Honda FCX Clarity one of Motor Trend's "Top 10 Cars of 2007"
One can't help but wonder if Motor Trend felt the need to include at least one alternative fueled car on their list of "Top 10 Cars of 2007", considering that none of the other machines come close to delivering good fuel mileage or an eco-image. Whatever their reasoning, they chose to include the Honda FCX Clarity on their list, saying that "it blew us away because, as the world's first production fuel-cell vehicle, it gave us the chance to drive the future, now." That is certainly debatable, considering that it requires hydrogen -- which is a little more difficult to find than gas. Take a look at the full list:
- AUDI R8
- BMW M3
- CADILLAC CTS
- CHEVY MALIBU
- FERRARI F430 SCUDERIA
- HONDA FCX CLARITY
- INFINITI G37 COUPE
- JAGUAR XF
- MITSUBISHI LANCER EVO X
- NISSAN GT-R
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Tony Belding 9:43PM (12/30/2007)
I've read comments from a lot of people who drove the FCX Clarity and were impressed. What's odd is that if you look at what impressed them, it's how the Clarity "drives just like a normal car". That's impressive? That's the future? It seems like a lot of expense and hassle to get to where we already are.
Tesla and Aptera are far more interesting, to me at least.
Reply
sensitive_man 10:12PM (12/30/2007)
yea, if I had a 100k burning in my pocket I might go for a Tesla-vaporus-transportationus.
Reply
laticha 11:40PM (12/30/2007)
yeah!! http://www.yeaah.mactanque.com
Reply
Joseph 12:03AM (12/31/2007)
I think the FCX deserves its spot in this top ten list. (But also should the Tesla)
Honda has put huge efforts into this vehicle, and has made huge advancements in fuel cell vehicle technology.
Despite Honda's efforts, battery powered cars are still a much, much more realistic option than a fuel cell powered one.
The fuel-cell car is where the electric car was 12 years ago. (The EV1 release in 1996) and that's just vehicle-wise in terms of technology. The infrastructure is where the electric car was 100 years ago. (Back when the electrical infrastructure was almost nothing)
Despite the huge short comings of hydrogen, the car itself is great. Anyway, I think Honda deserves a spot on the list for their great achievement. Maybe Tesla will get a sport on the list when Whitestar comes out.
Reply
Yanquetino 2:10AM (12/31/2007)
Does Motor Trend mean one of the top 10 cars for... 2017???? Even Honda admits that the car won't be available for sale for at least another decade, and only then for the price of a high end sports car. I don't think ANY car that has yet to be sold to the public should be honored in this way, no matter the technological achievement. I agree with Tony that the Aptera and Tesla are more intriguing, and show much greater promise, but even they shouldn't be considered for the award until they are actually in customers' hands. We'll see what happens with next year's awards.
Reply
giyad 3:26AM (12/31/2007)
"it requires hydrogen -- which is a little more difficult to find than gas."
Are you sure its more difficult to find? It may be difficult to separate now, but its definitely more abundant than gas. H2O my friend, H20... as soon as we discover a cheap and efficient way to separate it, gas will be bye bye.
Reply
Throwback 6:29AM (12/31/2007)
The reason the Aptera and Tesla are not included is because MT did not drive them in 2007. This is a list of the top ten cars MT drove in 2007. Tesla has not let any enthusiast magazine drive their cars yet.
Reply
BlackbirdHighway 9:49AM (12/31/2007)
According to the Tesla website blog by Darryl Siry, Vice President of Sales, Marketing, and Service:
"Motor Trend Technical Editor Kim Reynolds joined us for a day of driving Validation Prototypes 9 and 10 on Monday (December 3)". So that was in 2007, but maybe it was too late in the year to make the top 10 list.
While the Tesla Roadster is expensive, the FCX is over $1,000,000, if you could actually buy it. A very few people can lease it, but at a loss to Honda, so it's a promotional campaign, not a regular production vehicle sales situation.
I wish Honda luck though.
Reply
Frankenlogic 10:25AM (12/31/2007)
Right now we're a slave to the gas pump. So now we all want to be a slave to the hydrogen pump???
Electric vehicles are the only solution to be free of the monopolies (replace big oil with big hydrogen). Why use electrical energy to separate hydrogen from water, more electricity to keep it cool, and who knows how much pollution will be caused by trucking the hydrogen from the production facility to your local fill up station.
Why not just use the electricity to fill up your battery? No wasted energy. No being a slave to the mega corps. Couple that with renewable energy sources and you have the best solution of all.
Reply
Yanquetino 11:18AM (12/31/2007)
Bullseye, Frankenlogic! We would do better to spend our money on solar panels and wind generators for our homes instead of continuing to drop it into the pockets of the big oil/hydrogen magnates. The energy generated would not only power 90% of our transportation needs with EVs, it would also help light, heat, and cool our homes. You can't make gasoline --or hydrogen-- on your roof.
Reply
why not the LS2LS7? 11:25AM (12/31/2007)
Actually yanquetino, you can make hydrogen on your roof. I saw a prototype house that did it on "This Old House" a couple years ago. It took electricity from solar panels on the roof and made hydrogen by electrolyzing water. Then you put the hydrogen in your fuel cell car (not shown) and use it (presumably the next day).
Didn't we establish the FCX isn't the first production fuel cell car on here?
Most of these cars are pretty absurd. Most of all the ones that aren't even out yet. For a car to be a top 10 car, I would think it would have to be actually released.
Reply
john 1:05PM (12/31/2007)
it would be nice if it didn't look like a Dodge Intrepid
Reply
Tush 3:23PM (12/31/2007)
why not the LS2/LS7?,
Why would you use electricity to electrolyze water into hydrogen and oxygen when you could just store it in a battery? There is always an energy loss when converting. Why put one more step and loss of energy into the equation?
Reply
jake 6:01PM (12/31/2007)
@why not the LS2/LS7?
I agree with Tush, that is the only thing that flies in the face of h2 technology when compared with direct EVs. You lose too much energy when converting to H2 using electricity to make it economically viable. I can see that fuel cells and h2 may be useful for energy storage, but right now it's more expensive than batteries, and batteries are already too expensive. Natural gas reformation still seems the best way to go in terms of h2 production so far. Maybe biological h2 production will top that one day.
Maybe if fuel cell costs come down to much lower than batteries then electroloysis would be worth it, considering it might be useful for storing intermittent energy like wind and solar.
Reply
why not the LS2LS7? 9:26PM (12/31/2007)
Hydrogen is lighter, you can compress it and store a lot more energy it in than you can in a battery. The equipment to do so is rather heavy, so it isn't reversible in-vehicle (meaning you can't plug in and charge at work) but if the equipment to make it is stationary at home, you can come out ahead.
Battery technology does not advance terribly quickly in general, so perhaps investigating H2 energy storage is a good idea.
The Space Shuttle stores its energy in ammonium perchlorate and hydrogen, not in batteries.
Reply
Yanquetino 2:10AM (1/01/2008)
LS2: Uh... we're playing with symantics here. No, you CANNOT generate hydrogen on your roof. What you can generate is electricity. Now, 'tis true that you could use that electricity for electrolysis with water to separate the hydrogen from the oxygen down in your garage, then compress it, and transfer it to an FVC's tank --if you have that kind of equipment and wanted to waste around 65%-75% of the energy. Heck... you could even use the electricity to start a flywheel spinning in the vehicle, if that's the technology you prefer! But the main point still stands: why not just put the electricity directly into a vehicle's batteries instead? After all, there are more plugs already installed in this world than there are hydrogen fueling stations! And why waste so much of the energy? Just doesn't make sense.
Reply
Bill 11:15AM (1/01/2008)
You need a lot of heat for efficient electrolysis of hydrogen from water
Maybe the above can be done at a nuclear plant, but residential-scale will _always_ be stuck with low-efficiency electrolysis (assuming home systems won't simply reform natural gas to get hydrogen)
Electricity as a fuel is not only much, much cheaper (I've seen claims as low as 20% on a cost per mile basis), but it gives you far more flexibility than hydrogen or today's liquid fuels.
Reply
Chris M 9:19PM (1/02/2008)
LS2/LS7: The combination of electrolyzer and compressor (for storage) and fuel cell is at best 25% efficient, compared to 85% for charger and batteries. Going the H2 route with solar panels would require more than 3x as many expensive solar panels for the same amount of driving!
What's more, both H2 fuel cells and H2 storage tanks cost far more than the equivalent in LiIon batteries. Why choose the far more expensive H2 option?
BTW, while the "Clarity" is good looking, the same body design could be used for a PHEV or battery electric.
Reply
Tony C 10:03AM (1/03/2008)
I guess Motor Trend's only qualification is that the vehicle was *announced* in 2007 -- personally, I would think that the vehicle would have to be available for purchase. (Which Honda says summer 2008?)
Reply
Michael Robinson 12:00AM (4/15/2008)
Plug in hybrid electric vehicles still rely on gasoline
and noone has figured out how to replace all gasoline
with biofuels. Noone. All efforts to date have had major
environmental drawbacks.
In the long run, hydrogen is the most abundant energy carrier in the universe. With space based solar power, hydrogen production becomes less of a problem. Lithium ion batteries only last five years and one that can take a car 40 miles is $10k, which is way too expensive.
Most of the electrical power in the U.S. is coal based which means that tons of heavy metals are being released
into the atmosphere. Add plug-in electric hybrids and
that problem gets much worse.
If a breakthrough in nano technology drops the price of
the fuel cell significantly enough without shortening it's
50k mile lifespan or reducing it's power output, hydrogen
fuel cells might beat out battery electric vehicles.
Remember that a purely battery electric vehicle fleet
would lead to the disposal of tons and tons of batteries. The best fuel cells today last longer than the best battery.
Another thing to think about, centralized power production
is inefficient where solar/wind power are intermittent. Producing hydrogen, especially if the technology to do so
improves dramatically, starts to make sense. In the future, bioreactors on the roofs of houses may produce large amounts of hydrogen to power those houses and fuel
cell vehicles in the garage.
Reply