of the list is some sobering news: 20 of the 23 least satisfying vehicles were American.

At the very bottom is the Jeep Commander, preceded by the Chevy Equinox, the Chevy Colorado and the GMC Canyon.

Thank goodness Chevy still makes the Corvette!

What car do you drive, and would you buy it again?

-tgriffith

Batteries Can Be Beautiful

In the past two years we’ve written a lot about the Tesla Roadster: its performance, a full review, and some of the competition. Other tantalizing stories have been written about Tesla’s founder Elon Musk, his competitor Henrik Fisker, and the car’s capabilities in numerous road tests.

Now the company is working on a 5-passenger sedan (the Model S at $57K), an all-electric subcompact (the Bluestar, $30K), and is trying to get in line for some of the $25 billion advanced technology loans set aside by Congress. Yup, the same money Pelosi & Co. agreed to tap for the bailout bill that went down. Says Tesla, they are not about to use it to prop up their business, which is doing fine. Founder Musk recently gave them another $40 million.

The big story in all this is the car’s Energy Storage System (ESS), its lithium-ion battery pack. Tesla’s white paper on the ESS emphasizes, naturally, the innovations and safety qualities. The company has also been developing green safe-disposal procedures so as to recycle most all the components at the end of their life cycle.

The Roadster will get you to 60 mph in about 4 seconds with 100% torque instantly. Its range is 220 miles on a full charge (which takes only 3.5 hours on the dedicated charger). And the battery is said to last 5 years or 100,000 miles. That is great performance by any measure.

There is tremendous effort going into research to improve the lithium-ion battery and develop new, more efficient lightweight ESSs, both for all-electric and hybrid vehicles. My Google search for “battery technology” turned up some 4,540,000 citations, reflecting the activity in this $56 billion market.

Hybrids now use nickel-hydride batteries, relatively long-lived but expensive to replace, though costs are coming down and, as Tesla has shown, lithium-ion is a better technology.

And lithium-ion is not going to be with us forever either. Its biggest weakness may be a tendency to overheat and become unstable (remember the recall of all those laptop batteries that caught fire?), and Tesla has packed its cells (some 6800 of them in the Roadster) in steel cases.

So now some, like John Petersen, are looking down the road to the prospect of rebuilding U.S. capabilities in engineering to produce breakthrough batteries and make them here. Most all production of high-tech (non-lead-acid) auto batteries now comes from Asia. I read today that China just launched a new, cheap plug-in hybrid car.

If the U.S. finally gets smart it could develop a real industry for the future, providing energy storage solutions for everything from zippy sports cars to the power grid.

Can we do it —make a new battery industry here? Should it be tied in to the restructuring of the Big Three? Drop a comment below.

—jgoods

Dealerships going out of business: a good thing?

There are reports today that 2,000 U.S. new-vehicle dealerships will close in 2008 and 2009, according to the National Automobile Dealers Association.

That’s one in every 10 dealers, assuming though that no automakers file for bankruptcy next year, which would guarantee thousands of additional shutdowns.

Part of the closures are the result of General Motors, Ford and Chrysler trying to shrink their U.S. retail networks in dealer-saturated cities. But the credit crisis is bringing other dealers down randomly as plunging new-vehicle sales and tight credit for dealers and consumers are adding casualties to the list.

Some automotive writers say this is bad news.

Seriously though, have you bought or shopped for a new car recently? It can be pure torture as dealers attempt every possible deception in an effort to wring every cent out of unsuspecting car buyers.

I love new cars, and I’m infatuated with the auto industry. I’m addicted to reading and writing reviews, test driving and even buying new vehicles. The only thing I despise about new cars is the process of being forced to do business with often-shady new-car dealers.

I have run across some decent, no-pressure auto dealers in my day, but in my experience they are the exception. They should be the rule.

Maybe the threat of closure will inspire change. Maybe in an effort to bring more people into their dealerships, the business of selling cars will evolve into a pleasant, easy and satisfying experience built on respect rather than deception.

Wouldn’t you love to drive out of a dealership in your new car without thinking you may have just been financially screwed?

-tgriffith

The Bailout Collapse: Getting Partisan

The Senate, house of political intrigue, punts on the auto bailout bill and here we are, now looking to the White House to solve the industry’s cash flow problems. Imagine what Jon Stewart and Jay Leno will have to say on this tonight. In fact, leave us your comments on that!

As we’ve said before in this blog, there has to be an element (or appearance) of fairness in these matters. Yet we should have learned a long time ago that politics has to do with advantage, not fairness. The Democrats put themselves at a big disadvantage by offering up a bill with so many flaws and so little to enforce a restructuring. Republicans seized the moment by piling on to the UAW which, whatever its past sins, had been the only stakeholder to come to the table.

In a news co nference, UAW Chief Ron Gettelfinger “felt the union was being asked to make immediate sacrifices that other ‘stakeholders’—bondholders, executives, retirees, and others—were not. . . . The GOP caucus was insisting that the restructuring had to be done on the back of workers and retirees rather than having all stakeholders come to the table.”

Said Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), “It sounds like UAW blew up the deal.” Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.) agreed. Really?

Given the fact that labor cost, as we reported, is only about 10% of vehicle cost, that does seem a mite unfair. Josh Marshall in TPM today thought so too and offered three Republican motives:

“Finally, this issue now goes well beyond the fate of the American automakers. Senate Republicans are following this course for three key reasons—first is payback against a major industrial union; second is payback against states like Michigan and Ohio who have been moving away from the GOP; third is the desire to advantage Japanese auto manufacturers who disproportionately do business in their southern states.”

With all this leveraging for political position and jockeying for power, maybe the best course is bankruptcy after all. Jospeh Stiglitz, Nobel Prize-winner and one of our most insightful economists, has this to say in the Financial Times:

“The debate about whether or not to bail out the Big Three carmakers has been mischaracterised. It has been described as a package to help the undeserving dinosaurs of Detroit. In fact, a plan to bail out the carmakers would benefit shareholders and bondholders as much as anybody else. These are not the people that need help right now. In fact they contributed to the problem.”

The problem was created, says Stiglitz, by the industry’s mismanagement and the financial markets “which failed in their oversight” and allowed the companys’ shortsighted, short-term focus on profits to continue.

“As the bail-outs continue, numbers that once looked huge are starting to seem almost normal. Hundreds of billons are being given to banks and insurance companies. AIG got $150bn. Compared with that $34bn, or even $125bn, for the automotive industry seems a modest request. Even so, we should not forget that a few months ago, President George W. Bush said there was not enough money for health insurance for poor children although it cost just a few billion dollars.”

If Stiglitz is right, then a prepackaged bankruptcy finally may be the best and only real option. I urge you to read the article.

Let us know how badly you think the government has fumbled this bailout question. Is Stiglitz right?

–jgoods

What’s safer: a 1966 Cadillac or a 2009 Civic?

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety recently announced their 2009 Top Safety Picks, with 72 vehicles earning the honor. (Interestingly, Chrysler is the only major automaker without a single Top Safety Pick.)

That’s twice the number of winners in 2008 and three times as many as in 2007. The IIHS chalks up the huge increases to automakers making strides in how their vehicles perform in front, side and rear crashes. New cars also have improved seat and head restraint design and offer electronic stability control as a means to avoid accidents.

All this new safety technology appears to be paying off, as estimates from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration show the number of people killed in traffic accidents in the U.S. this year is expected to be the lowest on record (recordkeeping began in 1966).

The question is will those numbers continue to decrease as the size of new vehicles also decreases? It’s logical to assume that the bigger the car, the safer its occupants are. I was once at a Hummer dealership and the salesman told me that to date, no one had ever been killed inside a Hummer as a result of a car accident. While this is great news for a Hummer owner, it’s not so great for someone who gets into an accident with one!

Considering how many different sizes of cars are on the roads, it’s logical to assume that the heavier ones provide more protection than the smaller ones, regardless of what technology is used. Even though a 1966 Cadillac DeVille has no airbags or emergency stability control, I’ll bet a lot of people would choose to be encased in its solid steel body in an accident, even over a 2009 fully loaded Civic with the newest safety gear.

As cars become laden with safety features and traffic deaths are at an all-time low, it’s apparent that something must be working right. My bet is that the newest accident-avoidance features, such as ESC, must be paying off by resulting in avoidance of accidents in the first place.

We want to know: Have the latest safety features protected you in an accident or helped you avoid one? Let us know in the comments section!

-tgriffith

GM’s claims: fact or fiction?

If something can go wrong with a company, GM has experienced it. From bad management to a questionable product line to faltering sales, GM’s business has virtually collapsed.

As part of the fear-inducing effort to spin up some support for a government bailout, GM has created a Web site, www.gmfactorfiction.com. Here are some of the outcomes of the failure of the U.S. auto industry it claims on the front page:

* Nearly 3 million jobs would be lost in the first year alone – with another 2.5 million to follow over the next two years

* Domestic automobile production would more than likely fall to zero – even by international producers, due to supplier bankruptcies

So GM expects the world to believe that ALL auto production in the States would grind to a halt if GM were to fail. My-oh-my the General sure is self-absorbed! Just talk to the heads at Toyota, Honda, BMW, Kia and Volkswagen, all of whom are building new plants here and expanding their production capabilities in America. If I were them I’d be hoping for mass GM layoffs so I could snatch up some experienced workers without the crazy union agreements that GM is obligated to.

I also heavily question the claim that 3 million people would lose their jobs. According to GM’s Web site, they employ 252,000 people. I wouldn’t argue that a few hundred thousand might lose their jobs, or more likely change jobs, but to say 3 million people would be out of work? That is just GM trying to scare America into supporting their bail out.

I can honestly say I want GM to succeed and thrive because I value the heritage they’ve contributed to US history and believe in their potential for innovation.

I’d just like to see them succeed through honesty instead of fear.

How do GM’s claims on their fact or fiction page make you feel? Leave your comments here!

-tgriffith

How important are auto shows to the industry?

With the LA Auto Show set to begin this week, and Detroit’s North American International Auto Show beginning in January, this is a prime time to gauge the health of automakers around the world.

It’s no secret that the U.S. companies are facing their lowest sales numbers in a quarter-century, and their presence at these shows is a potent indicator of that.

Check this out: GM cancelled all vehicle unveilings at the LA show, in addition to canceling all planned news conferences. Chrysler is forcing local dealers to pay for the company’s exhibition space, won’t debut any new vehicles and has cancelled all news conferences.

Ford meanwhile has no plans to cut back, and will debut the 2010 Mustang complete with an extravagant party. They will also debut 5 other models including 2 new hybrids. It would appear, based on this information alone, that Ford is the strongest of the Big 3.

For the Detroit show, GM has announced that it has cancelled their traditional pre-show kickoff media party. Chrysler is considering cutting back or eliminating their legendary Detroit Firehouse party. Even foreign companies Ferrari, Rolls Royce, Land Rover and Suzuki have pulled out of the Detroit Show completely. Volkswagen cancelled their press conference and concept car debut for the LA show and rescheduled for Detroit.

The auto show industry is known for extreme extravagance, so I say all this with one question in mind:

Are auto shows a necessity for automakers or an expendable marketing luxury?

-tgriffith

What does the SEMA Show tell us about the auto industry?

2007 Lamborghini Murciélago LP640

The SEMA auto show ends November 7 in Las Vegas.

SEMA, the Specialty Equipment Market Association, draws some of the greatest minds and hottest products in the auto industry. The show features new and old cars, modified with the best in aftermarket products.

With the economy in the tank and fuel prices recovering from their highest points ever, does this year’s show feature ways to save money on you car?

Well, let’s take a quick look at some featured cars and make an assumption:

2009 Ford Mustang GT

Supercharged with air/water intercooler; high-flow air filter; exhaust headers; high-flow catalytic converters with race exhaust; lightened flywheel; high-performance clutch.

2007 Lamborghini Murciélago LP640

Capital 19×9 front and 20×13 rear forged three-piece wheels; Pirelli tires.

2006 Chrysler 300 Touring

Dodge Viper V10; T-56 six-speed manual transmission.

2003 Infiniti G35

GT Motorsports engine; 502 horsepower with 10 pounds of boost; ZEX nitrous system; candy apple red carbon-fiber valve covers and battery covers.

2008 Dodge Challenger SRT8

JBA exhaust and header system; Paxton supercharger.

2008 Ferrari F430 Scuderia

4.3L V8 engine; 503 horsepower and 347 lb.-ft. of torque; F1 paddle-shift transmission; Singh Autosport ECU upgrade; prototype race exhaust.

I’m not going to lie and say I don’t think these are cool. Spectacular even.

But I ask you: Is this a sign that even those in the auto industry have yet to wake up to the reality of our economy and fuel usage?

-tgriffith

Thinking about an SUV? Consider these!

Maybe the SUV doesn’t need to die.

There’s definitely less of a need for the Suburbans, Excursions and Sequoias of the world, but families still need to tow their toys, haul their kids and plow through snowstorms.

Though these SUVs won’t tow yachts or carry a truckload of Home Depot supplies, they’re the ones that actually make some sense in a world where utility and practicality are coming into balance.

GMC Acadia

Its starting price of about $32K is the highest on the list, but it’s also arguably the most negotiable. The Acadia offers plenty of room for 8, has decent fuel economy for its size, and brings a nice amount of bling into your garage. This is a great choice for large families who need to go to Costco in a snowstorm on the way to the ski resort.

Volkswagen Tiguan

Starting around $23K, the Tiguan brings the lure of European style to the compact SUV class. The selling points are a turbo engine and awesome driving dynamics. This is the SUV for those who need one, but really LOVE to drive.

Subaru Tribeca

Starting around $30K, the Tribeca is the SUV for those who need one but place comfort well over driving dynamics. It’s serene and quiet while providing the peace of mind of strong all weather grip. (Somehow this Subaru is starting to look like a Chrysler, but at least it’s better than the previous B-9 Tribeca.)

Honda CR-V

Starting at around $22K, this is the SUV that wins the “Most True to its Name” award: the Comfortable Runabout Vehicle. Plus it has the added bonus of being nearly unstoppable in snow and ice.

Suzuki Grand Vitara

For SUV buyers looking for a real value, it’s hard to beat the Grand Vitara. Starting under $20K, it offers real off road ability, a 100K warranty, luxurious touches, attractive styling and defaults to RWD when not in 4WD mode.

What’s YOUR perfect SUV?

-tgriffith

No clear consumer support for automotive bailout.

52% of survey respondents disapprove of a government bailout for GM and Ford.

Consumer sentiment mirrors initial reaction to bank bailout package.

CAMBRIDGE, Mass., Nov. 3 — CarGurus® (http://www.cargurus.com/), a leading online automotive community, today announced the results of its survey of more than 8,000 online automotive consumers worldwide. Fifty-two percent of respondents said they do not support a government bailout for General Motors and Ford. While 48% do favor some sort of bailout, the survey illustrated the lack of consumer consensus on bailouts and in particular federal support for these leading U.S. automotive manufacturers.

Lack of consensus mirrors split over bank bailout package
“In these tough economic times, consumers appear to be torn on whether to support Ford and GM with some sort of federal assistance,” remarked Langley Steinert, CEO/co-founder of CarGurus. “Not unlike the close votes in Congress on the bank bailout, the nation is split on federal assistance for private industry. Many see it as a necessary step to save jobs, but an equal proportion find it hard to stomach using public funds to support private industry.”

Survey Results
Across the CarGurus Network, respondents answered the question:

Should the government bail out GM and Ford?
(Total Votes = 8,100)
No – 52%
Yes - 48%

About CarGurus LLC
Located in Harvard Square, Cambridge, MA, CarGurus LLC is a leading online automotive community founded by Langley Steinert and Nick Shanny, formerly co-founders of TripAdvisor LLC, the 3rd largest online travel site in the world. CarGurus’ founders, board, and investors bring a wealth of experience from such leading web companies as TripAdvisor, eBay, Expedia, and Yahoo. For more information about CarGurus, visit us at www.cargurus.com.

CONTACT: Steve Halloran, Editor, CarGurus LLC
617-354-0068, x12
press@cargurus.com

Connection between U.S. driving habits and Mid East violence?

The countries of OPEC

You wouldn’t think that global politics would have a place in an auto blog. But today I’m going there and here’s why:

We drive cars. Cars need gas. Gas comes from oil. And oil comes from OPEC.

The political firestorm that is OPEC currently comprises of 12 countries (The U.S. is not one of them). Here’s a brief look into how two of them use oil money:

Venezuela: funds their socialist government and suppresses opposition. They’ve also used oil money to buy Russian weapons.

Iran: they have the second largest oil reserves in the world, so it’s no wonder economic sanctions have little effect. They make their money in oil, and use that money to help spread their influence through Hamas and Hezbollah in Lebanon and Israel.

Many OPEC countries actually build their budgets based on the price of oil. If prices begin to fall below a predetermined level, OPEC can step in and decide to decrease production, thus increasing prices and fuelling economies. Nothing puts the economic squeeze on an OPEC country more than a cheap barrel of oil.

Now that prices are hovering around $70 per barrel, OPEC countries are feeling that pinch. And just yesterday, OPEC announced they would cut production by at least 1 million barrels per day. As a result, prices should increase enough to ease the economic pressure on countries like Venezuela. At least for a while.

I don’t know about you, but I don’t like to be controlled and I feel like OPEC countries are the worldwide equivalent to 6^th grade bullies. The best way to defeat them is to just stop giving them money.

I want to see an end to violence in the Mid East. I want to see terrorist groups dissolved. I want people living in Venezuela to choose how and where to live. I DON’T want to see these countries obliterated, I just want to see their economies crumble, followed by OPEC.

Since OPEC countries are dependent on high oil prices, it’s not war in Iraq that is going to bring peace to the region.

It’s refusing to buy that region’s oil.

And that means using as little gas as possible until we can supply and sustain our own energy needs.

What are your thoughts on OPEC?

-tgriffith

INVASION! Of the hatchback

The Volvo C30: Coming to America

There are two kinds of cars America has loved in the last two decades: SUVs and cars with trunks.

Hatchbacks were just funky little novelties that Europeans loved.

Man, things can change quickly!

Look at all the hatchbacks popping up in America over the last couple model years. Honda Fit, Toyota Yaris, Suzuki SX4, Mini Cooper, Audi A3, VW GTI, Scion xD.

And check this out: according to a study by CNW Marketing Research, just over 20 percent of near-luxury buyers said they preferred a hatchback to a sedan or wagon. Yes, ‘near-luxury’ and hatchback were used in the same sentence!

As the market share of compact cars increases, the popularity of hatchbacks will also increase.

It’s been since the oil crisis of the 70s that hatchbacks have enjoyed this kind of popularity. Now that we’re in another oil crisis, the benefits of the versatile hatch are again being recognized. Only this time they are more luxurious, safer and much better built.

Europe on the other hand never escaped a gas crisis. When we were enjoying $1.30 gas, Europe was choking it down at $5 or more. It makes sense that the popularity of the hatch never waned on that side of the Atlantic.

The hatchback in America has been nothing more than a symbol of frugality in a time when we’ve been all about extravagance. Simply put.

Now reality is catching up to us, and it’s coming in the form of the hatchback.

Watch your dealerships friends, because new hatches are arriving from Europe in the form of the Ford Feista, Volvo C30 and more. Hopefully we’ll even get our chances at the Mercedes A Class and Honda Civic Type R.

There are even some exciting hatchbacks making their debut at the Paris Auto Show this week in the form of the Toyota Urban Cruiser, BMW X1 and Mini Crossover concept.

Americans: Are you on board with the coming invasion of the European hatchback?

Europeans: Do you love hatchbacks as much as Americans think you do?

-tgriffith

Would you buy one of these?

Have you heard of Tesla Motors?

If not, you will. And soon.

Tesla is a new kind of car company. Their Roadster is capable of going from 0-60 in a staggering 3.9 seconds. It’s peak torque is reached between 0 and 14,000 RPMs.

All this performance and torque comes from an engine the size of a watermelon. Some super cars have 4 exhaust pipes. The Tesla has zero.

By now you may have guessed that the Tesla Roadster is an electric vehicle.

But this is no golf cart, friends.

It offers a range of over 200 miles per charge and the only oil it uses is in the single speed transmission.

The car of the future? It seems so. But there are some questions to answer before we get all gaga and announce our independence from foreign oil.

First of all is the price of entry: a lofty $109K. Still, for the cutting edge technology, environmental sustainability and the all-out performance this car offers, that’s not bad.

Even better is Tesla’s recently announced plans to offer a 5-passenger luxury sedan for about $60K.

So far we’ve got performance, real-world driving range, zero emissions and a reasonable price. What about maintenance?

Here’s where we run into a problem. Tesla Motors’ headquarters is in California, and anyone living within 100 miles of their service area is covered by the full 3 year, 36,000 mile warranty. For customers living outside a service area, the warranty still applies but they are responsible for all costs associated with transporting their car to the factory.

The good news here is that Tesla is opening stores and service centers in Los Angeles, New York, Chicago, Miami and Seattle.

Next question: How long will the batteries last? Will you spend $109,000 on a car, only to have to buy new batteries for it after 3 or 4 years? That’s a question that remains unanswered, and should remain a large variable in the long-term viability of these cars.

Is Tesla Motors the car company of the future? What questions would you have before parking a Tesla in your garage?

- tgriffith

Diesel chosen over hybrids as the alternative to gas-powered cars. CarGurus survey asks - what kind of car will you buy next?

46% of survey respondents chose alternative-fuel (non-gas) cars

Diesels (19% of respondents) outpace hybrids (14%) as the preferred alternative-fuel car.

CAMBRIDGE, Mass., Sept. 27 — CarGurus® (www.cargurus.com), a leading online automotive community, today announced the results of its survey of more than 4,200 automotive consumers worldwide. Forty-six percent of respondents said they plan to purchase an alternative-fuel car (hybrid, electric, diesel, or hydrogen) as their next car purchase. A greater percentage of consumers stated a preference for diesels (19%) than hybrid cars (14%).

Gasoline still the leader - but not by much
When asked what kind of car they intend to purchase next, 54% of respondents chose a gasoline car as their next purchase. A total of 46% of respondents stated a preference for a car other than gasoline only. In addition to diesels (19% of respondents) and hybrids (14%), 13% of respondents stated a preference for more cutting edge power sources – electric (6%) and hydrogen (7%).

Clean diesel – coming of age
“With the advent of clean diesels, consumers can now enjoy great gas mileage and not have to compromise on performance and comfort,” remarked Langley Steinert, CEO/co-founder of CarGurus. “Take, for example, the 2009 Volkswagen Jetta Turbo diesel (TDI), which gets mileage figures not too far off those of the Toyota Prius (38 city/44 highway for the Jetta TDI vs. 48 city/45 highway for the Prius). For the same price as the Prius (about $22k MSRP), you get substantially better performance due to the higher torque of a diesel engine. In fact, you get about three times the amount of torque with a Jetta TDI – 236 lb-ft compared to only 82 lb-ft for the Prius. These are not your father’s diesels. They are quiet, smooth, and much cleaner than the old diesels we all remember.”

Survey Results
Across the CarGurus Network, 4,200 respondents answered the question: What kind of car are you going to buy next? Respondents answered as follows:

What kind of car are you going to buy next? (Total Votes = 4,200)

1. Regular gasoline powered car		54%
2. Diesel car		19%
3. Hybrid car		14%
4. Hydrogen car		7%
5. Electric car		6%

We need something today, right now, to substantially reduce the amount ...

Remember the Hindenburg?

The horrific explosion in 1937 of that zeppelin was arguably caused by use of hydrogen.

Have we learned nothing in the last 70 years or so? Is hydrogen really the answer to the world’s oil crisis?

Partly because of the publicity around the limited release of Honda’s FCX Clarity hydrogen-powered vehicle, the public is being misled into believing that hydrogen is a viable and immediate solution to our dependency on importing oil.

It’s not. I’m not saying hydrogen isn’t a possible source of powering our transportation needs in the future, but I have serious misgivings about any predictions of it being in use by the general public within the next 20 years.

And we can’t wait 20 years to do something drastic about our oil use. We need something today, right now, to substantially reduce the amount of fuel we use so it will last another 20 to 50 years before hydrogen, or whatever other source is discovered, becomes a truly viable option.

But surely, if Honda can offer hydrogen power to the public in 2008, the technology can’t be that far off, can it?

Oh yes it can.

While Honda’s FCX Clarity is a brilliant piece of engineering, it’s really nothing more than a publicity stunt by experts in the field of public relations and branding. Offering a hydrogen-powered car to the public is absolutely huge, and the press they have received goes a long way towards appeasing the green peace crowd. It also influences the rest of us into believing that Honda is on the cutting edge of eliminating the need for fossil fuels.

The FCX Clarity is a marketing gimmick. It’s an ad campaign. A brilliant one, no doubt, but Honda is no closer than any other car company in offering a mass-produced hydrogen powered vehicle.

And check this out: To implement and build the infrastructure required to support a nation of hydrogen vehicles would take 20-50 years alone. Folks, that’s just to put in the filling stations.

As it stands right now, the cheapest fuel to power our transportation needs with is oil. The immediate solution is not hydrogen. The solution is for automakers around the world to step up and offer cars that average 40 MPG, not the current US average of 20.

What do you think: is hydrogen real or hype?

-tgriffith

Check the website - If you don’t know where you’ve placed your owner’s ...

replace_date('вторник, 6 октября 2009&#8239;г.');

Related posts:

Related posts:

replace_date('понедельник, 28 сентября 2009&#8239;г.');

Related posts:

Related posts:

replace_date('суббота, 26 сентября 2009&#8239;г.');

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

replace_date('пятница, 25 сентября 2009&#8239;г.');

Related posts:

Related posts:

replace_date('вторник, 8 сентября 2009&#8239;г.');

Related posts:

Related posts:

replace_date('воскресенье, 30 августа 2009&#8239;г.');

Related posts:

Related posts:

replace_date('среда, 26 августа 2009&#8239;г.');

Related posts:

Related posts:

replace_date('воскресенье, 23 августа 2009&#8239;г.');

Related posts:

Related posts:

replace_date('среда, 19 августа 2009&#8239;г.');

Related posts:

Related posts:

replace_date('вторник, 11 августа 2009&#8239;г.');

Related posts:

Related posts:

replace_date('пятница, 31 июля 2009&#8239;г.');

Related posts:

Related posts:

replace_date('среда, 15 июля 2009&#8239;г.');

Related posts:

Related posts:

46% of survey respondents chose alternative-fuel (non-gas) cars

Diesels (19% of respondents) outpace hybrids (14%) as the preferred alternative-fuel car.

Related posts:

Related posts:

replace_date('четверг, 2 июля 2009&#8239;г.');

Related posts:

Related posts:

Search

Blog Archive