The alternative fuel movement has uncovered a major difference between GM and Honda, and possibly between U.S. and Japanese automakers.

Of course, one major difference is that Japanese cars such as Honda and Toyota are frequently built in the United States, while GMs and Fords are often built in Mexico. But that's another thread.

The difference regarding alternative fuel vehicles is that U.S. automakers talk about them, while Japanese companies actually produce them. Here are some examples:

In 1996, GM (Saturn) released the EV-1, an electric-only vehicle. Zero emissions, but limited range, and limited appeal with $1/gal. gasoline. Still, buyers lined up to lease the thing for $400/month. So when the boys in Detroit discovered that the EV-1 actually worked and that owners liked them, they seized and destroyed all of them (except one, which sits in a museum).

Suspicions abound as to the motive for scrapping the EV-1. And GM's current actions seem curious, too. They make a Saturn Aura Hybrid with a 4-cyl. engine that they dishonestly compare to the standard Aura with a V-6. And GM just announced a Chevy Malibu Hybrid for 2008. The new Malibu Hybrid will achieve 2 mpg more than the standard Malibu.

2 mpg.

Meanwhile, Honda and Toyota have been producing hybrids for more than a decade that achieve 40-60 mpg. Toyota recently sold it 1 millionth hybrid.

On the alternative fuels front, GM keeps hyping its Volt concept, promising that it's only a few years away (same thing they said a few years ago, same thing they'll say a few years from now). Honda, on the other hand, is actually producing its FCX hydrogen powered car.

Southern California car buyers can begin leasing the FCX this summer. It will have a range of 270 miles, and a choice of two dozen hydrogen filling stations around the southern and northern parts of the state. It will have 135 hp and 189 ft-lb torque. The three year lease will cost $600/month, including scheduled maintenance and collision insurance.

Such specifics as time of release, cost, specifications, etc. come from companies that actually produce innovative vehicles. Conversely, generalizations and platitudes come from companies that don't produce, such as these from GM vice-chairman Bob Lutz regarding the Chevy Volt:


"We'll have four battery packs in test cars by the end of the year..."

"GM was 90 percent committed to the Volt concept, now we're 100 percent committed."


GM is "committed" to building innovative cars. Honda actually builds them. That's the difference.

'Tis true. And has been for too long now. Nice post.

Some don't seem to grasp the reality of the 'concept car'. If ya can't sell it, only "come up with it", then the business side is going to tank.

2-MPG-better-than-gas-only hybrid cars and 20MPG hybrid SUVs, all of which do NOTHING for lowering emissions, are not the answer. Wake up GM!

'04 Seaside Pearl #7. Fumoto oil drain, mudflaps, rear bumper scuff protector & rear warn system, compass mirror, EV mode button, 8" subwoofer in right rear cubby & 6" subs under seats, power lumbar in the front seats, Coastaletech hitch w/ Aspen bike/snowboard rack. iPod2car, 2 amps, Alpine component speakers, and DVD video, solid 47 MPG @ 70000 miles.

Chrysler has had a good track record of bringing concept cars to the market. But the Viper, Prowler, and Challenger are a little out of step.

A friend with the Magnum R/T is pretty happy with the FE of the cylinder deactivating Hemi, which they don't advertise, but may do more than any current GM option.

In GM's defense,
they always need to prove themselves to the public. For every wrong step they make, people blow it out of proportion. For every right thing they do, people say they could have done better.

At least GM is trying to do right. It might not be the 50mpg that a tiny Prius could do, but at least they are making larger SUV/Trucks that have this technology built it. GM just announced the release of the New Hybrid Pickup Truck that runs off the battery for speeds up to 30mph and that includes towing up to 30 mph. That is impressive. It means the electrical engine has enough torque to pull a load. No only that, in a construction site, you could be on electrical mode the whole day!!

Large SUV and Trucks are always going to have low mpg, they are made that way to be tough. It is really hard to reduce the weight of a 3500 ton pickup truck. It needs to be able to haul that much in its load category.

As for the other cars they make that are Hybrids, they are not full hybrid based cars, they state that on the sticker, they are mild hybrids....

When GM made the EV-1, did anyone consider that it might have cost a fortune to make and that is way they canceled it? Would anyone here pay $800.00 to lease it or more?

1996 technology is nothing compared to today's technology. Today's technology is cheaper and more reliable. We also have to account for shrinkage. That's why we can no buy LiON batteries in the sizes of AAA. AA. C. D, etc. before that it was too big or did not yield great results.

The Volt is another one of GM's "wants". It wants to make this car, but the technology might be too expensive to create a mass produce of it. Battery technology is also changing fast. LiON has gone down in price and has become more stable. Most people don't understand why so many laptops last year had batteries explode. They exploded because of the chemical reaction of air and moisture. LiON technology until most recently has been very unstable...

I am glad Honda and Toyota are able to send out little cars and trucks with good to great mileage, but remember for all the problems you experience with their cars/trucks, they are compiling a database to refine the product. You in turn are the testers of their cars.

Thanks

----
1987 Chevy Spectrum - 200,000+ Miles -Junk Yard
1994 Honda Civic DX Coupe - Truck Hit it
1998 Acura 2.3 CL - End of Lease
2002 Acura TL 3.2 - End of Lease
2004 Acura MDX - End of Lease
2007 Mercedes ML350 -Lemon
2007 Honda Civic Hybrid w/Navi - Active

One thing that made the EV1 expensive is that many if not most parts were custom or hand built. EV1 was considered a niche vehicle, and never saw the cost-saving benefits of full production.

There are actually several EV1's still around, but only empty body shells, because GM first ripped out the power train before "kindly" donating them.
I saw one at the 2006 Madisson hybrid fest.
Since I had never seen one before (Not even in pictures), The WSU had their own home-brew powertrain under the hood,
and I first thought:
Wow, that car looks SO COOL! Bet they'ed sell like crazy if it were offered!
My heart just fell when I learned they actually had been produced, but later confiscated and shredded from people who thrilled only to drive them.

There are a growing number of individuals who desperately want an EV, they are even willing to buy an old, worn out VW Rabbit, Civic etc and rip out the ICE and replace it with EV parts. Some crafty self-engineers spend under $1,000 for the project, others spend more than $16,000.

There's an EV with 250Mile range and 0-60 in about 4 seconds. Base cost is about $100,000. They can't produce them fast enough for demand. You'd have to wait 7 months if you wanted one.

GM (at one time) had the ball on this but fumbled.
Surely they have the technology to produce a good, dependable, useful battery EV- but they're afraid to make them.
Why don't they? Even with gas at +3.00/g?
Your guess is good as mine.

Instead they keep waving this Hydrogen carrot saying "someday soon, someday soon" while proudly advertising a 30MPG gasoline car.

Yes the Volt will forever remain on the concept shelf, and when Japan/korea/etc in short time produces a cost effective, reliable EV, you can be sure the big 3 will be crying "Limit the imports" while more American auto workers loose their jobs.

It's a shame. Shame on Ford and Chrysler, but especially GM.
Truly words vs deeds.
(Ok I'm done)
-Steve

Efficient drivers do it better.
1003 miles a tank personal record. 74MPG calculated. HCH1 CVT

I hate to say it but there are many more dumb Americans than smart ones.
They even found the perfect president - twice.
What really matters is feeling that you can drink a beer with the guy.

I work with a guy who bought a 1992 Ford Thunderbird the same year I bought my 1992 Accord, I paid $15K out the door.
I did all the scheduled maintenance and oil changes but other than that did not spend one penny on repairs.

Ten years later I sold it for $5K and he had long since junked his Ford.
He told me he paid over $12,000 in repairs and finally just gave up.

He replaced it with another Ford.
Why? I asked.
His reply, "My dad always drove Fords."

The American Big 3 will do just fine I'm afraid.

Buyers of American cars don't look into resale value or reliability scores.
People who buy them think Consumer Reports and J.D. Powers are just anti-American leftie organizations.

Need fewer troops to support.
Drive a hybrid.
Best tank 71.65 MPG.

Before this car I spent two years learning hypermiling on my 2004 HCH1.

Sad, but true!

Hot_Georgia you want to blame GM for not producing the EV?????

Your first line says it all, it was TOO expensive to produce. GM (even though they are) is not in the business to lose money. Environment or not, in the end they need to account to the shareholders and board.

Another big reason they scraped them and did not allow people purchase it was a liability issue. Replacement batteries, disposal of batteries, long term maintenance, training for technicians, etc.. the list could go on and on... All of those things cost a lot of money. And we are talking about 90's dollar..

Yeah, the Volt may remain on the shelf for GM. But they will be able to sell out the patents on it and have Honda or Toyota, or Chery buy it up to refine and build. In the end, any car company that license their technology, they will get a cut...

There is a reason why we don't have just one computer model on the shelf at the local store. People don't want the most expensive model (or cannot afford it) and others don't want the cheapest (because it might not work for their needs).

GM cannot afford to put all the eggs in the Hybrid/Alternative Fuel market at this time. GM has some Hybrids out there and people are trash talking them because they only get 2 mph more then the regular gas version. But then how many people on here know that GM makes most of the Bus run in the Nation's Capital and most of them are Natural Gas or Hybrids???

GM needs about 10 years to enter into the AFM before they can go full fledge.

----
1987 Chevy Spectrum - 200,000+ Miles -Junk Yard
1994 Honda Civic DX Coupe - Truck Hit it
1998 Acura 2.3 CL - End of Lease
2002 Acura TL 3.2 - End of Lease
2004 Acura MDX - End of Lease
2007 Mercedes ML350 -Lemon
2007 Honda Civic Hybrid w/Navi - Active

So full of holes. Here we go.........

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you meant to say ALTERNATIVE PROPULSION not ALTERNATIVE FUELS. Hybrids currently on the market are alternative propulsion systems (hardware) but they do not yet use alternative fuels (liquids and/or gases). Until Honda got into the diesel game with the Accord, neither Honda nor Toyota put much stock in the idea of ALTERNATIVE FUELS in North America. Both have been invovled in the development of ALTERNATIVE PROPULSION technologies. GM and Ford have been involved in the development, manufacture and sale of ALTERNATIVE FUEL vehicles (diesel, ethanol, Compressed Natural Gas, Liquid Propane Gas) in North America and other parts of the world. Remember that the US is not the only vehicle market in the world. Both GM and Ford have been producing and selling cars that run on E100 (ie - no gasoline or other petroleum products used in the fuel) in Brazil for several years.

Every major automaker builds vehicles in multiple regions. North America (US, Canada, Mexico) are considered one region. Cars and trucks sold in a region are typical built at various points in the region. GM's Full Sized trucks are built in plants in Oshawa, Canada, Janesville Wisconsin, Fort Wayne Indiana, Arlington Texas, and Toluca Mexico. Where any individual truck comes from depends on model and options. It's a matter of filling up all your available production options. Some of GMs cars are built in Lordstown Ohio, Lansing Michigan, Detroit Michigan, Lake Orion Michigan, Fairfax Kansas, Oshawa Ontario, and Ramos Ariszpe Mexico. Just like some of Honda's vehicles are built in the US, some in Canada, and some in Japan.


Again, I'll assume you mean ALTERNATIVE PROPULSION SYSTEMS, because Toyota and Honda are both just now getting into ALTERNATIVE FUELS.

That statement I've highlighted in RED is so ridiculous it almost defies comment. A company develops a successful product and destroys it because it's successful? Please....... And by the way, there are a lot more than 1 EV-1 still around. I know. I see them often. They are not in public commerce for the reasons I mention below, but they are still around and being used for development work.

From DAY 1 of the EV-1 program, it was established as a lease only program and the lessees were told up front that they WOULD NOT be able to keep their cars beyond the lease period for 2 basic reasons......

1) The battery technology included in the vehicle, while state of the art for PRODUCTION READY systems at the time, was already known to be obsolete compared to battery systems then in development and there would not be an opportunity to retrofit.

2) The program was supposed to be a joint development with the State of California to assess the viability of electric vehicles for primary transportation. California's part of the commitment, the installation of a charging system infrastructure to allow consumers to charge their vehicles away from home, WAS NEVER LIVED UP TO. The only chargers available to most consumers was the large inductive charger GM installed in the homes of lessees. These cars could not be re-charged on regular home-based electrical systems. Without infrastructure, the cars cannot exist. GM's biggest mistake in the whole matter was not following up with an EV-2 with better battery technology.

Fuel economy comparisons are made wrt the 2.4L 4 cylinder non-hybrid. If individual dealers make comparisons to the V6, that's their own business. There is not currently a V6 hybrid to make direct comparisons to the non-hybrid V6, so comparisons are made wrt the 2.4L.

Not much I would want to say here. It is what it is. It will be very similar to the Saturn Aura in terms of function and capability, but how much improvement one sees is directly related to how the vehicle development team chooses to outfit the car with hybrid compatible content and technology. There are some differences vehicle to vehicle. The VUE, Aura, and Malibu all use the same basic hybrid system but achieve different results. The 2008 VUE is seeing around 20 - 25% improvement.

and is at the same time launching pickups and SUVs that get significantly worse fuel economy than the trucks and SUVs that GM and Ford market. They just launched the new 13 mpg Sequoia at the LA Auto Show.

Huh???? Same thing GM said a few years ago? The Volt concept was barely on paper 12 months ago, so what exactly are you referring to that was said a few years ago? Please enlighten me!!! I have very detailed knowledge of GM product plans and product announcements, so I'd be thrilled to have you enlighten me on the one(s) I missed.

GM has already started delivering Fuel Cell powered Equinox SUVs with a 300 mile range in New York, DC, and one other area I don't recall off the top of my head.

When Bob Lutz first came to GM, he commisioned the design and concept car build for the Pontiac Solstice and then committed to building the car and making it available for around $20K. Everyone in the industry thought he was blowing smoke. There was not a development team in place to even research the idea, let alone an assembly plant. Two and a half years later the Pontiac Solstice was launched (Most new vehicle programs take 3 - 4 years to launch). Six months later the Saturn Sky was launched off the same platform. Then the Opel GT was launched as a European version of the car.

As far as innovative vehicles, the Chevrolet Avalanche was launched as a game changer in the Crew Cab / meets SUV arena. Ford and Honda have both tried to mimic parts of the concept with very limited results (Ford Explorer SportTrac / Honda Ridgeline).

As far as innovative technologies, BMW, Mercedes Benz, and Chrysler all looked at the Toyota Hybrid System and the GM 2-Mode system. All elected to invest in the GM 2-Mode system. GM vehicles are launching with it as I type this. Dodge (Chrysler) vehicles will launch with the system in January / February. The BMW X6 will launch with it in mid-2008, as will the Mercedes Benz ML series utilities. And there will be many more vehicles of various brands using the system within the next couple years. I am simply not at liberty to specifically mention them because they have not been publicly announced yet.

If you dislike GM for whatever your reasons may be, fine. But when you decide to try to back it up with data, please at least research it well enough to get it right.

Peace,

Martin

I am NOT the official voice of GM with respect to Hybrid issues

I am NOT the official voice of GM with respect to Hybrid issues

I am NOT the official voice of GM with respect to Hybrid issues

Well, you've got me on the "dislike GM" thing. I was born in the 60s, and can remember folks in the 70s talking about the proverbial cars built on mondays or fridays. I can also remember mom and me being stranded on the road because her Detroit-built car just quit working. But, hey, that's what 6-year-old cars do, right? They can't run forever, can they?

Then in 1978, mom took me to the Toyota dealer and we drove away in a new Celica. Even a kid could see that this car was different than the other ones. The doors didn't squeak, the interior pieces didn't rattle, and, as I discovered in later years, it was fun to drive. Mom drove that car until 1985 with no breakdowns and no major repairs.

Meanwhile, all I ever heard out of the Big Three was "buy American!" After decades of using their oligopolistic control of auto production to produce the same unreliable product year after year, they finally had to face competition. Yet, their response wasn't to build better cars, themselves. It was to heap guilt on consumers. A sign in the parking lot of the local GM plant read: If you drive a foreign car, don't park it here.

Of course, while one corporate hand was waving the flag, the other was busy moving the factories to foreign countries. "Buy American," indeed. I could go on about the incest between Detroit and D.C. regarding auto safety and CAFE standards, but I think you know where I stand.

U.S. automakers never innovated, never improved their products until they absolutely had to as a matter of corporate survival. And I see that pattern continue to this day. It makes me angry because it's simply not the American way.

As for my initial post, we can play semantic games with "alternative fuel" vs. "alternative propulsion." I consider electricity an alternative fuel to gasoline, but I'll defer to you on the wording. And you're correct that I can't prove my beliefs about the EV-1 program. Nor can I prove my belief that U.S. automakers collude with oil companies and Congress to produce the most inefficient vehicles possible to maximize stock prices and gasoline tax revenues. I can't prove them, so I can't fault you for considering those conspiracy theories "ridiculous."

However, I can prove that my Civic Hybrid averages 50 mpg:


http://www.elementownersclub.com/for...ad.php?t=40031

http://www.elementownersclub.com/for...ad.php?t=37754

http://www.elementownersclub.com/for...ad.php?t=35956


I can also prove that GM, Ford and Chrysler aren't even in game when it comes to fuel efficiency:


http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bestworst.shtml


In their defense, they're not on the "worst efficient" list, either. Ferrari, Bentley and Aston Martin hold those honors. If that's praiseworthy, then let the word spread.

But the point is that U.S. automakers remain perpetually behind the technology curve. Toyota and Honda produce cars today that the Big Three only promise they'll build in the future.

I hope they do build them, and I hope that they're better than the Japanese cars. I'd love for GM's Volt to revolutionize the auto industry, and start a consumer movement that leads Detroit out of the mess it's in. I'd love for U.S. companies to advance technology by leaps and bounds, to the astonishment of their foreign competitors.

If they do, I'll be the first to say, "I was wrong." But they just keep proving me right.