GM's looking for new ideas?

How Flattering (http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.02/teardown.html)

:lol:

I do believe hearing about Toyota having competitor cars in their posession for research before... I don't think this is anything new, for any manufacturer ;)

Im sure all companies do it. Toyota even does it. I remember reading a review on the Previa and they said that they were driving across the desert when the T100 they were following hit a boar. They went back to the testing facility and the Toyota engineers were all over the T100.

"Yet the 400h gets just three more miles per gallon on the highway than the RX 330 - and it costs nearly $10,000 more. GM engineers say that this price tag at last accurately reflects the real cost of hybrid tech."

-omg really? so a Prius with all the goodies like nav, bluetooth, backup camera really is only worth $18,000?!? Who needs a tC?

That Malibu vs. Prius parts thing is old news.

I remember in 1996 when they promised fuel cells in 2003. Ya well, they're 3 years overdue. 2010 still seems optimistic. 2015 maybe...

Besides, if GM wants to be the first to get fuel cell cars out, by all means. Toyota's waiting with its fuel cell hybrid vehicle.

toyota will always be beter, ALWAYS

Im sure thats something that everyone does. Everybody copies everybody else at on point or another.
The better you know the strengths and weaknesses of your competitors, the better you can design your own vehicles.

I'm sure everybody does reverse engineering. Hyundai/Kia must do it to Toyota whips. I wonder what cars Toyota cuts up? Nissan must cut Toyos and Hondas. Lexus doesn't cut any.. They are PERFECTLY made everytime:):):):):) kidding!! But, GM is just tryin' to justify their crappy cars by bashing hybrid tech. Did carbs vs. FI have this type of battle?

Lord_Anarchy, go to any domestic truck forum and you will get people who swear that trucks made in the '70s were built 10 times better than the ones built today.
I swear they'd be happy as could be if they could get a truck with carbs and a flathead V8.

toyota will always be beter, ALWAYS
Hopefully Toyota execs don't think like that. If Toyota showers itself in ego and blinds itself to its own faults, it will be the downfall of them like it was for GM in the 1970s.

I thought this was a very insightful and interesting article. If GM is really confident about having a fuel cell system ready by 2010, then the oil age may be coming to a close. The next decade is going to be crucial; in my HVAC architecture class, there is a heavy emphasis on designing buildings that consume as little energy as possible because we are running out of oil. Many of the all-glass highrises that were built in the 1960s that are energy pigs will probably be abandoned or torn down since no one in the future will be able to afford to keep them heated and cooled.

Unless there is a major cultural shift by 2025, the world will be a very different place. Fuel cells are part of this cultural shift. I know many here don't seem to take fuel cell seriously and are convinced that gasoline hybrids are the future, but hopefully Toyota is thinking otherwise if they want to stay competitive. There are already plans in California for 200 hydrogen stations to be built along the I-5 corridor by 2010.

I know many here don't seem to take fuel cell seriously and are convinced that gasoline hybrids are the future, but hopefully Toyota is thinking otherwise if they want to stay competitive. There are already plans in California for 200 hydrogen stations to be built along the I-5 corridor by 2010.
Hydrogen still has so many unresolved problems, one of them how can we pay for the cost to produce hydrogen?
I personally think that hydrogen hybrids are the future. It will combine the best of both worlds.

No one said gas-electric hybrids are the sustained future. Even in the 2001 Prius brochure, it states that it's the "bridge from where we are now and where we want to be in the future."

Besides, GM can release their fuel cells for all I care. Toyota will come out with something better and because they have the Prius, they can make hydrogen hybrids. So if GM is trying to be smart and skip a step like the typical American manufacture to cut corners, they'll end up behind in the long run.

It's true.. I used to live right behind the new GM Engineering building here in Oshawa, and they had TONS of other manufacturer's cars in their parking lot. I remember seeing RX300s, X5s, Corollas, Benzes, etc..

It'll be a good while before hydrogen becomes standard because who's gonna foot the bill to build these new hydrogen stations to replace gas stations. Would gas become cheaper if say, 90% went hydro-powered? What if I have a hydro-powered car and try to go cross-country? I doubt little mom and pop gas stations out in middle-of-nowhere, Indiana will have a hydrogen pumping station. What would they charge per gallon for H? This crap is just like that digital tv signal upgrade where by... what year is it? 2009? Everyone is either to have a digital TV or a digital tuner for their analog TV as the broadcast signal will have to switch from analog to digital. FCC wants to free up the bandwith for gov and public communication.

GM is one of the leading manufacturers supporting E85 fuel. Why they aren't making a bigger push for that is crazy! Pump out more E85-capable vehicles and help get the ball rolling on the E85 infastructure (especially in their own backyard, ie Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, etc.)

I'm all for Fuel Cells, but they've been talking about them since the 60s. It's always "10-15 years away". They may have some on the road in 2010, but I bet, like Hybrids, it'd be 5-10 years before they even capture a few percent of the market. Five years into the Hybrid age and we're at, what, 3% of the market? Doesn't really sound like a shift in buying habits just yet to me.

"Yet the 400h gets just three more miles per gallon on the highway than the RX 330 - and it costs nearly $10,000 more. GM engineers say that this price tag at last accurately reflects the real cost of hybrid tech."




No sh** GM, but they're not just paying for the hybrid tech. The RX330 makes 230HP like they said, 400h makes 268, that's like getting the bigger engine option in a car(in addition to the hybrid tech, and other things), 4 cyl, malibu vs. V6 option, Mustang V6 vs. GT, etc, etc. They're losing and making BS excuses as to why they're not changing there ways IMO:disappoin

I dont think hydrogen is really all that helpful. I mean sure, it produces water as the only byproduct...BUT the process to produce hydrogen uses almost as much oil as actually running on gasoline...

No sh** GM, but they're not just paying for the hybrid tech. The RX330 makes 230HP like they said, 400h makes 268, that's like getting the bigger engine option in a car(in addition to the hybrid tech, and other things), 4 cyl, malibu vs. V6 option, Mustang V6 vs. GT, etc, etc. They're losing and making BS excuses as to why they're not changing there ways IMO:disappoin
Isn't the whole point of the hybrid to SAVE gas, not produce more horsepower? Toyota simply bolted an electric motor onto the gasoline engine without decreasing the size of the gas engine, while in the Escape hybrid Ford made the gasoline engine smaller to get much better fuel economy. Horsepower suffers some, but hybrids are supposed to be about better fuel economy, right? Otherwise you'd be buying a 300 hp Mustang GT or a 425 hp Charger SRT-8 if you REALLY wanted horsepower.

Toyota could have done a much better job on the Highlander and RX hybrids...the complaints they are getting about poor fuel economy compared to the gasoline version are deserved. I sure as hell wouldn't pay an $8000 premium for an extra 38 horses when I'm only getting 3 MPG better than the gasoline version. Anybody who pays for that is simply buying into hype. Save money and buy a compact car or a diesel car if fuel efficiency is so important. If the Highlander and RX hybrids were getting 10 MPG better, then I would say go for it...but as it stands right now, it's not worth the added cost.

GM is one of the leading manufacturers supporting E85 fuel. Why they aren't making a bigger push for that is crazy! Pump out more E85-capable vehicles and help get the ball rolling on the E85 infastructure (especially in their own backyard, ie Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, etc.)

I'm all for Fuel Cells, but they've been talking about them since the 60s. It's always "10-15 years away". They may have some on the road in 2010, but I bet, like Hybrids, it'd be 5-10 years before they even capture a few percent of the market. Five years into the Hybrid age and we're at, what, 3% of the market? Doesn't really sound like a shift in buying habits just yet to me.
I don't know as much what GM is doing about E85, but Ford is making a big push to have half of its lineup E85 capable in the next few years. Ford is currently the largest producer of E85 vehicles and has the most on the road. E85 is more popular in the midwest since soybeans are plentiful and there are more E85 filling stations, but it's definitely something that should spread to the rest of the country. Not only are you helping farmers by buying E85 gas, but you pay less at the pump and E85 even gives small boosts in horsepower.

The thing that's different about today than the 1960s is that fuel is more scarce and the world is a different place politically. With each passing year, we are coming closer to depleting our oil reserves. I have a feeling as gas becomes more expensive and less plentiful, development of fuel cell technology will become more urgent. Right now it isn't economically feasible, but whose to say it won't be in another 3 or 4 years? In times of crisis, you'd be amazed how technology that we fumbled around with for decades trying to figure out how to make work suddenly becomes possible overnight.

A hybrid's only purpose is not just to save on gas, the other is to also reduce emissions.

Isn't the whole point of the hybrid to SAVE gas, not produce more horsepower? Toyota simply bolted an electric motor onto the gasoline engine without decreasing the size of the gas engine, while in the Escape hybrid Ford made the gasoline engine smaller to get much better fuel economy. Horsepower suffers some, but hybrids are supposed to be about better fuel economy, right? Otherwise you'd be buying a 300 hp Mustang GT or a 425 hp Charger SRT-8 if you REALLY wanted horsepower.

Toyota could have done a much better job on the Highlander and RX hybrids...the complaints they are getting about poor fuel economy compared to the gasoline version are deserved. I sure as hell wouldn't pay an $8000 premium for an extra 38 horses when I'm only getting 3 MPG better than the gasoline version. Anybody who pays for that is simply buying into hype. Save money and buy a compact car or a diesel car if fuel efficiency is so important. If the Highlander and RX hybrids were getting 10 MPG better, then I would say go for it...but as it stands right now, it's not worth the added cost.

See, that's the problem. First you people say hybrids are slow and weak. Now Toyota presents to you a hybrid that's waay more powerful and you people say it's inefficient. Make up your damn mind!

Anyway, the purpose of the RX400h and Highlander Hybrid was to basically prove to people that if they wanted to, they could use hybrid technology for performance. Just think of them as alternatives to the Explorer V8, 4Runner V8, X5 4.0i, ML500 and so on. I mean, the Highlander Hybrid OUTRUNS the X5 4.0i 0-60 and quarter mile while consuming fuel like a Camry 4 cylinder (ok, official figures put it with Corollas but I figured a Camry is closer.).

On the RX400h test drive I did in May, my average was 9.0L/100km or 26mpg US

I think that article is very funny. It illustrates a typical corporate/goverment bureaucracy trying to explain its lack of competence by criticizing something else.

When hydrogen fuel cells come on line, it is the electric engine/CVT drivetrains that will provide the motive. Just flick the IC engine from the Prius, delete the gas tank and install the fuel cell/fuel storage system. And upgrade the power of the electric engine. Done.

Toyota is getting real-world experience in the next logical evolution of the automobile. They may be jumping the gun by a few years, but I can't blame them. I drove a new Prius last fall, and it is the first "new" new car I've actually enjoyed driving in recent years.

I liked in the article how the GM engineers are talking about how "complicated" is the Lexus 400h. Kind of reminded me of the talented Soviet engineers who built the Tu-144 supersonic airplane by stealing all the design plans for the Concorde. Brilliant reverse-engineering+ there, yes?

Yeah, the Soviet model worked well, didn't it? How are they doing these days, BTW...?

C

Isn't the whole point of the hybrid to SAVE gas, not produce more horsepower? Toyota simply bolted an electric motor onto the gasoline engine without decreasing the size of the gas engine, while in the Escape hybrid Ford made the gasoline engine smaller to get much better fuel economy. Horsepower suffers some, but hybrids are supposed to be about better fuel economy, right? Otherwise you'd be buying a 300 hp Mustang GT or a 425 hp Charger SRT-8 if you REALLY wanted horsepower.

Toyota could have done a much better job on the Highlander and RX hybrids...the complaints they are getting about poor fuel economy compared to the gasoline version are deserved. I sure as hell wouldn't pay an $8000 premium for an extra 38 horses when I'm only getting 3 MPG better than the gasoline version. Anybody who pays for that is simply buying into hype. Save money and buy a compact car or a diesel car if fuel efficiency is so important. If the Highlander and RX hybrids were getting 10 MPG better, then I would say go for it...but as it stands right now, it's not worth the added cost.

No there are more excuses to use to hybrids than just saving gas, some people buy them because you can use carpool lanes by yourself..., Point being.. no one is forcing you to buy hybrids, the numbers, articles and info is there so there is nothing to mislead you.. and even then... go take it for a test drive.

I think that article is very funny. It illustrates a typical corporate/goverment bureaucracy trying to explain its lack of competence by criticizing something else.

When hydrogen fuel cells come on line, it is the electric engine/CVT drivetrains that will provide the motive. Just flick the IC engine from the Prius, delete the gas tank and install the fuel cell/fuel storage system. And upgrade the power of the electric engine. Done.

Toyota is getting real-world experience in the next logical evolution of the automobile. They may be jumping the gun by a few years, but I can't blame them. I drove a new Prius last fall, and it is the first "new" new car I've actually enjoyed driving in recent years.

I liked in the article how the GM engineers are talking about how "complicated" is the Lexus 400h. Kind of reminded me of the talented Soviet engineers who built the Tu-144 supersonic airplane by stealing all the design plans for the Concorde. Brilliant reverse-engineering+ there, yes?

Yeah, the Soviet model worked well, didn't it? How are they doing these days, BTW...?

C

I think you underestimate how far we have yet to advance in regards to fuel cell technology. I've done a limited amount of work with them, and there's alot more to it than to just put it in and go. There's still alot of advancements to be made with the membranes and platinum/alternatives that have to be used to make them effective. Thats where the work is going, not into the electric motors.
A modern fuel cell put into a car that could even come close to being affordable would perform pitifully, both in terms of acceleration/speed and range.

off the top of my head, that's 0-100km/h in 15 secs, top speed of 128km/h (80mph) ~117hp, 170lb-ft, 20 sec to start the car and a range of 300km right? (This is the Ford Focus FCV)

See, that's the problem. First you people say hybrids are slow and weak. Now Toyota presents to you a hybrid that's waay more powerful and you people say it's inefficient. Make up your damn mind!

Anyway, the purpose of the RX400h and Highlander Hybrid was to basically prove to people that if they wanted to, they could use hybrid technology for performance. Just think of them as alternatives to the Explorer V8, 4Runner V8, X5 4.0i, ML500 and so on. I mean, the Highlander Hybrid OUTRUNS the X5 4.0i 0-60 and quarter mile while consuming fuel like a Camry 4 cylinder (ok, official figures put it with Corollas but I figured a Camry is closer.).

On the RX400h test drive I did in May, my average was 9.0L/100km or 26mpg US
I never complained about hybrids being slow and weak, so please don't generalize me with other posts you may have seen.

Look at the Honda Accord hybrid. Only 9 extra horses than the gas V6 model, fuel economy on part with the 4 cylinder model, yet you pay $9000 extra over a standard V6. Hybrid and performance is a marketing gimmick. Just look at the Honda Accord Hybrid sales versus the Toyota Prius sales...huge difference! People aren't buying hybrids for performance; they're buying them for the fuel savings. Gas is still cheap enough that it makes no economic sense to spend thousands extra on a "performance hybrid" when you can get a car with a standard gas V6 and use the money you save annually toward the extra gas expenses (we're only talking a few hundred extra dollars per year).

Then some people try to pull the "well, it has cleaner emissions" card. So do some gasoline models. The 2006 Explorer 4.0L V6 has cleaner emissions than the 2006 Honda Accord hybrid. And even the larger 8 cylinder cars like the Crown Victoria and 300C produce a FRACTION of the NOx and hydrocarbons that they did 15+ years ago. A 2004 Crown Victoria produces less NOx and hydrocarbons than a 2004 Civic Hybrid as well! NOx and hydrocarbons are what eat away at the ozone layer and cause acid rain, smog, and health problems in humans.

The generalization that all hybrids are cleaner than gasoline models is a flawed one, yet the typical American believes that anything with a hybrid badge = our saving grace for the ozone layer.

The comments about GM not pushing the E85 fuel, did you all not see the Super Bowl commercials. They are pushing the crap out of it all of a sudden. Before it was just sorta ther, like yeah they can run on E85 now they are advertising it.

www.livegreengoyellow.com

Then here is a website with a list of all cars taht are E85 compatible now.http://www.e85fuel.com/index.php

I never complained about hybrids being slow and weak, so please don't generalize me with other posts you may have seen.

Look at the Honda Accord hybrid. Only 9 extra horses than the gas V6 model, fuel economy on part with the 4 cylinder model, yet you pay $9000 extra over a standard V6. Hybrid and performance is a marketing gimmick. Just look at the Honda Accord Hybrid sales versus the Toyota Prius sales...huge difference! People aren't buying hybrids for performance; they're buying them for the fuel savings. Gas is still cheap enough that it makes no economic sense to spend thousands extra on a "performance hybrid" when you can get a car with a standard gas V6 and use the money you save annually toward the extra gas expenses (we're only talking a few hundred extra dollars per year).

Then some people try to pull the "well, it has cleaner emissions" card. So do some gasoline models. The 2006 Explorer 4.0L V6 has cleaner emissions than the 2006 Honda Accord hybrid. And even the larger 8 cylinder cars like the Crown Victoria and 300C produce a FRACTION of the NOx and hydrocarbons that they did 15+ years ago. A 2004 Crown Victoria produces less NOx and hydrocarbons than a 2004 Civic Hybrid as well! NOx and hydrocarbons are what eat away at the ozone layer and cause acid rain, smog, and health problems in humans.

The generalization that all hybrids are cleaner than gasoline models is a flawed one, yet the typical American believes that anything with a hybrid badge = our saving grace for the ozone layer.

Yeah, if anyone says their HAH produces less emissions, slap them. It has the same rating as the regular Accords. whoopdeedoo. At least the RX400h/HiHy are SULEV and the new Camry is AT-PZEV.

I agree. I have no idea what they were trying to pull with the Accord Hybrid. Here in Canada, the difference is smaller. The EX V-6 is about $33/34k and the Accord Hybrid is $36,990. So, far the cheapest is the 06 HCH at $25,800 (05 model was $28,500) which is $5,500 cheaper than a base Prius.

as far as the Prius being that much more than the HCH. Isnt the Prius in a different class as far as size is concerned. It is larger thant hte Civic right? Also it has way mor techno gadget wizardry stuff doesnt it. KEless start, info screen, bluetooth, blahblah.

Yeah, it's classified as midsize by EPA whereas the Civic is still compact.

Yes, voice-activation, nav, bluetooth, backup camera, SKS.

In other parts of the world (read: outside NA), add EV Drive Mode and IPA (Intelligent Park Assist) which parks the car for you.

I think you underestimate how far we have yet to advance in regards to fuel cell technology. I've done a limited amount of work with them, and there's alot more to it than to just put it in and go. There's still alot of advancements to be made with the membranes and platinum/alternatives that have to be used to make them effective. Thats where the work is going, not into the electric motors.
A modern fuel cell put into a car that could even come close to being affordable would perform pitifully, both in terms of acceleration/speed and range.

Not at all. I'm very aware of the current limits of fuel cells. That, and the hydrogen fueling network that has not yet been invented are major obstacles.

My point was simply that Toyota is getting the edge on the rest of the technology, if a little prematurely, that is outside the fuel cell/storage system.

I read a review of the Honda FCX a few months ago, and it seemed to the drivers that it was a very decent little (key word: little) car. Range, as you mentioned, was limited though acceptable for a city car. They do seem to be slowly resolving the low-temperature reliability issues, which is good.


A previous poster noted that producing hydrogen uses as much, likely more, oil than just burning in an IC engine. However, there are other methods of producing hydrogen that do not include fossil fuels.

C

btw, Honda has announced that they'll put that hydrogen FCV concept (forgot the name) into production (it'll be about 3-4 years from now). They said it'll have a range of 500km. I think I might have posted it in General Discussion, I don't remember.

Edit: Apparently I didn't. Here's the link anyway

http://www.auto123.com/en/info/news/news,view.spy?artid=56075&pg=1

btw, Honda has announced that they'll put that hydrogen FCV concept (forgot the name) into production (it'll be about 3-4 years from now). They said it'll have a range of 500km. I think I might have posted it in General Discussion, I don't remember.

Edit: Apparently I didn't. Here's the link anyway

http://www.auto123.com/en/info/news/news,view.spy?artid=56075&pg=1

That is one seriously cool-looking car. Hope Honda doesn't wimp out on the rad design when it comes to market (Acura CL-X-to-CL comes to mind). I might have to add a Honda to my little fleet.

I can't figure out why people are so gaga about using natural gas for hydrogen power in a home-refueling station. It's still fossil fuels, albeit much cleaner. What is wrong with photoelectrolysis? You can make H2 pretty easily that way, with O2 as a byproduct. I'd love to be sitting in the backyard on a sunny day, knowing the solar panels on my roof were slowly refilling my car's fuel tank...

C

yeah, I'm curious why solar panels aren't being researched more and why they're not trying to drive the cost down.

yeah, I'm curious why solar panels aren't being researched more and why they're not trying to drive the cost down.


Size I think is the biggest issue. TO be able to get them to absorb enought energy they need to be fairly large. I know there is a subdivision entrance that is using soalr panels to run their lights for the signs. late in teh night or early morning they are done and they are only running 4 100 watt lights.

True but like most things technology, R&D can bring the size and power down fairly quickly right?

I remember back in the late 80's/early 90's (when I was a little sprout), solar powered vehicles were the rage. Many of the techno colleges actually built solar powered cars that basically used road bicycle wheels and went cross country in them. These "cars" were all pretty long, and they topped out at ~35 mph if I remember correctly. The problem comes when they hit cloudy patches...

What the automakers need to do is figure out a way to make a car modular! Convert to a lightweight, efficient one-seater for commuting, then attach the sedan frame or truck bed for other uses.