The future is green. The future's a milk float!

E92

Seriously though, what Honda launched yesterday has the potential to be the fuel of the future, and is widely regarded to indeed be the fuel of the future. And that reality is stepping up agear, with the news that from next year, you will be able to buy the Fuel Cell Honda FCX. It has close enough of a power to weight ratios to a normal family 1.6 petrol saloon. It actually has the the equivalent of a 1.8 petrol in power and a 1.6 diesel in torque.

More details here.

Considering that Honda makes hybrids its ironic that they've chose to make it look like stone age technology after such a short time:p!

Seriously though, we need more cars like the FCX, and fair f**ks to Honda for making it available to the public. Between them and BMW with their Hydrogen 7, its good to see some car makers actually talk the talk and walk the walk.

Calibos

Now if only the Power companies would talk the talk and walk the walk and stop using oil and gas power stations to generate the electricity used to produce the Hydrogen for the cars cause right now the pollution has just stopped coming out of your exhaust pipe and out of a smoke stack of a power station instead. :rolleyes:

And speaking of jumping the gun. We are rushing into turning over valuable food producing land in order to produse bio fuels. ATM the technology is such that it requires more energy usually from dirty polluting sources to produce the fuel than we get out of it!! Its bad enough turning over good food producing land and slash and buring yet more forests for biofuel crops, but we're not actually having a net effect on emmissions! Madness!!

Of course there is no stopping the Enviromental movement, forging blindly ahead instead of waiting for the technologies to advance enough. Loath as I am to say it Bush was Right! Sure he probably only said it to protect his buddy in the oil business but it turns out its probably the best thing to do. ie. Not rush into anything like the joke that is Kyoto, but invest in developing clean energy technologies.

colm_mcm

nice car!

nialler

how hard is it to produce hydrogen? We did it in science 17 years ago. What comes out of your exhaust is water, solves a problem doesn't it. And oil companies have a vested interest in selling OIL, free fuel that gives back to the free fuel, tell me you can't seperate the atoms again. We're gonna need better wet tyres though.

Alun

nialler wrote: »

how hard is it to produce hydrogen? We did it in science 17 years ago.

It isn't 'hard' at all, but it requires electrical energy, and it's a question of where that energy comes from. If it's from an oil- or turf-burning power station, then it's all a bit pointless. Then there are the problems around distributing, storing and dispensing it which, although not insurmountable, aren't easy or cheap to solve either.

colm_mcm

stick a nuclear reactor somewhere!

JHMEG

Honda have the fuel thing thought out too, and needless to say it will get them in trouble with Big Oil if they ever release it onto the mass market. It's the solar powered Home Energy Station. Idea is that you buy one and it sits there quietly in your garden soaking up sunlight and turning it (well, water) into hydrogen.



For the less sunnier climates they have one that turns natural gas into hydrogen.

The FCX is very futuristic in its design, and that's deliberate. The prototypes looked like old Fiat Puntos (that's the arse of one in the pic above).

Unfortunately I can't say BMW's Hydrogen-7 is the way to go. 1st it burns hydrogen in a conventional enough internal combustion engine, which wastes a lot of energy in heat. 2nd, as a result of the 1st, it has a very limited range. 3rd it requires a very large displacement to get any decent amount of power.. 5.0 litres to get 200bhp iirc.

colm_mcm

Wow! another Honda Vs. BMW thread!

JHMEG

colm_mcm wrote: »

Wow! another Honda Vs. BMW thread!

Nah colm, just stating the facts (tho Honda has wiped the floor with BMW on this one:D).

E92

JHMEG wrote: »

Unfortunately I can't say BMW's Hydrogen-7 is the way to go. 1st it burns hydrogen in a conventional enough internal combustion engine, which wastes a lot of energy in heat. 2nd, as a result of the 1st, it has a very limited range. 3rd it requires a very large displacement to get any decent amount of power.. 5.0 litres to get 200bhp iirc.

Its very early days yet, I'm sure BMW will no doubt in time solve the problems. As for the power thing, the Hydrogen7 does 0-100 in 9.5 seconds and is artificially limited to 143 mph(which is 230 km/h is it not?). Which is more than can be said for the Honda FCX. No doubt Honda will be able to improve on this in due course.

But I take the point, the Hydrogen 7 produces less power than the 760Li, around 349 bhp(as opposed to 444 bhp). I don't know about fuel consumption, but Wikipedia says it will average 16.6 km/l which is over 45 mpg I think(I thought iut was lower but there you go!). And they did invent turbos for a reason you know! All they've got to do is stick a turbo on, and problem solved!

The issue of Hydrogen 'disappering' over time will affect both cars surley, after all they're both running on the stuff, and if not why not?

The beauty of the BMW is that it is essentially a petrol engine, just modified to be able to run on hydrogen, thats all. All the benefits of current petrol engines, without the enviornmental drawbacks(at least in theory, it depends on where you get the hydrogen from, but that affects the Honda too). I mean people will still be able to drive cars that will raise your pulse and make the wonderful sounds only a petrol engine can make. I see that as being able to have your cake and eat it. There will still be that glorious straight 6 or V8 or your own favourite the 4 pot to listen to!

Of course there are a lot of hurdles to be overcome, but no doubt just like the way we have those flat panel TVs and mobile phones which are getting smaller by the minute, I don't think it is beyond the bounds of possibility that the present problems with Hydrogen won't be solved.

In fact I know they will, they always manage to in the end.

JHMEG

I'm pretty sure that wikipedia article is wrong, and that the BMW does not use fuel cells.

From Der Speigel's article: BMW'S HYDROGEN 7: Not as Green as it Seems
"With the exception of BMW, every car company out there is betting on a different technology: fuel cells"

From the BBC:
"Unlike rival hydrogen models in the making, which use fuel cells, the BMW Hydrogen 7 is kitted out with a conventional combustion engine that can also run on petrol."
(A serious mistake IMHO, which BMW will regret)

From Hydrogen Cars Now:
"Unlike other hydrogen cars, which are powered by fuel cells, the Hydrogen 7 is powered by a 12-cylinder internal combustion engine (ICE). "

The BMW would require two completely seperate drive trains to be able to use Hydrogen in a conventional internal combustion engine or via a fuel cell/electric motor arrangement.

A quick google shows that it only does 17mpg:eek: (15 US mpg), whereas the Honda does 81mpg:eek:. That's not having your cake and eating it: that's having full fat double cream intravenously fed, washed down with a mouthful of lard.

[EDIT: btw, lots of maufacturers have demonstrated hydrogen burning conventional cars. Eg Mazda with the hydrogen powered RX-8]

E92

JHMEG wrote: »

I'm pretty sure...that the BMW does not use fuel cells.

It sure doesn't. See my previous post. Though the Wikipedia says it runs on both I know, which is wrong.

JHMEG wrote:

From Der Speigel's article: BMW'S HYDROGEN 7: Not as Green as it Seems

Well the technology like all new technologies is flawed at the moment, but the purpose of dual fuel is surley to do with the present problem we have - where are you going to fill up the car with Hydrogen? As I said in my previous post, there are problems(I'm not denying that there are problems at the moment) which no doubt will be solved in time.
Just look at the internal combustion engine, who would have thought even 3 or 4 years ago that you could now buy a diesel with more than 100 bhp per litre(like the BMW 123d)? 20 years ago the BMW 324td had not even half the specific output of the 123d(and FWIW the 324td was the fastest diesel on sale at the time, of course we never got it but it doesnm't change the fact that it was the fastest diesel on sale in 1987).

JHMEG wrote:

A quick google shows that does 18 mpg (15 US mpg).

Thats more like what I thought it did! Still cleaner than anything else when on Hydrogen bar a Hydrogen car itself of course(with the usual caveats of course). As for the Honda, surley you haven't forgotten the laws of Physics? FWIW the Honda has 134 bhp(as opposed to the BMW's 300+ bhp), is much smaller and lighter and all that. And BMW chose to showcase the technology in a V12, V12s are hardly the epitone of fuel efficieny now are they? Okay I know 81 mpg is not to be sniffed at, but its hardly a fair comparison.

However, Wikipedia begs to differ with your 81 mpg. FromWikipedia: This is achieved by allowing the gas to flow vertically in the fuel cell stack. The tanks can store up to 5 kg (171 litres) of hydrogen at a pressure of 350 atmospheres, thanks to the new hydrogen absorption materials used. This allows a longer range of up to 350miles (570 km).

Now 350 miles and 171 litres gives me 2.05 miles per litre which turns out to be around 9.2 mpg(1 gal = 4.5 l)

JHMEG

As already demonstrated, wikipedia isn't always accurate. 81mpg is from Honda's own press material.

As for ironing out bugs in new technology, I'm sorry, but burning fuel is not new, and BMW have made a seriously bad choice by ignoring fuel cells. Hats off to them wrt EfficientDynamics etc (assuming it works reliably, which I'm not convinced it will, but here's hoping), but they've made a serious error of judgement on this one. We're burning oil like it's going out of fashion... treating hydrogen in the same way is not cool.

McSandwich

How much do they cost? Can't find a price for one anywhere - must be bad!

Stephen

I got a "magazine" in the post from Universal Honda during the week, pimping the FCX as well as the rest of their range of regular internal combustion cars. The pictures used were of an older version of it that had Civic-like wraparound front lights. Great timing eh?

That home-fuel solar-powered system is a great idea. Not so good for here with our lack of sunshine and all but still very clever. Just top her up at home every night with fuel that costs you nothing... until the bastards start charging for running water!

_Kaiser_

colm_mcm wrote: »

nice car!

Not bad .. looks a bit like a streamlined Primera to me.

Gegerty

Calibos wrote: »

Now if only the Power companies would talk the talk and walk the walk and stop using oil and gas power stations to generate the electricity used to produce the Hydrogen for the cars cause right now the pollution has just stopped coming out of your exhaust pipe and out of a smoke stack of a power station instead. :rolleyes:

Don't quote this figure but I heard somewhere that we import about 30% of our electricity from UK nuclear power plants. Also some people may be able to sign up for airtricity.

Can biofuels be made out of food waste? Like back to the future we should be putting last nights dinner waste in our cars :-)

Alun

Gegerty wrote: »

Can biofuels be made out of food waste?

The bioethanol Maxol uses is made using waste products from the dairy industry .. cheese production mainly IIRC.

JHMEG

Holy crap. Just read that Der Spiegel article again. The BMW does 5.5 mpg when running on hydrogen.:eek: A few select quotes from the article:

"In other words, BMW has created an energy-guzzling engine"

"the new car puts about as much strain on the environment as a heavy truck with a diesel engine."

"The environment isn't the only loser: Customers will also have to shell out a lot of money for their deceptive display of ecologically responsible driving. The current standard price for liquid hydrogen is 57 euro cents per litre. And the price tag on a 62 mile drive in the Hydrogen 7, at a comfortable speed, is about €30"

30 euro to drive 60 miles. Fook!

cantdecide

Calibos wrote: »

.....pollution has just stopped coming out of your exhaust pipe and out of a smoke stack of a power station instead. :rolleyes:....

Is there any figures for this? I'm interested to know how much CO2 is attributed to your car by using oil/ gas power stations to make hydrogen. It's hardly a like-for-like trade-off, is it?

Turbulent Bill

cantdecide wrote: »

Is there any figures for this? I'm interested to know how much CO2 is attributed to your car by using oil/ gas power stations to make hydrogen. It's hardly a like-for-like trade-off, is it?

I'd imagine you'd get some economies of scale by generating in one place rather than consuming fuel in each car. Power stations don't have to operate in stop-start traffic .

cantdecide

Turbulent Bill wrote: »

I'd imagine you'd get some economies of scale by generating in one place rather than consuming fuel in each car. Power stations don't have to operate in stop-start traffic .

Turbulent Bill, you just say what I'm thinking. My original question is how many mpg does a power sation get:D

Anan1

Does hydrogen even need to be made in a central refinery and distributed like petrol? Would it be possible, for example, for each service station to produce its own hydrogen using electricity from the mains grid? Or could this even be done at home?

Tails142

JHMEG wrote: »

As already demonstrated, wikipedia isn't always accurate. 81mpg is from Honda's own press material.

As for ironing out bugs in new technology, I'm sorry, but burning fuel is not new, and BMW have made a seriously bad choice by ignoring fuel cells. Hats off to them wrt EfficientDynamics etc (assuming it works reliably, which I'm not convinced it will, but here's hoping), but they've made a serious error of judgement on this one. We're burning oil like it's going out of fashion... treating hydrogen in the same way is not cool.

Hydrogen is one of the most plentiful elements in the universe.

75% of the known universe consists of Hyrdogen... I think we can burn it as much as we like.

Anan1

Tails142 wrote: »

75% of the known universe consists of Hyrdogen...

You're not including such relatively inaccessable places as the Sun in that, are you?

Tails142

Well, maybe some day we'll be able to drive there in our V12 BMW's


Solar and Wind energy can be used to create limitless hydrogen through electrolysis. Whether at home individually, or in more efficient central plants. I think it makes sense to make an enjoyable and fun driving experience as ultimately it will be more beneficial than a conservative approach. We dont really need to conserve something that is almost limitless do we?

E92

Tails142 wrote: »

75% of the known universe consists of Hyrdogen... I think we can burn it as much as we like.

yes. Unlike oil it is renewable so we can use it as often as we want and no harm done to the planet. Also unlike oil theres no problem if we waste it, we can find some more and so what. Where Der Spiegel got the idea that it somehow is worse for the enviornment than a large truck is a mystery to me because its absolute rubbish.

anyone who did a bit of Science in school will know that water consists of both hydrogen and oxygen. They're in a ratio of 2:1(hence why its called H2O) respectively. There are 9000 cubic metres of water available to use per annum. We only use 3000 m^3 per annum.

As well as solving the problem of the water constantly rising in the world, we would be pputting more oxygen into the world. Someone tell me how that is bad for the planet.

Anan1

I think the problem is that the hydrogen is not just sitting there waiting to be used. You have to invest energy to produce hydrogen. It is the production of hydrogen, rather than its use, that is problematic.

E92

Anan1 wrote: »

I think the problem is that the hydrogen is not just sitting there waiting to be used. You have to invest energy to produce hydrogen. It is the production of hydrogen, rather than its use, that is problematic.

Ah well of course thats a problem, but thats a problem thats affected oil all the time too. So in that sense its nothing new really. That has to be refined so that we can get petrol, diesel, kerosene etc.

Anan1

E92 wrote: »

Ah well of course thats a problem, but thats a problem thats affected oil all the time too. So in that sense its nothing new really. That has to be refined so that we can get petrol, diesel, kerosene etc.

Unfortunately not. The amount of energy needed to refine oil is only a tiny proportion of the energy produced. The amount of energy required to produce hydrogen from water is in principle exactly the same as the amount of energy produced when you use the hydrogen as fuel. In reality, given inefficiencies in the processes, it's more. It will take an enormous amount of energy to produce enough hydrogen to run all our cars.

JHMEG

E92 wrote: »

Also unlike oil theres no problem if we waste it,

There is as it currently costs quite a lot (in a lot of ways) to produce and store hydrogen.

E92 wrote: »

we can find some more and so what.

Unless we start extracting it from outer space, no we can't just find some more. We have to make produce it.

E92 wrote: »

Where Der Spiegel got the idea that it somehow is worse for the enviornment than a large truck is a mystery to me because its absolute rubbish.

:rolleyes:Just cos *you* don't understand it. Read it again. It's all explained.

E92 wrote: »

As well as solving the problem of the water constantly rising in the world, we would be pputting more oxygen into the world. Someone tell me how that is bad for the planet.

Did you actually do science? If you did you would know that increasing the oxygen content in the air is bad. Potentially fatal.

It would be hugely wasteful of hydrogen to use it in that BMW. I'd even put money on it that it would be better for the environment just to run it on petrol.

Gegerty

E92 wrote: »

yes. Unlike oil it is renewable so we can use it as often as we want and no harm done to the planet. Also unlike oil theres no problem if we waste it, we can find some more and so what. Where Der Spiegel got the idea that it somehow is worse for the enviornment than a large truck is a mystery to me because its absolute rubbish.

anyone who did a bit of Science in school will know that water consists of both hydrogen and oxygen. They're in a ratio of 2:1(hence why its called H2O) respectively. There are 9000 cubic metres of water available to use per annum. We only use 3000 m^3 per annum.

As well as solving the problem of the water constantly rising in the world, we would be pputting more oxygen into the world. Someone tell me how that is bad for the planet.

Cars will be the new trees I like it!

Anan1

Gegerty wrote: »

Cars will be the new trees I like it!

You like that? Just wait until you meet Santa Claus.

E92

JHMEG wrote: »

There is as it currently costs quite a lot (in a lot of ways) to produce and store hydrogen.

Unless we start extracting it from outer space, no we can't just find some more. We have to make produce it.

What about that device you mentioned that Honda invented so that you can recharge your fuel cell Honda from the comfort of your home? Like everything new its expensive but give it time and it will become a lot more affordable. 2/3 rds of the world is covered in water, and we have massive problems with sea levels rising. I already mentioned that we only use 1/3rd of the water available to us at present(which makes all the harder to understand why there are so many water shortages in the world, but thats another day's work, and not for Motors). Why not put all that extra water to use and use it to make Hydrogen? They had a gadget in school for separating water into its 2 basic components of Hydrogen and Oxygen. I forget what it was called.

JHMEG wrote: »

Just cos *you* don't understand it. Read it again. It's all explained.

Anything it said about the BMW's enviornmental performance is just as valid for the Honda FCX. There isn't a special hydrogen for internal combustion engines and another special hydrogen for Fuel Cells.

Left lane news has the follwing as posted by one person(not me!)
And here is how you can manufacture hydrogen. Use electricity to electrolyze water. How do you get electricity? You could use solar energy to do so (Honda is already doing that at its refueling station in SoCal, one of the reasons this car will be offered only in that region). Or, you could use Honda’s Home Energy Station that takes natural gas, and not only does it help extract hydrogen, it also has two additional functionalities built-in: water heater for the house, and electricity generator. In this case, if you run the system using solar power, the only association of petroleum would depend on how your energy company supplies to natural gas. Besides solar, electricity could be generated using hydro and wind power, couldn’t it?

When the Honda runs it only emits water vapour. When the BMW runs on hydrogen it too only emits water vapour. Whats the difference there?

JHMEG wrote: »

Did you actually do science? If you did you would know that increasing the oxygen content in the air is bad. Potentially fatal.

Hmm I suppose that explains why Volvo has their PremAir filter because it converts O3 to Oxygen:rolleyes:. According to the Volvo Owner's Club,
:"The Volvo PremAir system makes a major contribution to air quality........converts up to 75% of ground level Ozone passing through it to Oxygen. This reduces harmful pollutants in the enviornment...."

And why we have tree huggers. And why we need more of it because theres more people living today.

I know it can be dangerous.What is one of the three things needed to keep a fire going?(Rethorical Q). But so can just about everything else too.

JHMEG wrote: »

It would be hugely wasteful of hydrogen to use it in that BMW.

Holy Christ. Your love of all things Honda and hatred of anything even remotely close to do with BMW is clouding your judgement methinks! Admit that if it had that precious Honda badge it wouldn't be a waste at all:D.

JHMEG

Ah E92, give it a rest.

At 5mpg efficiency isn't on BMW's list.

Too much O2 is bad, too much ozone is worse.

Right now most hydrogen is made from or using fossil fuels. Environmentally friendly methods aren't widespread outside of California.

It doesn't matter what badge is on it, it's still sh!te.

E92

JHMEG wrote: »

Ah E92, give it a rest.
Too much O2 is bad, too much ozone is worse.

I will but I want to know why too much O2 is bad and too much Ozone is worse?

I mean Ozone is what prevents the ice caps and stuff melting/slows down their melting process. And protects us from UV rays from the sun.

I'm getting sick of this too, so just tell me, and I'll gladly leave it alone then.

jayok

Possible Response to E92's Post wrote:

Holy Christ. Your love of all things BMW and hatred of anything even remotely close to do with anything other than BMW is clouding your judgement methinks! Admit that if it had that precious BMW badge it wouldn't be a waste at all:D.

E92 - I've added a possible response to your quote. Citing blind loyalties is a little rich come from you.

BTW I own a Honda and a BMW

E92

jayok wrote: »

E92 - I've added a possible response to your quote. Citing blind loyalties is a little rich come from you.

BTW I own a Honda and a BMW

I don't own a BMW. I have a Volvo S40, and not even the one based on the Ford Focus. So much for me having blind loyalty then, having a car thats pretty much the polar opposite of a BMW, eh?

And don't go using my name to say something I never said:mad:. You know I never said that. End of.

jayok

E92 wrote: »

I don't own a BMW. I have a Volvo S40, and not even the one based on the Ford Focus. So much for me having blind loyalty then, having a car thats pretty much the polar opposite of a BMW, eh?

And don't go using my name to say something I never said:mad:. You know I never said that. End of.

You own a Volvo but you want a BMW. Worse again - don't practice what you preach. Own a BMW and understand its limits. But this doesn't stop your blind loyalty for the brand.

I've edited the post to update the quoted section, I wasn't trying to mis-quote you hence the text detailing a possible response I apologize if it was construed as such. Just pointing out that it's a little hypocritical you calling someone blinded by the brand!

Meh - I don't really care anyway there's enough sh1te spouted around here.

JHMEG

E92, google why too much oxygen is bad. Ozone is simpler: it's poisonous.

I don't have a hatred of BMW, I have a hatred of contantly pimping BMW, especially claiming something is brilliant about BMW when it's clearly not.

You stated before you have a Volvo, but not out of choice.

E92

jayok wrote: »

You own a Volvo but you want a BMW. Worse again - don't practice what you preach. Own a BMW and understand its limits. But this doesn't stop your blind loyalty for the brand.

I've edited the post to update the quoted section, I wasn't trying to mis-quote you hence the text detailing a possible response I apologize if it was construed as such. Just pointing out that it's a little hypocritical you calling someone blinded by the brand!

Meh - I don't really care anyway there's enough sh1te spouted around here.

Re: your apology fair enough, I probably overreacted a little, but I was completely p1ssed off that your were quoting something about me that was completely untrue.

As for me being hypocritical, wanting a BMW but driving a Volvo, well I don't just like BMW's. I like lots of cars. FWIW I don't like bringing in personal details(we all have user names for anonymity) but since I'm in college, I certainly can not/will not pay for a BMW. I've got loads of time to enjoy and afford BMW ownership, when I'm older and in a full time job! And I've a very limited knowledge of what goes on under the bonnet, so if anything went wrong, I'd be pretty fooked! Anyway, I already mentioned this but to reiterate, I like lots of cars other than BMWs.

And there are loads of cars that I like, and not that many are BMWs. I've always like cars from the Blue Oval for a start. I even like the current Avensis, and I normally am not that keen on Toyota. There are even BMW's I don't like:eek:(like the E65 7 series, the looks alone are enough for me)!

And obviously the usual supercars etc. Ever heard a V12 Ferrari Enzo? The noise is worth the price alone. A milllion billion times better than any BMW straight 6. And FWIW the current M5 sounds rubbish on a drive by. One flew past me the other day and I thought it was a diesel(it sounds like a diesel at idle)!

E92

JHMEG wrote: »

E92, google why too much oxygen is bad. Ozone is simpler: it's poisonous.

That answers that. As for BMW, I admit hatred was perhaps too stong a word to use, but you certainly are no fan of them. You've even said it yourself before(IIRC when we were advising MarkN to buy either the 335i or the 3.2 A5).

For me the Hydrogen7 is impressive. I've given my reasons already, no need to repeat myself again. And the FCX is impressive too. I started the thread for that precise reason. To point out the FCX to everyone else and how it is a remarkable feat of engineering.

JHMEG

E92 wrote: »

but you certainly are no fan of them.

No, not a fan, because I've never really been impressed. I'm seriously hoping what they label as EfficientDynamics (which sounds like a bad name the Japs would come up with), is as good as it's made out to me. Equally as important is that it is reliable. If it's not, it gets a bad name, and into the bin it goes.

E92 wrote: »

To point out the FCX to everyone else and how it is a remarkable feat of engineering.

It's not usual for you to credit Honda with anything, I think you'll admit... it's usually the opposite. From what I've read it seems to be a good product. I can't agree on the H7 tho, I really can't. Going on what I've read I'm probably with the majority on this one too. But it is BMW, and lots of people will buy for the badge.. I see that the limited run of H7s are being snapped up by Holywood A-listers.

E92

JHMEG wrote: »

No, not a fan, because I've never really been impressed. I'm seriously hoping what they label as EfficientDynamics (which sounds like a bad name the Japs would come up with), is as good as it's made out to me. Equally as important is that it is reliable. If it's not, it gets a bad name, and into the bin it goes.

Each to their own I suppose. Nothing wrong with that. EfficientDynamics is of course using some hybrid tech, and hybrid tech seems to be holding up so far and now that 2007 marks 10 years since we had the very first Prius, I presume it's reliable. If BMW can't get it to be reliable, then its not good news for their X6 Hybrid(available from 2009). As for whether it works on not i.e increases mpg, time will tell, I've no idea whether it does or not, but I hope for BMWs sake it does. Their sales are going up yet profits are going down.

As for bad names re EfficientDynamics, lets not go there with Honda. Flexible Recreational Vehicle anyone? Or Comfortable Runabout Vehicle? Or my favourite the "Joy Machine":D aka the Hybrid Recreational Vehicle aka the High Riding Vehicle? I don't think EfficientDynamics is a bad name. I do think Progressive Activity Sedan(new BMW MPV I think) is a very bad name. Or Sports Activity Coupé(X6), that sucks too.

JHMEG wrote: »

It's not usual for you to credit Honda with anything, I think you'll admit... it's usually the opposite.

I'll credit something where I feel credit is due. In my OP I did say

E92 wrote:

Seriously though, we need more cars like the FCX, and fair f**ks to Honda for making it available to the public. Between them and BMW with their Hydrogen 7, its good to see some car makers actually talk the talk and walk the walk.

As for not crediting Hondas usually, well I wouldn't want to be stealing your thunder:p!

JHMEG

Coincidentally having seen a video showing the way ED works the one way it differs from true hybrids is the way it restarts the engine: using the regular starter motor. This is the component I'd have concern about as starter motors wear out in ordinary cars as do the flywheels they engage. Hybrids use the frictionless hybrid motor to restart.

Yup, Honda have some seriously crap names.. there are worse than what you've listed. In their defence English isn't their first language either.

E92

JHMEG wrote: »

This is the component I'd have concern about as starter motors wear out in ordinary cars as do the flywheels they engage. Hybrids use the frictionless hybrid motor to restart.

Didn't know that. The BMW's system can be turned off if you don't like it,or perhaps if you're concerned about that feature. I presume it will be reliable, BMW's are usually grand for reliability AFAIK. Time will tell whether it's any good or not.

JHMEG wrote: »

Yup, Honda have some seriously crap names.. there are worse than what you've listed. In their defence English isn't their first language either.

Neither is English the first language for BMW! Though most Germans have a very high standard of English. Some of them speak better English than we do! As for bad names, Honda aren't the only Japanese make guilty of that charge(though they managed to have the Fit, Passport, and perhaps you might be able to tell me what CR-X stood for), what about the Mitsubishi Starion, or was it the Stallion:D?

And:D, after months of wondering, I'm after finally figuring out what your name stands for, it had been bugging me for ages cause I obviously knew it was something to do with Honda, but its the first 3 letters of a Honda VIN and the last 2 are the EG Civic.

The phrase Hondamentalism could have been invented for you:p!

JHMEG

E92 wrote: »

The BMW's system can be turned off if you don't like it,or perhaps if you're concerned about that feature.

But surely that defeats the purpose?

E92 wrote: »

Neither is English the first language for BMW!

I did say either! Tho the guys that come up with the names for the JDM models obviously have no English at all. I did see a program on TV a few years ago that noted that any English text on stuff makes it look good to the ordinary Japanese, even tho they have no idea what it means.

E92 wrote: »

perhaps you might be able to tell me what CR-X stood for)

No idea! But I have to admit I always liked it.

E92 wrote: »

And:D, after months of wondering, I'm after finally figuring out what your name stands for, it had been bugging me for ages cause I obviously knew it was something to do with Honda, but its the first 3 letters of a Honda VIN and the last 2 are the EG Civic.
The phrase Hondamentalism could have been invented for you:p!

Hats off to you for being the first person to spot it in 4 years!;) Even tho I spotted that E92 must be some BMW the first day I saw it! So... pot.. kettle... black, eh?:D And I don't even know anything about BMW, tho do I see E36 (can't remember which one that is) mentioned here on a weekly basis.

(JHMEG were the 1st 5 digits of the chassis number of the car I owned when I registered for boards.ie)

E92

JHMEG wrote: »

But surely that defeats the purpose?

How did I know you were going to say that! I don't know why they let you tuurn it off, its only speculation by me.

JHMEG wrote: »

I did say either! Tho the guys that come up with the names for the JDM models obviously have no English at all. I did see a program on TV a few years ago that noted that any English text on stuff makes it look good to the ordinary Japanese, even tho they have no idea what it means.

Yes but the whole thing was

JHMEG wrote:

Yup, Honda have some seriously crap names.. there are worse than what you've listed. In their defence English isn't their first language either.

, which I interpreted to mean that you were referring to just Honda.

Ever been to Germany? The same story goes on there. An advertisement is "cool" if it has lots of catchy slogans in English there too. Not surprisingly do Honda use "The Power of Dreams" and Ford use "Feel the Difference" as slogans there(in English just like here) then.

JHMEG wrote: »

No idea! But I have to admit I always liked it.

Is that because you know and are too embarrassed to tell us:p? I always hada soft spot for the del sol model actually, no idea why!

Apparantly it stands for "Civic Renaissance eXperimental" according to Honda Resource

JHMEG wrote: »

Hats off to you for being the first person to spot it in 4 years!;) Even tho I spotted that E92 must be some BMW the first day I saw it! So... pot.. kettle... black, eh?:D And I don't even know anything about BMW, tho do I see E36 (can't remember which one that is) mentioned here on a weekly basis.

(JHMEG were the 1st 5 digits of the chassis number of the car I owned when I registered for boards.ie)

I'm getting praise from you:eek::p! Well thanks very much!

As for BMW E numbers, doesn't everyone know what BMW E numbers are:D?(E36 was the 3 series from 91-98 btw, but I'm sure you knew that)

Seriously though, the E numbers are fairly well known I would have though, kinda like they way it is with Honda codes like DC2 and DC5 and EJ and EH etc(though more people seem to be inclided to use the codes for BMW than any other make, I like to use the codes for every car if I know them/can find the on the internet, though unsurprisingly I know more of the BMW ones than any other make).

E92(current 3 series Coupé) FWIW was the most recent BMW available to the public when I joined boards(though the E93 was very close to being released, but I never liked the idea of Coupé Cabrios), hence why I chose it.