How the fuel-cell cars compare

When we drove the Honda FCX and the GM Sequel fuel-cell prototype vehicles, we found that the Honda is much better finished and much more like a traditional car. (Read our complete first drive of the Honda FCX sedan.) It feels like a very nice Honda Accord, with an electric whine taking the place of the buzzing hum of a gasoline engine.

The Sequel is more futuristic and less fully developed. It is a concept car designed to demonstrate both fuel cell technology and General Motors’s futuristic “skateboard” chassis architecture. The “skateboard” architecture uses a separate body and mechanical running chassis (almost like frame-based cars from the 1930s), with only an electrical linkage between the actual mechanical systems, like steering and braking, and controls, like the steering wheel and brake pedal. GM is investing a great deal in this system because it can revolutionize car design and make it much cheaper to build a wide variety of body styles and power systems such as gas engines, fuel cells, and batteries, plus ethanol or diesel-fueld powerplants.

Driving differences

With the FCX, CR Senior Engineer Gabe Shenhar and I got in, turned the key, and drove around the quick mile-long parking-lot loop at high speeds by ourselves.

The Sequel, on the other hand, came with its own riding-mechanic: a GM employee in the back seat armed with a laptop computer to monitor everything from the fuel cell to the steering and brakes. After creeping a few feet, one of the brakes signaled an error and I had to turn the car off to reboot it – a process that took a minute or two. It is relevant to note that Honda plans to put the FCX into production next year, while the Sequel will remain a prototype. (The next generation fuel-cell car from GM will be based on the Chevrolet Equinox, and will be available to fleets starting in 2010.) While the Sequel had just traveled 300 miles at Interstate speeds that GM estimated averaged 65 mph, we were only allowed to drive on a low-speed loop, because the cars had little fuel left after the long trip.

Both cars had powerful low-speed acceleration and the Honda had adequate acceleration at highway speeds.

In the fuel cell itself, the Honda also seemed better developed. One of the engineering challenges of fuel cells is the ability to run them in very cold temperatures. Honda said its fuel cell could operate at any temperature above -4 degrees Fahrenheit. GM said its fuel cell could operate only at temperatures above 41 degrees Fahrenheit.

Honda claims a range of 271 miles for its FCX, but privately one Honda spokesman admitted that was a target range and that the company is stretching to achieve that. Here, GM has a potential advantage with the Sequel’s estimated 300-mile range.

The reason for this difference exemplifies the companies’ different approaches to fuel-cell cars: The FCX uses a very large hydrogen storage tank that takes up a lot of trunk space. It stores about 4 kilograms of hydrogen at 5,000 psi pressure, or the equivalent of about four gallons of gas. Honda uses this pressure because it is the pressure at which commercial hydrogen facilities today store and dispense the gas, even though it requires a large tank for a relatively limited range.

The Sequel stores compressed hydrogen at 10,000 psi in three tanks within the skateboard chassis, which takes up no cargo or passenger space and provides its longer range. But the “clean” hydrogen it bought from a Niagara Falls plant for the demonstration trip had to be compressed to twice its normal pressure to achieve that high psi level. And that took extra energy, provided by an electric compressor running on power from a local coal-fired powerplant. So, the well-intentioned trip was not entirely pollution-free, and thereby revealing the challenges in creating a truly clean alternative powertrain.

The next blog in the series will further explore the Honda fuel-cell technology.

--Eric Evarts

Comments

[pndxtr]

It would be interesting if CR also went out to CA to check out the Tesla Roadster. I know that it isn't a fuel cell, but it is an alternative powertrain and it goes into production later this year.

[J.L.]

Well I think you put too much negativity towards a car that is only a concept vs. a car that is soon to be placed in production. The facts should always be stated but this is negativity beyond belief. I do applaud both General Motors and Honda for looking for alternative fuel methods.

[Brian]

Glad to see that Consumer Reports is still going out of its way to ridicule American companies while praising Honda as the second coming.

[John Howard]

Perhaps Mr. Evarts should wipe the froth away from his mouth and maybe even take a tranquilizer before he attempts writing any more articles, especially if they involve GM. This "comparison" didn't even bother to cover up the obvious fact that it is nothing more than an advertisement for Honda.

[Chris]

Eric Evarts, what a malignant article this is. You make it seem the Honda could also run off hugs and smiles.

A rightful comparison would have been the Honda FCX and the Fuel Cell powered Equinox. Both are production intent vehicles and will be available to public fleets. The Equinox has the latest GM Fuel Cell stack, which can be operational in 15 seconds at -20 C. The Sequel is a 2 year old learning tool.

And why not worry about all the polluting 2-stroke lawnmowers and weed-wackers Honda sells if you're so concerned with the extra coal energy (i.e. pollution) required to run an electric compressor.

[Peter]

I agree. If you think the FCX and Sequel have "powerful low speed acceleration" you should try a Tesla.

[Chris]

Come on guys, the Sequel is a prototype vehicle while the Honda is almost ready for production. You state that fact in the opening sentence but you then proceed to compare them as they were both ready to be marketed to the public. I would sure hope that the Honda was a clear winner but I would then have to question why the sequel was even considered for this comparison. This was as much about alternative fuel as it was another attempt on your part to say something negative about an American car company.

I'm a subscriber of yours and I recieve the magazine hoping to get an unbias review of all sorts of consumer goods but I have to tell you that your reporting on cars, especially American cars, is anything but unbias.

I for one am glad to see GM focusing more attention to alternative fuel. I'm also encouraged by their latest vehicle offerings which, in my opinion are equal to that of the competition.

Stay fair and unbiased or lose a subscriber.

[CM]

Honda FCX would be ready for production, except for the very expensive components. The fuel cell requires platinum for catalyst, and expensive and delicate membranes. To reduce costs, a smaller less powerful fuel cell is used along with batteries, as LiIon batteries cost less than fuel cells. GM plans to reduce costs in future "e-flex" models by relying more on electricity stored in larger batteries, and using a gas engine or perhaps a tiny H2 fuel cell as a "range extender" only.

The large high pressure H2 tanks must be made of costly carbon fiber (steel won't work) and help push the price toward the 7 figure range. The GM tanks are smaller but higher pressure, and are also expensive.

Driving on H2 fuel costs considerably more than driving on gasoline, even with high efficiency fuel cells.

Electric "fuel" is much less expensive, with a per mile cost about 1/4 the cost of gasoline. LiIon automotive batteries cost less than H2 fuel cells and tanks.

Plug-in hybrids and electric cars will be produced and mass marketed long before H2 cars, leaving no market open for the more expensive H2 vehicles. The conclusion: H2 has no future as an automotive fuel. The future is electric.