Jump to content
Create New...
  • 💬 Join the Conversation

    CnG Logo SQ 2023 RedBlue FavIcon300w.png
    Since 2001, Cheers & Gears has been the go-to hub for automotive enthusiasts. Join today to access our vibrant forums, upload your vehicle to the Garage, and connect with fellow gearheads around the world.

     

  • William Maley
    William Maley

    Honda's Upcoming Clarity EV Falls Short In Terms Of Range

      Cue Sad Trombone

    Honda will soon be entering the electric car arena with the introduction of the Clarity EV this spring. But as Automotive News has learned, the Clarity EV will have a big disadvantage right out of the gate.

    The Clarity EV will only offer a range of 80 miles on a single charge. This puts it well behind nearly all of the electric vehicles on sale.

    • 2017 Nissan Leaf: 107 mile range
    • 2017 Ford Focus Electric: 115 mile range
    • 2017 Hyundai Ioniq Electric: 124 mile range
    • 2017 Volkswagen e-Golf - 125 mile range
    • 2017 Chevrolet Bolt - 238 mile range

    Why the limited range? Honda explained to Automotive News the decision came down two parameters that were non-negotiable: the size of the Clarity's platform - underpins a fuel cell and upcoming plug-in hybrid - and keeping the starting price around $35,000. With these two points, Honda's engineers were hamstrung from putting in a larger battery. Still, Honda is trying to put a positive spin on this, saying they believe they have found a sweet spot in the EV marketplace.

    "A pillar of the Honda brand is affordability, and if Honda came out with some obscenely priced long-range electric car, what does that do for the brand? Most of our customers would not be able to acquire it," Steve Center, vice president of environmental business development at American Honda Motor.

    "These people want a battery car and they know what they do and where they go. They're very rational and they don't need to lug around or charge up a 300-mile-range battery because that costs them electricity."

    But how many of those people are out there? Studies within the past year or so have shown that while most people would be able to get away with an electric vehicle providing a range of under 100 miles, the fear of range anxiety rears its ugly head.  

    Source: Automotive News (Subscription Required)

    User Feedback

    Recommended Comments

    Honda, FYI Pull your head out of the Glue Gun and stop sniffing some stupid Marketing spin. YOUR FULL OF BS!

    People will not bother buying your EV as 80 miles is pathetic in todays age and you failed to pay attention to the market and what the competition was doing. Only badge snobby idiots will pay $35,000 for your EV when they can get a far superior EV at Chevy for less.

    Saying this is needed for their fuel cell is a joke, Fuel Cells are more expensive and it takes more energy to fuel a fuel cell auto than a pure EV. Honda is on the wrong end of this one as I question GM on it also as I think we will not see the market move to hydrogen powered auto's.

    Rock on BOLT! Rock On! :metal: 

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Well Mercedes will have 72 EV cars over 80 miles by 2075. Just had to get that out before someone else had to post it,

    I think this is telling of Honda and how far behind they are on the EV program. They had invest much into Fuel Cell but the infrastructure is just not there to support it. I think that is why they joined GM to help get more filling stations in place that both brands could use.

    I have driven the Fuel Cell GM CUV and I can say it is not a joke. Infrastructure is a mess for Electric and even more so for the Fuel Cell. Until there is more demand of either and agreed systems no one wants to invest into these refueling as if they miss the chosen system they could stand to loose their investment in the private sector.

    This is the old Chicken and the Egg deal one can not exist without the other but getting enough of one before the other will incur some risk if you chose wrong. 

    The SAE needs to standardize the plugs on the EV cars now before we get a real mess out there. Imagine if everyone used a different size non standard nuts and bolts on our cars?

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    J1772 is the SAE standard for Level 1 & 2 charging. It is the Rapid Fast Charging that is undergoing review and the SAE is planning on setting a standard for this summer 2017, I then expect to see a J1772-2017 updated SAE standard.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    What a joke.  If Honda was so focused on value they wouldn't price this thing like a 3-series.  An EV with an 80 mile range should be like $22,000, that would be value for the customer.  

    These people with their 100 mile over priced, no power electrics are fools.  You have to build more power than gas for equal money to get people to buy it.

    • Agree 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    3 hours ago, dfelt said:

    J1772 is the SAE standard for Level 1 & 2 charging. It is the Rapid Fast Charging that is undergoing review and the SAE is planning on setting a standard for this summer 2017, I then expect to see a J1772-2017 updated SAE standard.

    That is the problem the standard is evolving yet at a time it needs to really zone in on one size fits all. 

    There is already too many different ones out there and companies lobbying for their version. 

     

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites



    Join the conversation

    You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
    Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

    Guest
    Add a comment...

    ×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

      Only 75 emoji are allowed.

    ×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

    ×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

    ×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




  • Support Real Automotive Journalism

    Cheers and Gears Logo

    Since 2001, Cheers & Gears has delivered real content and honest opinions — not emotionless AI output or manufacturer-filtered fluff.

    If you value independent voices and authentic reviews, consider subscribing. Plans start at just $2.25/month, and paid members enjoy an ad-light experience.*

    You can view subscription options here.

    *a very limited number of ads contain special coupon deals for our members and will show

  • Similar Content

  • Posts

    • It's amazing how a leather wrapped steering wheel changes the experience at the wheel for the better (it seems to make for an almost different car from the model with a urethane steering wheel).
    • Another thing to think on is the evidence bullet proof? Sadly, the same type of people who have said an eye for an eye, death penalty if you took a life have convicted others with hate in their heart only to have science prove the convicted innocent.  In this regards I wish all guns had palm / finger tip readers to confirm who last fired the gun. While others might say the death penalty is cruel, how is it when the person if proved beyond a reasonable doubt took a life? What about serial killers who are sitting for life, a burden on society in jail because folks feel there should be no death penalty and yet they took multiple lives themselves. Would it not be better for society if that person was no longer around, a burden on the tax payers? Many good questions to be asked. Lets take this a step further, auto makers who due to a focus on profits take shortcuts on safety of an auto, who should be held accountable for the deaths related to their products and how do you hold them accountable? An example of profit before safety, FORD PINTO Details of the Pinto's flawed fuel system: Location and construction: The sheet-metal gas tank was placed behind the rear axle, a design common at the time, but the Pinto's tank was made with exceptionally thin walls. It was held in place by two metal straps. Vulnerable parts: During rear-end impacts, bolts protruding from the differential housing could puncture the thin-walled tank. Additionally, the fuel-filler neck could tear away from the tank itself. Internal cost analysis: Internal Ford documents revealed that engineers were aware of the risks in pre-production crash tests and considered inexpensive fixes, including adding a rubber bladder to the tank. Alternative designs rejected: Engineers considered safer alternative designs, such as placing the tank above the axle (a design used on the Ford Capri), but this was rejected due to cost and styling constraints. Final design choice: Executives opted not to make these changes after a cost-benefit analysis concluded it would be cheaper to pay out potential lawsuits and settlements than to implement the repairs.  So who do you hold accountable for the deaths?
  • Who's Online (See full list)

    • There are no registered users currently online
  • My Clubs

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.

Hey there, we noticed you're using an ad-blocker. We're a small site that is supported by ads or subscriptions. We rely on these to pay for server costs and vehicle reviews.  Please consider whitelisting us in your ad-blocker, or if you really like what you see, you can pick up one of our subscriptions for just $1.75 a month or $15 a year. It may not seem like a lot, but it goes a long way to help support real, honest content, that isn't generated by an AI bot.

See you out there.

Drew
Editor-in-Chief

Write what you are looking for and press enter or click the search icon to begin your search