I wonder why it only seats four, look at this photo I googled:

Guess these guys must be dwarfs.

Please forgive my skepticism. This is a tiny limited release scheduled a year off, and if they don't kill it because "nobody wants them" then large scale production will begin "sometime" in this millennium, knowing they have the technology and means today to produce EV's for a mass market.

I don't think 3-4 years for the market place is realistic. Who knows? Perhaps 2020? 2030?
In the mean time we'll begin pluggin in Japanese cars and continue to say "fill er' up" to the GM's .

 

It only seats four because it's not a big vehicle. It's the same size as a Ford Escape. Overall length is 4496 mm, compared to 4470 mm for an Escape and 4445 for a Prius. Even the height isn't that much different among the three. The Prius carries four. The Escape and Equinox each carry four....five in a pinch.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hot_Georgia_2004

Please forgive my skepticism. This is a tiny limited release scheduled a year off, and if they don't kill it because "nobody wants them" then large scale production will begin "sometime" in this

Skepticism forgiven. Didn't the Insight start as a tiny limited release? Ditto Prius? Most "new" technologies are gradually introduced, especially when there is not a clear picture of the demand for the technology. At the end of the day my opinion is that the go / no-go switch is flipped by the cost of obtaining and storing the hydrogen fuel source. If that comes down, vehicle availability goes up. When you boil it down to its basic elements, the Equinox Fuel Cell IS an electric car and then some. The fuel cell is the "how" wrt where the electricity comes from.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hot_Georgia_2004

I don't think 3-4 years for the market place is realistic. Who knows? Perhaps 2020? 2030?
In the mean time we'll begin pluggin in Japanese cars and continue to say "fill er' up" to the GM's

The funny thing here is that because of a myriad of mandates from California and several NE states, FCEVs are all but required by 2011 for all of the big 6 automakers (GM, Ford, Toyota, DCX, Honda, VW). The thing is, GM got there first.

Now, MY skepticism is as such.....

If the headline were...

HONDA INTRODUCES CRV FUEL CELL IN 2007

or

TOYOTA INTRODUCES RAV4 FUEL CELL IN 2007

Most of the comments from this site would likely have been "Cool!! When can I get one?" No kvetching about "Gee it HAD to be an SUV, when are they gonna learn?" or "Hydrogen will never work because....[fill in the blank]". We'd be discussing how clever Honda / Toyota are and "why can't Ford or GM be so clever?"

Only time will tell whether or not this is really a good play for GM, the ecology, and the economy.

Peace,

Martin

 

Thank you Martin, you have some good comments there.

If GM actually brings an alternative car to the market I'd be the 1st to consider its purchase. I was mainly going on track record.

My Honda is the 1st new foreign car I've owned. All other new ones have been Dodges but ~15 previous have mainly been various used domestics and above 65K miles before I owned them.
Toss in a couple Jap models like a '71 Corolla Wagon and that's my auto experience.
In my own opinion and experience the domestics are better built and with better quality materials. Better fit and finish. I'll support USAW 1st.

My skepticism comes from the MFG track record.
2011 is meaningless. I'm sure GM and other MFGs could meet that goal with production quotas but what would be the point if a Californian has to drive 300 miles (Guessing here) to the nearest fueling station?

What does that mean for us living on the East coast and other parts of the country? I do a google search for stations in GA and zero.
I can walk 20 feet from where I'm sitting now to an unused 60Amp plug.

I've heard rumblings that foreign MFG's are looking into using that plug.
Sorry, I'll get off my soap box now.....

 

I'll agree that many have a bias against Ford/GM and for Toyota/Honda. In the 1960's it was the other way around because GM was very successful. Until GM can take something like this and succeed, there will be plenty of skeptics.

 

That is a very fair statement. I couldn't ask for more than that.

Peace,

Martin

 

As for Honda:

It is primarily a matter of company philosophy that would make that prospect unlikely.

Honda has one heck of an efficiency track record because its founder would have resisted upsizing until all technical options are exhausted. In fact I suspect, Soichiro Honda would do a double-back-flip in his grave if a CRV announcement like that was ever made to showcase its fuel cell technology !!!! Never would it happen.

I remember, when Honda introduced its first V6 in 1986, Soichiro was said to have only allowed that reluctantly in light of the rather unique north american luxury tastes. But up to that point, he still fought that with tooth and nail.
Continually, that "little" company has always chosen small platforms to showcase its prowess - that is a challenge to themselves. Hey, let us just look at the Honda fuel cell field example - the FCX.

I am really happy for GM though. Regardless of whether it is an SUV or not it is a commendable good step forward. I am excited.

Cheers;

MSantos

 

I'm not so sure, Martin. There are certainly people on this forum who aren't/weren't too crazy about the fact that many of the latest hybrid offerings have been SUVs, regardless of manufacturer. I think anti-SUV sentiment transcends manufacturer boundaries. I, for one, think it's a terrible shame that the first 'American' hybrid was an SUV, which I simply can't bring myself to talk up to friends and family who are car shopping. I hope I'm not offending the FEH owners here too much, but that's just how I feel about it- disappointed.

Look, a fuel cell vehicle is a radical new idea and an exciting technological possibility as a step forward- it could be fantastic, groundbreaking. I'm just disappointed that, once again, as a 'first,' the (American) car companies are going with an SUV. Not one of those huge, justifiable SUVs for families with 6 kids and serious cargo issues, but one of those middle SUV types I see so many commuters in, one that doesn't seat any extra people and just takes up more space and uses more energy to get from point A to point B than a car.

I could have sworn that you and I were nearly agreeing, not too long ago, that the market for that type of vehicle was waning, and probably rightly so. Now you say that the market justifications for doing this project with this type and size of vehicle make sense to you, but I don't see it.

To sum up: My reaction to this article is: Cool, fuel cells!... wait... no.... an SUV!.. ack... hrmmmm... (all enthusiasm dampened).

 

The problems with the hydrogen cycle have nothing to do with who makes the announcement. The is an immense gap between PowerPoint / prototype / proof-of-concept and having a product on the show-room floor. I also look at market leader areas independent of vehicle transportation.

Today, laptop batteries barely keep up with the power demand. When we see practical laptop or cell phone fuel cells, I'll change my mind. But it has to be real and practical. So far, real and practical have evaded every claim.

I won't say "never' because obviously the space shuttle flies with fuel cells. But cost is not an issue in spacecraft.

Bob Wilson

 

I did not want to post right after leahbeetle's fine post.

I'm a little understanding on the Sequel. Since it's not that high off the ground, it seems more like a CUV - not an SUV. It seems like it is not bolted down to a truck frame like many SUVs.

Scale the Sequel down to about half it's size and what do you get? A vehicle a lot like the Yaris or Fit. This is basically a shape that seems to be getting more popular because it's very space-efficient. You might trace it back to the intro of minivans (which many people for some reason can't stand the looks....)

Personally, I'd prefer it lower and a bit smaller, but consider the hydrogen technology is probably bulky (I might get corrected with mention of the Honda FCX).

The Sequel does not seem much larger than the traditional sedan that has been around forever.

One market for a vehicle the size of the Sequel is local, state, and federal governments. That would be a double win - reducing taxpayer's money, helping American automakers.

Like leahbeetle, I still have a problem with people using SUV's as commute vehicles from a fuel economy standpoint, traffic safety, and traffic congestion. If SUVs are so inheintanty practicle, they would have been out in numbers way the 1980's.

Let's remember this is the concept car - I'll worry more about vehicle class when it's on the market.

 

I think we have some tangential points of agreement. You don't see a use for mid-sized SUVs because they are SUVs. I don't see a use for SOME mid-size SUVs because they are no more fuel efficient than larger SUVs. In many cases, they are less efficient than large SUVs.

I do believe though, that powered by the right technologies, small SUVs like Escape, Equinox, VUE, CRV can provide the economy of a sedan and the utility of....well, a utility. There are so many contributors to fuel economy one does not have to draw assumptions based on size or configuration alone.

Peace,

Martin