mmarshall

The Original FCX:




Today's FCX:
















In a Nutshell: The car of the future is now just about ready for the present.


No, guys, this is not one of my own reviews. Road and Track Magazine beat me to it. Being formal members of the automotive press (I'm not), they, of course, get to see and sample new vehicles sometime before the rest of us car enthusiasts do. No matter, though.....they still did a good write-up, and, after reading it in my R&T paper copy (I have a subscription) I thought I'd share it with you guys, for no other reason than the extreme potential significance of this car....it stands, eventually, to revolutionize auto powertrains as we know them.

I'll write up my own opening section below, and then turn it over to Road and Track:


Leave it to Honda to (often) be the first auto manufacturer to come up with, and mass-produce, new engine technology. Honda was the first manufacturer, in the 1970's, to introduce a CVCC (Controlled Vortex Combustion) engine, without a catalytic converter, and still met the same emissions as the converter-equipped cars starting in 1975...the only problem is that its drivability was atrocious (the engine would stumble and stall) until fully warm. In the early 1990's, Honda was the first manufacturer to borrow from its F1 technology and put VTEC (variable valve timing) into their regular street cars...by then, of course, electronic fuel injection had cured most of the drivability problems of carburated engines. In 2000, Honda became the first manufactuer to mass-produce a gas-electric hybrid car (the Insight) in the American market, beating the introduction of the Toyota Prius by 6-8 months (I covered that story in detail in my new 2010 4-door Honda Insight review just a few days ago). A few years ago, Honda produced a small, 2-door, squarish FCX hydrogen fuel/cell car for use by municipal governments and testing organizations. A few other manufacturers followed with potential competitors....notably Mercedes and its small, fuel-cell, A-Class, 4-door hatchback....but Honda led the pack in the general development of fuel-cell technology.


Fuel-cell techology differs markedly from the straight-gas, diesel, gas-electric hybrid, or straight battery-electric motors that most of you (and me) are familiar with. It was basically developed by NASA, back in the 1960's, for use in the space program, and used (at the time) very expensive components and technology. High cost has prevented its general use, for decades, in common street cars. But Honda (and some other manufacturers, some in tandem), have been working diligently on lowering the cost and perfecting a low-cost, affordable fuel-cell stack for the average car.....and the first fruits of it are now showing.

In (automotive) fuel-cell technology, compressed hydrogen (from a tank at some 5000 PSI) is combined with oxygen to produce electricity and water vapor. (Remember the water-electrolysis experiments that you did in junior-high-school science?.....this is essentially the reverse of that). The electricity powers an electric motor, which powers the car, and charges the battery pack. The excess water vapor goes out the exhaust pipe (obviously, corrosion-resistent materials are needed for the pipe). There is no catalytic converter (none is needed) or muffler (the electric motor is not loud enough). Braking is by the regenerative-braking method now common in gas-electric hybrids.

Fuel-cell vehicles are much-lauded by environmentalists because they use no petroleum or fossil fuels at all (natural-gas and propane, used by some vehicles, are considered fossil fuels). Some cars use clean-burning ethanol, but ethanol is very inefficient and gets very poor mileage. And battery-operated, straight-electric cars often get their recharging from electric power plants that burn coal or nuclear fuels.

Hydrogen-powered cars offer a lot of potential solutions to these problems (and, of course, our continuing dependance on foreign oil). Even if we drill for crude oil as much as we can here at home (which I strongly favor, BTW), it is only as temporary solution at best.....that oil will eventually run out. But not so with hydrogen.....in one form or another, it is the probably the most widespread element on the planet (and, of course, the lightest, with both an atomic number/weight of 1).

Fuel-cell cars, to now, even at Honda, have not been offered to the general public, except for a few lease-customers. The latest, second-generation FCX is still not offered (yet) to the public nationwide, mostly because of the shortage of hydrogen-filling stations. Customers are still picked for lease ($600 a month, and Honda does free maintenance and repairs), but the number is growing. We may see it offered to the general public by next year.

I would have liked, very much, to review this car myself, but, at the moment, that is not possible. So, I'll share R&T's review with you instead.

Here it is:

http://www.roadandtrack.com/article....rticle_id=7906

http://www.roadandtrack.com/article....rticle_id=7434

kt22cliff

Hydrogen is not "probably" the most abundant element, it IS the most abundant element. But these hydrogen fuel cell systems are still not "clean" in pure sense until they can free hydrogen cheaply from something like ocean water not hydrogen from natural gas which is where they are currently getting the hydrogen that's sitting in the insignificant number of hydrogen re-fueling stations. Of course you can "free" hydrogen from water at present time but it costs more energy to free hydrogen that way so it's not profitable.

Still it's far better direction than drilling for oil at home or elsewhere. US has something along the lines of 3-5% of oil reserve. And that 5% is the number you would get from the most oil drilling friendly people. US uses 25% of crude being currently produced. Not to mention, all the US oil fields are older therefore is well past its prime meaning there will be less oil from same wells. Plus, despite what **** Cheney believes, oil is finite and will run out eventually. Do the math. Drilling more is not a solution, it's either dumb political slogan or kicking the can down the road or both. Solution has to be moving away from oil to something either renewable or sustainable energy source. That eventual solution might be hydrogen or solar or something else. Who knows at this point but it sure won't be more oil from US or Saudi Arabia.

mmarshall

It's the most abundent element that we now know of, but there may be discoveries yet to be made. New ways may also be discovered, that we don't know of yet, of extracting it.

Well, I stated in my post above that even though I strongly support more drilling, it is a temporary solution at best, and even if new oil fields are discovered, they are finite, too. Of course, so is hydrogen, but you're talking about potentially a far more vast supply.

Cheney never said that the supply of oil is infinite. He simply believes, like I do, that it is one of the best short-term solutions, UNTIL a new infrastructure of hydrogen-refillng stations can be ready for cars like the FCX.

kt22cliff

We might discover new and better ways to extract hydrogen. Or we might not. But Hydrogen is the most abundant element not the most abundant element we now know of. The reason hydrogen is the most abundant element - basically 75% of all elemental mass in universe is H2 - is b/c it's the simplest. You cannot get more simpler than 1 proton and 1 electron.

As for "Short term solution", that is an oxymoron if there ever was one. That's nice politically correct way of saying kicking the can down the road. The main problem with oil is that we are going to run out of it. If that's true, how is pumping more of oil now is a "solution"?? Now some nutcases believe there are unlimited oil buried somewhere. At least for them, it's logical to say pumping more oil is the solution.

mmarshall

I mentioned in my statement that its atomic number and weight were both 1 (if you want to get technical, the atomic weight is 1.00797) Yes, I remember high school chemistry, too.

It is not political correctness, but fact. If we are going to meet our demand for oil, and especially imported oil, without the price going through the roof, we are going to have to find, drill, refine, and sell more of it here at home UNTIL we find alternate energy sources. It's as simple as that; that is not just the opnion of a "nutcase". Even done of the Congressional Democrats who have often fought against it are now changing their minds. The alternative is being at the mercy of OPEC regimes and tinhorn dictators like Chavez (who IS, I might add, a nutcase). There are a number of sources not yet being tapped, and there may (?) be oil fields yet undiscovered.....a big new one, for example, was discovered not long ago in th Gulf of Mexico. However, oil, in the long term, WILL run out, and eventually, we will have to turn to non-petroleum sources for cars and other energy needs. That is one of the main reasons cars like the FCX are being developed....we can't just keep putting it off forever.

I myself somewhat like the idea of ethanol and its clean-burning, high-octane characteristics (it is widely used in Brazil, for example), but it gets poor mileage, and, in some methods of producing it, takes a lot of energy to produce. In this country, it uses a fair amount of the corn crop.

We can argue national oil or hydrogen policy, though, in the Debate forum. This is not the proper place for it. Let's get back to the car itself, the thread topic.....the FCX.

UDel

I really wish the new Insight had been styled just like the FCX Clarity inside and out maybe just on a smaller scale. From what people say the FCX is a really good looking car especially when you see it in person. I know the Insight carries a few cues from the insight on the exterior but it is nowhere near as sharp looking as the FCX.

GSteg

iTrader: (15)

The current FCX is a major improvement over the previous model. The 02 model weighs 3700lb! This one is just a hair under 3600lb, and from the looks of it, it's quite bigger too.

mmarshall

I saw both the Insight and FCX at the D.C. Auto Show in February, but couldn't get in either one (since then, of course, I've reviewed an Insight). The Insight apears to be slightly smaller than the FCX, which appears to use a (possibly) stretched Civic platform. As you note, though, there are a number of styling similarities, especially in the front ends and rear rooflines.
Inside, both the Insight and FCX dashes seem to have derived, more or less, from the Civic.

You may personally think that the FCX looks better (I'm neutral, and don't particularly care for the styling of either one), but consider that when the FCX goes on sale to the general public (not just for selected $600-a-month leases) it will probably cost considerably more than the Insight. Low prices often cause people to overlook some automotive faults.....like, in the case of the Insight, a bumpy, unrefined IMA hybrid system and some cheap interior trim.

mmarshall

The original model had a much taller roof, and, considering its overall length and width, was probably more space-efficient inside for carrying things than the new model is. The new model, of course, has a more efficient fuel-cell system, much slicker aerodynamics for slicing through the air, and, of course, four doors for more convienent back-seat access. Of course, I can't describe either one in great detail because I haven't (yet) had a chance to review drive one.

What I don't understand, though (and neither Road and Track or Honda's literature/web site explains) is why the FCX has an outdated lithium-ion battery pack when gas-electric hybrids like the Insight and Prius now have far more efficient nickel-cadmium and nickel hydride ones? I'll toss the question out to you guys............anybody have any idea?

kt22cliff

Generally speaking Lithium-ion battery weigh less for same power output compared to Nickel-Cadmium or Nickel metal Hydride batteries and doesn't suffer from "memory effects". But usually Lithium ion batteries are more expensive

mmarshall

Thanks, kt.

I actually was a little off (perhaps mistaken) when I remarked that Lithium-ion batteries were "outdated"...I had confused them, for a minute, with the old lead-acid batteries, which ARE outdated. Lithium-ion batteries aren't really that out of date.

GSteg

iTrader: (15)

The only thing with lithium is that if they get too heated/overcharged/etc, they explode. I think that's one of the reasons why we haven't seen them mass produced for automotive use.

I use lithium batteries for my flashlights and what not, but I never leave them in my car because of heat.

ren495

So it has a lithium ion battery pack + electric motor, just like an electric car, except it also has the hydrogen system.

the only difference is where the electricity comes from in the electric car. but you also have to consider where the hydrogen comes from in that case, which can pollute way more than regular electricity production.

Plus I like the idea of being able to charge my car at home from solar panels/wind generators, instead of driving to gas (or this case hydrogen) stations.