I'm ready to start driving this car today.
Seriously. Between the Honda FCX Clarity's power, handling, comfort, features, cargo space and, yes, even range on a full tank of fuel, this vehicle is 100% ready to meet the demands of today's car owner.
I personally drove the FCX Clarity over 110 miles between my commute and some errands (inlcuding Cold Stone Creamery with the kids). To say I was impressed would be inaccurate because the car isn't particularly quick or nimble or cutting edge in any way, except for the fact that it runs on hydrogen. Really, it's pretty much like any other Honda sedan on the road.
And that's what impressed me. If you like how Honda sedans drive (sales figures suggest many of you do), then you'll like the FCX Clarity. In fact you'll probably feel exactly how I did after driving one: "When and where can I buy it?"
Of course you can't buy it. Honda is only offering leases on the FCX Clarity, and so far only three are on the road, meaning they ain't exactly widely available. That's probably a good thing, as hydrogen (despite being the most common element in the universe) also isn't widely available as a vehicle fuel.
However, there is a hydrogen Shell station about one mile from the Edmunds.com offices, and with a 280-mile range I could easily make my 100-mile daily commute (twice) without a second thought for re-fueling concerns.
The monthly lease rate is $600, but that includes collision insurance and full maintenance coverage. If you think of the FCX Clarity as a premium Prius (it feels superior to that vehicle in just about every way), the lease fee isn't unreasonable.
You can read a more in-depth blog review of the car here and a full test of it here.
Like most cars it isn't perfect (the electric motor's "whine" can be annoying), but if I had to start driving it tomorrow there'd be no logistical issues.
Rumor has it a hydrogen infrastructure is still 10 years away. That seems like a long time, but if cars like the FCX Clarity can be made today and the only hold-up to wide-spread use is infrastructure (and cost to produce each vehicle) I could see this fuel cell thing actually coming to pass in the next decade. This is the first time I've felt this way.
Developing the hydrogen infrastructure is supposedly quite doable, there's just not a financially viable reason to aggressively make it happen...yet. Here's where government funding could go along way toward breaking our dependency on frightening people in frightening countries. Considering the amount of taxpayer money flying around these days this one seems like a no-brainer (certainly a use of taxpayer money I'd support -- which you may never hear me say again).
I guess you could say I'm a believer now, but how do you feel about aggressively making hydrogen the fuel of the future? Does the thinking behind the FCX Clarity and other cars like it appeal to you?
By dougtheeng
on December 23, 2008
07:28 AM
I think it would be great if someone (maybe a government?) took a step forward and began promoting hydrogen as a fuel source. I think its the most important fuel of the future [for vehicles] and whoever makes the initial investment could see great returns. It'd help if more companies promoted their hydrogen initiatives.
I'd rather pursue hydrogen then try and force battery/electric technology into an electric car. As far as a plug in car goes, not having an outlet at my apartment makes it difficult. In either case, there will have to be an infrastructure change.
By chavis10
on December 23, 2008
07:38 AM
Sounds great but why does it have to be so damn ugly? I couldn't look at that thing everyday.
By ksm1
on December 23, 2008
09:23 AM
I agree with chavis10. Why do alternative fuel vehicles have to be so ugly? I find this car, the Prius ugler than regular small cars. Is the ugly intentional to say "Hey look at me I'm saving the earth." or does the ugly add to the cross that the owner must carry in owning one of these vehicles.
By cowbell
on December 23, 2008
09:27 AM
Outside of the infrastructure, what about the cost of the vehicles. I know they're leasing them for $600 a month, but that is at a huge loss isn't it? I believe this batch cost about $500,000 each to make.
I know cost come down with mass production, but there's a limit to that with this sort of technology. For starters, I did some work with fuel cells a few years ago, and I know they use a pretty good amount of platinum; much more than a catalytic converter.
While the technology might be ready today, the production capability, like the infrastructure, is at least a decade out.
By 1487
on December 23, 2008
10:06 AM
"And that's what impressed me. If you like how Honda sedans drive (sales figures suggest many of you do), then you'll like the FCX Clarity."
Honda's sales have been down 30% in recent months and if sales dictate driveability than Toyota and GM must make cares people LOVE to drive.
GM has put a lot of money into fuel cells but most critics say its a waste of time due to lack of infrastructure or plans for expansion of what little we have. If its true for GM its true for Honda. GM has 100 Equinox's on the road in the hands of customers for research purposes. I saw one on the road in NYC when visiting the NY auto show.
The FCX is ugly too.
By blackadder5639
on December 23, 2008
11:36 AM
I actually like the exterior styling of the FCX, although I admit I haven't seen it "in person" yet.
Chavis, 1487, and ksm1, the "ugly" styling of hybrids like the Prius is at least partially because of aerodynamics.....that shape supposedly has optimised aerodynamics that adds 1 or 2 mpg in fuel economy.
I actually like the Prius' exterior styling. It's the dashboard that I can't stand......
The question is, since the hybrid drivetrain is so fuel efficient already, why do manufacturers bother with things like low-resistance tires on them? I'd rather have the stickier tires and reduced fuel economy from 48 mpg to 46 mpg! The Tohoe Hybrid also has no roof rails!......roof rails add to the macho look and what's the point of an SUV if it's gonna look sissy??!!
By estreka
on December 23, 2008
12:34 PM
Doug - This might be the answer you're looking for.
http://www.fuelcelltoday.com/events/archive/2001-11/Iceland---The-First-Hydrogen-Eco
By firstwagon
on December 23, 2008
12:47 PM
"hydrogen (despite being the most common element in the universe) also isn't widely available as a vehicle fuel. "
That's because it doesn't exist on earth, at least not by itself. It's always combined with some other molecule and at present it takes more energy to free it then you get from it.
So dispite all the hype you hear about it as the next great fuel source, it pollutes more then other fuel sources.
There are a host of problems such as energy loss...
If you use electricity, it takes energy to free the hydrogen. Then there is a lot of energy used to compress it to roughly 4000psi. Then there is the energy loss in creating electricity in the fuel cell (for those who think it's efficent, one of the biggest application problems is getting rid of the heat created which is waste energy).
It will make a lot more sense to skip all the steps and just use the electricity to charge batteries.
I agree batteries are not at the practical level yet but neither are fuel cells.
The difference is fuel cells likley never will be as they will be made obsolete by cheaper more powerful batteries.
By dougtheeng
on December 23, 2008
01:15 PM
"GM has put a lot of money into fuel cells but most critics say its a waste of time due to lack of infrastructure or plans for expansion of what little we have."
If inventors always stopped development of a product because of lack of infrastructure, think of all the advances we wouldn't have. We would still be in the stone ages.
"Doug - This might be the answer you're looking for.
http://www.fuelcelltoday.com/events/archive/2001-11/Iceland---The-First-Hydrogen-Eco"
Thats interesting and its good to know that someone out there is taking steps toward the future.
By carlisimo
on December 23, 2008
01:19 PM
I agree with firstwagon, from what I've read it makes sense to skip the hydrogen and just plug your car into the power grid. Which is too bad, I think I'd prefer the ways fuel cell cars drive (or better yet, a hydrogen rotary).
I like the way the FCX and new Insight look - a lot. I don't like the Prius, but not because of its shape. It's the vertical design features (like the lights) and other detailing that ruin it for me. I bet they ruined the shape for a lot of other people, too. Yep, I'm blaming the Prius for the backlash. If Toyota hadn't been first, hybrids might not have a reputation for being boring and ugly.
By chavis10
on December 23, 2008
01:24 PM
Blackadder- I understand the Prius shape (which the Volt basically copied) which is weird/odd but not offensive. This Clarity is just plain UGLY. Honda likes to make their cars as ugly as possible- just look at the new Accord, Acuras and the Fit. Also, the aerodynamic benefits are miminal at best at the speeds most people drive. The high decklid and tear drop shape are obviously required but the other Honda cues are just ridiculous.
By bbechtel16
on December 23, 2008
01:48 PM
The Fit? The Fit is the best looking subcompact around!
By pedalian
on December 23, 2008
04:12 PM
It's hard to predict the future, but, eventually we will run out of oil, which will cause the price to become totally unaffordable. In that case, we may start to see hydrogen play a larger role. Yes, it requires energy to extract it, but, it requires more and more energy to extract oil out of the ground or from the bottom of the ocean as well.
We actually know how (and have for some time) to produce an unlimited (well, about 100,000 years) amount of energy right now. It's called nuclear power, utilizing fuel from breeder reactors and new fuel reprocessing plants. Very little nuclear waste (read: no Yucca Mountain) and zero CO2. Here is the ultimate source of hydrogen production. That, along with electricity, can make us totally energy independent, for basically forever, and with next to zero carbon emissions.
And I also think the Clarity is ugly, btw.
By blueguydotcom
on December 23, 2008
10:00 PM
Europe is - of course - developing hydrogen stations lining highways that link. One example, Hynor, is a 7 station hydrogen highway from Oslo to Stavanger; it's under construction and is expected to be completed in 2009.
Ped wrote: "It's called nuclear power, utilizing fuel from breeder reactors and new fuel reprocessing plants. Very little nuclear waste (read: no Yucca Mountain) and zero CO2."
There's nothing little about the waste nuclear plants create. It's around forever (or it'll be around long after humans are gone). My father-in-law has made a fortune running giant clean-ups of nuclear plants all over the world.
As for the clarity's looks, so what. It's a car. It looks fine. It's what's inside that makes it special. What's on the outside is meaningless.
By 1487
on December 24, 2008
07:09 AM
"The Fit? The Fit is the best looking subcompact around!"
That isnt saying much. The Fit without the 17" wheels is ungainly. Also, the front overhang is ridiculous on the Fit. I also cant stand that front window pane forward of the side mirrors. Buick Lesabres had this in the 1990s and it was bad then just as its bad now.
"As for the clarity's looks, so what. It's a car. It looks fine. It's what's inside that makes it special. What's on the outside is meaningless. "
Ah, the famous words of a person defending lackluster designs from import automakers. A car doesnt have to be unattractive to serve its purpose. I think the Volt looks far better than the FCX or the new Insight even though all three cars have the same general profile. The Devil is in the details.
By bbechtel16
on December 24, 2008
07:42 AM
"That isnt saying much."
So you agree?
"The Fit without the 17" wheels is ungainly."
The Fit isn't available with 17" wheels.
By dougtheeng
on December 24, 2008
08:22 AM
I think the Fit is a good looking little car. Its no MINI, but its certainly better then Versa/Yaris/Aveo.
By chavis10
on December 24, 2008
09:23 AM
I personally take offense when I see the Fit. If Pontiac released a car that ugly you people would call it the Aztek part II. Honda is the only company that continuously releases uglier and uglier cars each year. It seems most other designs get more sophisticated and expensive looking while Honda resorts to weird and ridiculously pointless styling cues so their cars stand out. Why are the headlights huge? What's the sub A pillar and the huge window it creates? As 1487 documented- the front overhang is cartoonish and the bumper detailing is juvenile. Terrible looking automobile in every aspect of the design. Look at the Suzuki SX4 and the Fit back to back and tell me who nailed the design and who didn't. It's pretty bad when every car Hyundai makes looks twice as good as the comparable Honda model.
By carlisimo
on December 24, 2008
10:32 AM
Really? I think the Fit looks like a little spaceship, in a good way.
But anyway, what about the Clarity makes it ugly? If something's ugly you can usually define why, like an awkward design feature. I don't see one on this car, the way I do on the Prius or the Acura TL.
By blueguydotcom
on December 24, 2008
04:42 PM
"Ah, the famous words of a person defending lackluster designs from import automakers. A car doesnt have to be unattractive to serve its purpose. I think the Volt looks far better than the FCX or the new Insight even though all three cars have the same general profile. The Devil is in the details."
They don't have to be attractive either. Like pretty much every car on the road, the Clarity, Fit, Volt just blend in with blandness. I can count on one hand the good looking new cars under 75k.
Cayman
Z4 Coupe
Elise
S5
Sky
There's gotta be another... I'll think about it.
By firstwagon
on December 24, 2008
04:59 PM
Weird, an important issue like whether fuel cells will replace oil as the primary fuel source and people are arguing whether the car is ugly or not.
I guess as long as it looks good it will sell in America.
By brn
on December 26, 2008
06:05 AM
To agree with cowbell, fw, and 1487: The Clarity has a lot larger obstacles than simply lacking an infrastructure. It's expensive and impractical. Honda just hides those costs on the THREE that are available today.
Btw: I don't think it's that ugly.
By subytrojan
on December 26, 2008
11:22 PM
The Honda FCX Clarity was reviewed on episode 7 of this season of Top Gear. Enjoy!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J25S948uJPw
By 1487
on December 29, 2008
06:00 AM
"Cayman
Z4 Coupe
Elise
S5
Sky"
3 out of 5 aint bad. The Z4 is not attractive and the new one is even worse. The elise really doesnt have any styling per se, its just a functional sports car that is like a street legal go kart.