Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There is one rule for the industrialist and that is: Make the best quality of goods possible at the lowest cost possible, paying the highest wages possible.
The big three has been on life support for more than a decade. Nothing but the unwillingness to be more forward thinking can be blamed for it. The idea was to "just supersize it". This applied not just to the size of vehicles they started promoting in the early-mid 90s, but also the desire to grow bigger and fatter, often gobbling up anything and anyone they came across. Daewoo buy out by GM anyone? One poor decision led to another, short sighted business plan was simply unsustainable in the longer term.
I have admired Honda, not just for its products, but also for the way the company was born, the philosophy it stuck to over the years, focusing on small but long term growth. It also believes in evolution of products as opposed to hodge podge of ideas, following a simple strategy of following one product on the success of another. It doesn't surprise me, then, that even in early 90s, they had the smallest car line up of any major automaker, despite of having two perennial best sellers. The car lineup in the early 90s: Civic , Accord and Prelude (CRX/delsol was basically a Civic).
This thread prompts me to write a blog on the subject, but I'm afraid, it will end up being a book (and blog is limited in size). But, let us look at one example of their progression of technology.
In late 1980s, Honda started developing an electric motor. In 1997, a few months after GM had launched EV1, Honda had its EV-Plus in the market. The difference between GM and Honda was primarily in the battery pack. GM assumed NiMh batteries were not practical and a bad idea, instead opted to go with lead-acid battery. Honda collaborated with Panasonic and demonstrated that NiMh was here to stay. It would take GM couple of years to adopt NiMh technology, but EV1 was about to disappear, and in most cases, towed out of their owners' garage to be crushed as if it were something evil. By this time, GM had also acquired the license on the battery technology from Panasonic and sold it to a Chevron subsidiary. This killed Honda's EV-Plus, and eventually Toyota RAV4/EV in 2002 following a lawsuit by Chevron against Toyota.
The high capacity, highly advanced battery pack was gone. Honda (and Toyota) scrambled to collaborate with manufacturers of lesser pack. They propagated their experience on electric motors to now design... hybrids. Honda launched Insight in 1999. Toyota now had Prius. GM, well...
Honda innovation didn't stop with EV-Plus. They continued development of the electric motor, and this time they used a fuel cell (battery) pack developed in collaboration with Ballard Systems. Eventually, Honda would create and develop its own fuel cell pack (and an ultra-capacitor pack for supplemental power storage), and had Honda FCX, first running as a prototype for 3-4 years, and then available for commercial use, including a private owner. FCX is now FCX/Clarity, available for lease in limited quantities/areas where refueling facilities exist.
Speaking of refueling facilities, Honda didn't just evolve the car and its technology, it had started to work on infrastructural needs for such cars, with plans to expand its home energy systems. Home Energy Station is one such example, installed to work as a hydrogen refueling station. It can even use solar power to generate hydrogen. The eventual plan is to develop HES as a multi purpose replacement for home water heater system, providing hot water, ability to operate as a power generator (it uses Honda's fuel cell stack) and as a refueling station for cars like the FCX/Clarity. And speaking of solar power, Honda has entered that area of development too. The progression continues.
Now, let us look back at GM. The top brain, probably with couple of MBA degrees and multi-million bonuses to go with it, can't even market something like Volt properly, as if EV1 didn't offer lessons. This contrasts heavily with a CEO at Honda, with humility, and desire to progress his company, and he needed only a bachelor's degree in Chemistry to do it. No fancy degree, no multimillion dollar bonuses, just a cubicle shared with everybody else for office at the headquarters.
It is not GM, however, it is the decision makers who are utterly clueless, and have been for 2-3 decades. I've long believed that I could run the company a lot better than the jokers who are currently in charge. And yes, even with UAW on the other side trying to balance them.
EG, thoghtful post and some good reading. Now I have some more issues to go research.
I don't know much about the NiMH battery packs Honda used, do you know what their life was like? I have several cordless tools with NiMH battery packs, unfortunately even quality ones (Makita and DeWalt) seem to die pretty quickly and are expensive to replace. I'm not sure if the vehicle based ones do so as well.
With respect to the whole big SUV craze, the big 3 were building them because that's what people were buying. In the late 90s and early 2000's you about had to give away small cars to get someone to drive one. Well, not quite, but sales were not very high. Toyota and Nissian have also jumped into the full size truck market (a touch later). As far as mid-sized cars, the Malibu has compared very favorably with the Camry and Accord...though I personally find all three to be bland and boring looking vehicles.
I do agree with you on GMs marketing and ability to direct resources. And on all automakers looking to buy up others. GM had no need for Saab. GM sunk somewhere on the high side of a billion dollars on the EV-1 program, millions more on H2 fuel cells, let alone the Volt. And none are yet in production. My concern with the Volt is that it's way overpriced for the market. Someone that wants to save money on gas isn't likely to be the person that has upwards of $40k to drop on a Volt.
Location: San Francisco & Fort Worth & Now, Back to IRAQ
2,870 posts, read 3,370,192 times
Reputation: 5678
Bravo!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost
The big three has been on life support for more than a decade. Nothing but the unwillingness to be more forward thinking can be blamed for it. The idea was to "just supersize it". This applied not just to the size of vehicles they started promoting in the early-mid 90s, but also the desire to grow bigger and fatter, often gobbling up anything and anyone they came across. Daewoo buy out by GM anyone? One poor decision led to another, short sighted business plan was simply unsustainable in the longer term.
I have admired Honda, not just for its products, but also for the way the company was born, the philosophy it stuck to over the years, focusing on small but long term growth. It also believes in evolution of products as opposed to hodge podge of ideas, following a simple strategy of following one product on the success of another. It doesn't surprise me, then, that even in early 90s, they had the smallest car line up of any major automaker, despite of having two perennial best sellers. The car lineup in the early 90s: Civic , Accord and Prelude (CRX/delsol was basically a Civic).
This thread prompts me to write a blog on the subject, but I'm afraid, it will end up being a book (and blog is limited in size). But, let us look at one example of their progression of technology.
In late 1980s, Honda started developing an electric motor. In 1997, a few months after GM had launched EV1, Honda had its EV-Plus in the market. The difference between GM and Honda was primarily in the battery pack. GM assumed NiMh batteries were not practical and a bad idea, instead opted to go with lead-acid battery. Honda collaborated with Panasonic and demonstrated that NiMh was here to stay. It would take GM couple of years to adopt NiMh technology, but EV1 was about to disappear, and in most cases, towed out of their owners' garage to be crushed as if it were something evil. By this time, GM had also acquired the license on the battery technology from Panasonic and sold it to a Chevron subsidiary. This killed Honda's EV-Plus, and eventually Toyota RAV4/EV in 2002 following a lawsuit by Chevron against Toyota.
The high capacity, highly advanced battery pack was gone. Honda (and Toyota) scrambled to collaborate with manufacturers of lesser pack. They propagated their experience on electric motors to now design... hybrids. Honda launched Insight in 1999. Toyota now had Prius. GM, well...
Honda innovation didn't stop with EV-Plus. They continued development of the electric motor, and this time they used a fuel cell (battery) pack developed in collaboration with Ballard Systems. Eventually, Honda would create and develop its own fuel cell pack (and an ultra-capacitor pack for supplemental power storage), and had Honda FCX, first running as a prototype for 3-4 years, and then available for commercial use, including a private owner. FCX is now FCX/Clarity, available for lease in limited quantities/areas where refueling facilities exist.
Speaking of refueling facilities, Honda didn't just evolve the car and its technology, it had started to work on infrastructural needs for such cars, with plans to expand its home energy systems. Home Energy Station is one such example, installed to work as a hydrogen refueling station. It can even use solar power to generate hydrogen. The eventual plan is to develop HES as a multi purpose replacement for home water heater system, providing hot water, ability to operate as a power generator (it uses Honda's fuel cell stack) and as a refueling station for cars like the FCX/Clarity. And speaking of solar power, Honda has entered that area of development too. The progression continues.
Now, let us look back at GM. The top brain, probably with couple of MBA degrees and multi-million bonuses to go with it, can't even market something like Volt properly, as if EV1 didn't offer lessons. This contrasts heavily with a CEO at Honda, with humility, and desire to progress his company, and he needed only a bachelor's degree in Chemistry to do it. No fancy degree, no multimillion dollar bonuses, just a cubicle shared with everybody else for office at the headquarters.
It is not GM, however, it is the decision makers who are utterly clueless, and have been for 2-3 decades. I've long believed that I could run the company a lot better than the jokers who are currently in charge. And yes, even with UAW on the other side trying to balance them.
BRAVO!!! You deserve a standing ovation for farily and honestly outlining the historical facts against the present situation. BRILLIANTLY DONE!!! I hope you do write the Blog, or even the BOOK, I'd buy it in a heart beat... bet it would make the best seller list too!
... of course crashing head on 70mph in any car will likely kill you no matter what you drive... but this test shows a safety cage you wouldn't have guessed!!!
BRAVO!!! You deserve a standing ovation for farily and honestly outlining the historical facts against the present situation. BRILLIANTLY DONE!!! I hope you do write the Blog, or even the BOOK, I'd buy it in a heart beat... bet it would make the best seller list too!
Thank You! Just as soon as I have some time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toyman at Jewel Lake
EG, thoghtful post and some good reading. Now I have some more issues to go research.
I don't know much about the NiMH battery packs Honda used, do you know what their life was like? I have several cordless tools with NiMH battery packs, unfortunately even quality ones (Makita and DeWalt) seem to die pretty quickly and are expensive to replace. I'm not sure if the vehicle based ones do so as well.
With respect to the whole big SUV craze, the big 3 were building them because that's what people were buying. In the late 90s and early 2000's you about had to give away small cars to get someone to drive one. Well, not quite, but sales were not very high. Toyota and Nissian have also jumped into the full size truck market (a touch later). As far as mid-sized cars, the Malibu has compared very favorably with the Camry and Accord...though I personally find all three to be bland and boring looking vehicles.
I do agree with you on GMs marketing and ability to direct resources. And on all automakers looking to buy up others. GM had no need for Saab. GM sunk somewhere on the high side of a billion dollars on the EV-1 program, millions more on H2 fuel cells, let alone the Volt. And none are yet in production. My concern with the Volt is that it's way overpriced for the market. Someone that wants to save money on gas isn't likely to be the person that has upwards of $40k to drop on a Volt.
Thank You!
It would be fair to bet that the EV/hybrid batteries will last somewhere between 150-200K, and may continue to serve beyond that. I'm aware of a Honda Civic Hybrid with more than half million miles on it and the battery pack being replaced only once. Weather, age, number of charge cycles etc can all affect life. Sometimes, it is also important to keep the batteries charged somewhere between 20-80% of their capacity as opposed to letting them drain completely or charge fully. This can help extend the life, and algorithms to ensure this condition are generally implemented (this is why I take advertised claims like 40 miles on pure electric power with a grain of salt).
Having said that, it is the battery technology that is holding us back from a true EV/hybrid revolution. Ultra capacitor offered a pretty good alternative, but size/energy density remained an issue (so much so that for the latest FCX, Honda has replaced ultra-capacitor with Li-ion battery pack to provide supplemental power). And fuel cell is yet another area of battery development, which theoretically promises a "life long" battery pack.
Going back to GM, I've been watching their prototypes/concepts over the years. They like to make a splash to get headlines (and probably help shareholders albeit for a short time), but deliver little or nothing at all. Volt is a good example. They came up with a design that is completely dependent on Li-ion battery pack, a work in progress. It seems the idea was to show to the world that they can do something new, as opposed to following Honda/Toyota footsteps. The problem, the Japanese could too, but they would rather eat GM's lunch (and dinner) by being more pragmatic and offering deliverable solutions. So, GM keeps a moving target for a $40K Volt, Honda launches a brand new Insight with a price tag that is less than half of it.
And GM blames Li-ion battery development. Someone or something had to be blamed, instead of acknowledging a mistake, or better yet, being smart enough to launch something lesser with available technology, keep the option open via backward compatibility and move to Li-ion pack when the technology is ready. This is a classic example of how the top brass at GM think and function. They may make millions every year, but nothing could be more frustrating than see them talk about their own products.
EV-1 was a great effort, but like everything else, it was politicized and clearly didn't have a direction, like the path Honda has followed with its investment over last two decades. Likewise, the hydrogen fuel cell investment has been questionable too. The decision makers are completely clueless. They don't have a direction, just knee jerk reaction. Which takes us to SUV/truck markets.
I see a parallel between SUV/truck market of the 1990s and the housing bubble of the 2000s. We could blame people for jumping on the band wagon, but a smart business would try to think longer term. Wells Fargo was to Housing Market, what Honda was to SUV/Truck market. Honda's reluctance to build a traditional pickup and SUV based on it was mocked, many times in advertisements (which is how people get involved) and by executives. In fact, the first unibody compact SUV in the market (CR-V) was deemed "toy-like", now it is the best selling SUV. In fact, couple of years ago, only 2-3 models out of top ten best selling SUVs was based on traditional truck chassis, the rest dominated by "late to the party Honda formula".
Honda was extremely reluctant to jump on the bandwagon, and decided to collaborate with Isuzu. It was a barter system where Honda got Rodeo (sold as Honda Passport) and Trooper (sold as Acura SLX) and Isuzu got Odyssey (sold as Isuzu Oasis) and a Japanese market Domani. There was a rumor about Honda planning to take a majority stake in Isuzu at the time. But, GM wanted it. They upped the ante, took 49% of Isuzu, Honda didn't want to get in a p-ing contest and allowed its exchange with Isuzu to expire.
That prompted Honda to develop its own light truck lineup. The new Odyssey (1999) was first in line, no longer an Accord wagon like the first generation was (still sold as an Odyssey in Europe, Japan and some other markets). Acura MDX was next (2000) with Pilot after it (2002). All of these would sell extremely well when others were starting to have trouble.
The key here was smart investment. Consolidated platforms (Honda sets a benchmark in this area), and the innovative idea of flexible manufacturing, completed in 2001, opened room for the future.
Couple of years ago, I saw a documentary by Dan Rather on HDNet which talked about automakers. It had a piece which brought up the idea of why Honda would rather build a new manufacturing facility from scratch than buy one shut down by GM and refurbish it. This goes back to the flex system. Honda would have to literally demolish an extremely rigid manufacturing process which has been a norm about GM plants. It just might be a more expensive proposition.
With flex system, Honda is able to produce multiple vehicles on the same line regardless of the platform, and it would take only a few hours for the switch. We have seen this idea at work over last 3-4 years, as manufacturing has been shifted to higher demand vehicles without building new plants or closing existing ones.
Then there are often overlooked things like reducing costs. It can come from designing (and refurbishing) manufacturing facilities to be more energy efficient (for example, use of reflective material on the ceilings to reduce number of bulbs, use of solar power). Or, designing and launching "Auto-Max" rail cars that can now carry twice as many vehicles as the other rail cars did, and investing more to keep improving.
Being an engineer by qualification myself, I can't help but adore a company that is run by engineers. At the same time, I wonder, why can't we just start putting GM in similar hands? It may be too late, but we have a lot of lessons to learn from this.
And these lessons go beyond engineering planning, decision making, and design. As Hyundai proves it, the American companies could even learn to market well. That company deserves a lot of credit from being nowhere just a decade ago, to teaching all others on how to compete, even in a terrible market.
Part of the issue with the EV-1, and to an extent the EV-Plus was that they weren't developed as a result of consumer demand, rather as a result of government mandadate, or perhaps blackmail. Califonia (CARB) demanded a certain percentage of zero emmission vehicles from each manufacturer or they wouldn't be allowed to sell any product in the state. I remember the car magazines of the day decrying the EV-1s lack of range (IIRC 60-80 miles), poor performance, charging time and high manufacturing cost. That was when tested in the mild climate of CA, put that in an area with cold weather (which saps battery efficiency) and snow (which takes power to drive through) and the range was even poorer. The car's capabilities relegated it to a niche market as a relatively short range commuter vehicle. Which meant that most purchasers would need another vehicle for longer range trips.
GM used to be run by car guys and had some great, exciting products. Even during the heydays of the muscle cars GM management was risk averse, they restricted engine size in mid-sized cars. Through the 70s and 80s they were increasingly driven by bean counters rather than engineers. They are still suffering the effects of the Roger Smith days and culture, to an extent. That does seem to be tapering off with the demises of Saturn (finally).
Bob Lutz is a car guy and deserves most of the credit for Crysler's comeback in the late 80s-90s with some cars with performance and innovative design. He pretty much saved their truck line from extinction with the Rams, with the big-rig body style. He also was responsible for innovative products like the Viper, Prowler, PT Crusier (which I wasn't a fan of) and I believe the Charger.
He's now back at GM, they have come out with some good products in the last few years. Cars like the G8, CTS and new Malibu are all well regarded. The new Camaro might add a little more excitement.
I'm hoping for good things from them. If they focus on making good vehicles, and getting technology into production, things might turn around.
As an engineer, I'm sure you appreciate that the Volt is what a Hybrid should be, in terms of straight electric drive to the wheels, as opposed to paralleling a motor/generator on top of an existing engine/transmission/driveline. I think it offers a lot of opportunity to reduce costs via elimination of redundant components. I just hope they haven't blown sales opportunities by placing the price point too high.
One of the problems that plagues our corporations (and government) is finger pointing. Development of EV1 should have never come down to a government mandate to begin with. Honda embarked on its EV-Plus program couple of years before CARB came up with the idea of a mandate. In this case, the idea was progressive, to advance the company and its products, not just worry about and follow mandates.
A further proof likes in the fact that Honda could have folded its projects when the EV-Plus could not be manufactured anymore, but they continued to develop it and apply to newer technologies, and the result is FCX/Clarity today. No mandate was necessary, just a vision, passion, sharp minds and desire to progress. We could go back in time as well (to Honda CVCC) and see a similar situation. "It can't be done" was the rhetoric in the early 70s. Honda went ahead and came up with a genius of an idea, simple and to the point. I don't see these qualities in American automakers.
I'm not a fan of Bob Lutz. It was actually him who I saw in "presenting the Volt" episode that left me scratching my head and thought he was nuts (had to make it rhyme ). He reminds me of bosses who take ideas out of sharp minds within the organization and put them verbatim on the stage for the rest to listen, as it they were their own ideas. If you happen to question them, they start to look left and right for answers. Perhaps the problem is proliferation of an old school management running these companies. That too reminds me of how Honda was born and the struggles it went thru. After going thru massive hurdles to get started, Soichiro Honda hired people not based on their educational qualifications but their desire and abilities to get the job done, and done right. Sometimes I question that attitude still living in Honda, but I do see a glimpse of it every now and then.
As for Volt, I'm not a sucker for a standard formula that hybrids have to be designed a certain way. I see pros and cons in every design, be it Toyota's HSD or Honda's IMA or something like Chevy Volt. The best solution doesn't have to be the most complicated one. We must keep in mind, costs, flexibility, portability, and overall value. I've driven Prius and Civic Hybrids enough to see that technological differences don't add up in real world.
While Toyota's design is very interesting and significantly different than a typical powertrain, Honda's idea is extremely simple, replacing the flywheel with an electric motor/generator, attached to a small battery pack. When it comes to effectiveness in terms of fuel economy, they are close. It is this simplicity that has allowed Honda to offer the new Insight for less than $20K (and without skimping on feature list).
Yes, it would be ideal to have plug-in capability, like in Volt (and many have converted Prius to be plug-in), but we're also talking about the need for a massive battery pack which adds to the cost, packaging and weight issues. If cost alone isn't a detriment right now, the availability of battery pack to deliver the goods is, and as a result, the product continues to be a pie in the sky.
Plug-in capability is nothing new, since the EV's had it over a decade ago. It is the battery pack, their ability to charge quickly, their life and initial/(potential) replacement costs also come to mind.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Bravo!!!
Smart Car Crash Test on You Tube
