Mr. Mobile Drives Hydrogen Toyota Mirai To See If It’s Really The Future

SEP 25 2018 BY STEVEN LOVEDAY 92

Hmm … Are hydrogen-powered cars really the future?

While it may make some people sad or mad, InsideEVs mostly avoids extensive coverage of hydrogen-powered vehicles. Yes, we do, in fact, try to cover anything with a plug (which a few rare FCEVs do have). And, hydrogen vehicles are truly EVs. Toyota and a few other automakers are still banking on the tech, though it seems the ball was dropped years ago. Nonetheless, we could go on and on about why the technology just doesn’t make much sense. Aside from being very inefficient, it’s considerably expensive, and if you think EV charging infrastructure is bad, well …

Not to mention that at least many people can charge their BEV or PHEV at home. How ’bout a home charging setup for an FCV? Let’s not even travel down that road. We know people may argue tooth and nail about this, but we’re just not going to go there. So, here is MrMobile’s recent take on the subject, as he test drives a Toyota Mirai. He does say the tech is pretty cool, but he also agrees with IEV that this is just not the future.

Video Description via MrMobile [Michael Fisher] on YouTube:

Driving A Hydrogen Car: Is This Really “The Future?”

Every time I shoot a video featuring a battery-electric car, someone in the comments pops up to say “you know, the REAL future is hydrogen cars.” The thing is, to drive a hydrogen fuel cell car you need to live near hydrogen fueling stations … and the closest one to my home in Boston is 2,547 miles away. So when I was in San Francisco last week, I called up the fine folks at Toyota and asked them to put me behind the wheel of the Toyota Mirai (which is Japanese for “future,” by the by). Before I knew it, I was hurtling down the highway in Toyota’s FCV, leaving nothing behind me but water. It’s not the freshest news on the block, but still, I thought it was a great opportunity to share some details on how hydrogen cars work, why they’re cool … and why I also think they’re probably not the future.

Categories: Toyota, Videos

Tags: ,

Leave a Reply

92 Comments on "Mr. Mobile Drives Hydrogen Toyota Mirai To See If It’s Really The Future"

newest oldest most voted

Yup cool technology but it isn’t going to be the future. I think the really interesting story would to find out what kind of crazy group think goes on insideToyota headquarters that keep them pouring money into this sinkhole. I would love to be a fly on the wall when they discuss fuel cell cars.

Agreed, people tend to get confused between “specific energy [J/kg]” and “specific density [J/L]”
According to wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density,

Hydrogen at 700 bar has about 240 times more “specific energy [J/kg]” compared to Li-ion batteries.
However, it has “only” about 4,5 times more “specific density [J/L]” (Before efficiency is to be considered)

Hydrogen people tend to only talk about the first property. So sure, it may travel very far without much added weight to the vehicle. However, as the specific density [J/L] is the limiting factor. Manufacturers doesn’t have enough space (inside the vehicle) to store the hydrogen for longer ranges.

Another Euro point of view

very informative comment. thanks !

In a way weight is much more relevant. The problem is not energy density in my opinion. The main problem is that it’s extremely complex, bulky, expensive, safety is a pain in the neck.
My question is, what is improving faster, batteries or hydrogen cells?

I think you got confused. I’m pretty sure “specific density” is not the term you are looking for. The J/L metric is correctly called “energy density” — which is indeed the topic of the very article you linked?…

Since these terms are confusing, many people just talk about “gravimetric energy density” and “volumetric energy density” instead — less scientific, but much clearer.

Either way, the real problem is not the specific energy vs. energy density distinction, but rather the fact that the tanks add a *huge* overhead on top of either of these metrics: they are not only huge, but also heavy enough to nix most of the theoretical advantage in specific energy of the fuel itself.

“Manufacturers doesn’t have enough space (inside the vehicle) to store the hydrogen for longer ranges.”

Somehow Hyundai found all the space they needed to make the longest range EV (Nexo) in the form of regular SUV/crossover without compromising cargo space. And it can recharge to 100% in 5 minutes. I guess they cheated on the holy laws of battery physics, what an annoyance 😉

Hyundai Nexo got a range of 410 miles (WLTP) and Toyota Mirai 312 miles (EPA); compared to
300 miles (WTLP) of Kia Niro EV and Hyundai Kona, and 310 miles (EPA) of the Tesla Model 3.

If the hydrogen Nexo and Mirai should give a “smackdown to battery-electric vehicles” the range should have been higher and comparable to an ICE vehicle.

The average range is comparable now to plain ICE cars that often have 300-400 mile range. And e.g. Toyota’s declared goal is to match 1000 km hybrid range and price by 2030.

The more important point is what you do after you are out of range. With refuelable car range is not the limit and less important. With Li Ion car range is the limit, and you need to care not just about average optimistic range, but about minimum, that may be drastically less in low temperature, front wind, higher speed, and make sure you have enough free time to stop and charge for a while.

Way to change the topic.

It may be the future for trucks.

I can’t see it. Professional use trucks are all about dollars per mile and batteries kill fuel cells there. Private use trucks are all about performance, and batteries kill fuel cells there too.

There are no long distance battery trucks while FCV shine in that category, Nikola has an unveiling in April with a truck and a fueling station,comapnies like Budweiser want to be able to label their transport renewable which you can say for 100% solar powered H2 and you can’t from electricity from the grid,maketing is a powerful force in renewables.

Nikola’s scheme is economically unworkable. They will never sell a single truck.

100% solar H2 doesn’t happen at the pumping station if you expect to see pumping station all over the country. That means a massive pipe network or trucks hauling the hydrogen. Oops. And the COST! $80 for a full tank? Wow. I’ll plug in and charge over night for $5. thanks…..anywhere.

But how many stations do you need with 1200 mile range?

Depends, how long does it take to fill up the 200KG of compressed hydrogen one needs for that sort of range? I suspect it could take at least an hour which limits the capacity of these stations.

https://nikolamotor.com/faqs
“Normal filling times will be between 15-20 minutes from empty.”

And no, you will not need full frunk of all kinds of “standard” connectors to plug. Everybody uses the same worldwide standard to refuel H2. There is also standardized high throughput nozzle variant for trucks & buses.

Hmm, many of the numbers Nikola motors provides don’t even remotely add up.

Less than 5KG takes ~5 minutes for cars like Mirai on a good day, we’ll see if Nikola can really transfer 40 times that in just 20 minutes. Somehow I doubt it.

Hydrogen refueling is not news and times are well known and done in practice by buses already.

Nikola is not going to invent anything fundamentally new here, it is not needed.
SAE J2601-2 already standardized refueling above 10 kg up to 7.2 kg/min.

If you do the math it will take ~80% reduction in the cost of distributed hydrogen for a HFCV truck to be cost competitive with a diesel truck, even more to be competitive with a BEV truck.

..and that’s just the fuel cost, depreciation and maintenance are no picnic either.

“It may be the future for trucks.”

I’m sure it will appeal greatly to all truck owners who are eager to pay twice as much per mile for their fuel, as well as restricting themselves to using a fuel much more difficult to find than diesel. 🙄

The economics of hydrogen fuel cells are just as disadvantageous for trucks as for passenger cars. “Batteries don’t work for trucks” is just a baseless talking point of hydrogen proponents.

Battery cost is >50% of a BEV truck, and it’s linear with range. H2 tank cost is a small portion of FCV truck, so it’s possible for FCV to have a cost advantage for long range.

The problem with long range is logistics. Metro/regional fleets that return to base each night are a much easier target for a new type of truck. Early ZEV trucks will also grow hand-in-hand with local emission/noise regulations. All this favors short haul for the next 5-10 years, and BEV should dominate short haul.

Even short haul needs to operate at least one full shift without restrictions of bad weather/low temperature, and ability to handle overtime when you have peak seasonal deliveries.

200-300 mile average trucks as advertised now just can’t last long enough, even at low speed urban traffic. You need minimum guaranteed range, not average, if you don’t want to recharge in the middle of the work day who knows where and creating who knows what grid demand charges.

But all this of course will be changed by our favorite weekly battery breakthrough 😉

Yeah, better wait for the hydrogen breakthrough, so much more plausible…

Battery cost will actually be less than 50% for the Tesla Semi; and I don’t believe there is any real need to further increase range.

Hydrogen tanks are not cheap either — and they would have to be a *lot* cheaper, to make up for the extra cost of the fuel cell stacks. Right now, the estimated cost of a long-range hydrogen truck are something like $400,000 or $500,000 IIRC. Prices of both the fuel cells and the tanks would have to drop to a fraction of the current level to match the price of the Tesla Semi in 2020.

And of course that doesn’t even account for the inevitably higher fuel price…

IMO……Hydrogen Cars are Nothing But a Brain Wash Diversion Tactic From the BIG 0IL Folks, To Sway Away & Conquer the uninformed unsuspecting Buyer . If they constantly “Pay People 0ff and Hammer away at it Long Enough, Some People May Deviate and take the Hydrogen Route. However to Me.,., Fuel Cells in Cars “Make N0 Sense” At All !

California CARB board gives excellent CARB credits for hydrogen.
Too many. Toyota fully funds hydrogen through those credits.
I think it’s spending nothing of it’s own money on hydrogen.

Yup, CARB credits for fool cell vehicles is a huge boondoggle wasting many millions of dollars of taxpayer money, and benefits no one except Big Oil & Gas.

CARB credits do not generally affect “taxpayer money” — unless there are too few of them to go around, resulting in some companies actually paying the fines, instead of just buying spare credits from other companies.

The extra credits for hydrogen cars only mean that fewer other zero emission cars need to be sold, thus somewhat weakening the mandate… But because of the tiny sales, it doesn’t make all that much of a difference.

(Ironically, that is apparently the actual reason cited for not dropping the unreasonable extra bonus already…)

Yep, after getting a taste of not visiting a fuel station (besides public Level 2 chargers AT my destinations), the idea of having to regularly go out of my way to fuel my car is just crazy. I don’t really care about 5 minute fill-ups; I’m at work for 8 hours anyways, and at night I’m home for at least 10-12 hours. For roadtrips, my Volt works, but honestly stopping for 30 minutes to recharge would be a good time for a break anyways. Roadtrips with an FCEV? Pretty much impossible right now outside of California.

Same experience with us. 250,000+ kms and no looking back.

A trip to a fueling station every week or two isn’t the worst thing that you might have to do.

Sure….it’s paying for it, now that is bad!
PV + EV = me never driving on H

Well, that’s a different story. And indeed, it’s expensive atm.

It is if that fueling station is 2,500 miles away. for hydrogen

Try asking people how many would find it acceptable if they had to bring their smartphone to a fuel station every week or two…

It only seems acceptable until you realise that there is a better alternative.

Better alternative is to recharge at home at night or every second night.
Leaving your phone on street 5 floors down and unwinding extension cord every evening and morning is not better alternative.
Getting stranded in afternoon because you used phone too much and can’t recharge isn’t better alternative either.
So if you don’t have good enough batteries to last whole day of driving or don’t have charging place, the better alternative is to visit station for 5 minutes once a week or once a month.

“If”

Add me to the long list of people who think HFCVs are a colossal waste of time and money and mental energy. But yet again, I have to ask: When EVs completely wipe out HFCVs, to the point even the companies like Toyota throw in the towel, what’s the wind-down process? I can’t imagine operators of H stations keeping them running for years with a small and dwindling number of customers. And if you just signed a 3-year lease on a HFCV, what do you do if/when the only reasonably close refueling station closes? Will Toyota be willing to cancel the rest of your lease and take the car back? We focus a lot here on the build out — getting enough fast EV chargers distributed to the right locations to make long distance trips in an EV comfortable, for example — but EVs don’t have a wind-down issue because [1] yeah, they really are the future and they’re not going anywhere, and [2] the vast majority of EV owners, at least in the US, likely have at-home charging as a fallback position, even if it’s not their preferred option. Leasing or (shudder) buying a HFCV today is placing an… Read more »

Fuel Cell me once, shame on you,
Fool Cell me twice, shame on me!

Come on Toyota, is Mirai “really the future”?

PLEASE, Go back to the drawing board!

Think cost + efficiency + fuel (charge) at home – it’s an EV no brainer!

How do you say in Japanese,
“Tesla and Panasonic ate my lunch”?

In the puncture test, it can be seen that the hydrogen flame is much hotter than the gasoline fire. If the hydrogen flame pointed toward the cabinet instead of up from the trunk, all passengers inside will be incinerated within seconds.

The point is that hydrogen has a tendency to float up very quickly; so the flame will pretty much always point up. Even if the hydrogen leaked directly into the passenger cabin, I don’t think it could sustain a flame there…

So far this fantasy didn’t happen despite all the H2 cars and buses around the world.
I can’t say the same about battery cars from certain automaker that chose to use unstable NCA chemistry to squeeze out as much range as possible. It looks like they catch fire all the time, up to the point that burn alive deaths per vehicle miles or years exceed average 11 year old econobox gas guzzler, as far as limited statistics allows us to predict. I don’t know how hot or cool is Li Ion fire, but I’m sure it far exceeds capabilities for regular human being, just like gasoline fire or toxic fumes accompanying the fire.

Yeah right, 1 1/2 deaths in a single incident allows us to estimate the rate to be higher than several hundred fire deaths in combustion cars each year in the US alone… While a few thousand hydrogen vehicles in total in the whole world clearly prove their safety…

Any risk is less down to a “fire” (one which starts in a way that gives you time to get away) and more due to an explosive type of event which leaves you no chance. In which case, I’d far prefer my chances with batteries than hydrogen.

I’m not so bothered about any risk of cylinder exploding as a faulty seal and slowish leak, when the vehicle is parked in a confined space. Let a lot of gas leak and build up over a period of time, then enter the garage and switch the light on……..

This is why LPG cars tend to be banned from many underground car parks. Same principle would apply with hydrogen.

“Mirai (which is Japanese for “future,” by the by)”

Hopefully “by the by”, really translates to “bye-bye Fool Cells!”

This is one of the few video about hydrogen vehicles that was not marred with bias or agenda… just tells it like it is.

Looking at hydrogen cars themselves doesn’t tell the important story. Hydrogen cars work just fine & can be refueled quickly.

The problems are largely elsewhere:
-There is almost no fueling infrastructure.
-Hydrogen is not green (it is mostly made from steam-reformed methane with the CO2 vented into the atmosphere).
-Hydrogen is not cheap…it’s hard to know the real price (I’ve heard around $10/gallon equivalent) but whatever it is, it costs more than gasoline.
-There are safety issues with a highly pressurized & flammable gas as your fuel.

“leaving nothing behind me but water”
I hate to drive behind a Mirai on the freeway, the water splash all over my car, and they drive slow in the car pool lane.

You get plenty of water from a plain old gasoline car but the only time you see it is in cold weather.

Never rains by you I guess. Or do you get mad at the sun for shining on you?

Living in SoCal, last time I see rain is more than 5 months ago, and Sun doesn’t make my car dirty.
I wash my car once a week, when water splash over light dusted area, it creates dirty water spots.

That’s why it has a button to release the water when convenient, rather than splashing it around all the time…

Also, the amount is so small that you wouldn’t even notice it in most situations.

That must be a terrible experience … not quite as horrible as rain or visiting a car wash, but shocking nonetheless.

Another Euro point of view

It seems as there is a future for hydrogen fuel cells for long haul trucking.

Only if you limit where you have to go, and are willing to pay 3 times the price.

Another Euro point of view

I am always amazed how a country (Japan) where lies so many amazingly beautiful pieces of art and architecture can produce so many either dull or downright ugly cars.

Glad I’m not sitting on the gas tank.

IEVs says: “…hydrogen vehicles are truly EVs….” . Yup they are….. Just like a 10 year old non-plug-in Prius is Truly an EV when the engine is off.-

If you further define it by “no Ice’s involved”, in the first place, I don’t know what you have against ICE’s, and back in the production plan there are plenty of ICE compression stations for the methane. And in view of electric rates, although the current dispensaries are 100% electric motored, once they get enough electric bills they’ll surely switch the motive power to ICE’s.

EV refers to the drivetrain and not the power source. A BMW i3 rex is still an EV despite it’s ICE range extender.

No, EV refers to the (main) power source. Otherwise, a plug-less series hybrid running on gasoline alone would also be an EV…

“hydrogen vehicles are truly EVs”…..No they’re not, not by any relevant defenition. Sad that a website dedicated to EVs can’t even properly define what constitutes an EV. It’s not so much about an electric motor being involved in the propulsion somewhere, it’s about the fuel, that’s what really determines the economic and environmental impact of a vehicle and a lot of the total ownership experience.

So a definition of an EV that’s actually relevant for the green car discussion and also fits in PHEVs would be: a vehicle is an EV to the extend it’s powered by electrons from an external source. More simple: cars with plugs.

“It’s not so much about an electric motor being involved in the propulsion somewhere, it’s about the fuel…”

No, an EV is indeed “about” an electric motor being used to push the car down the road. If they built a car using a small reactor which converts nuclear energy directly to electricity (see link below), would you still claim such an electrically propelled, electric powered car wasn’t an EV simply because it didn’t have batteries? I hope not!

Fuel cell electric vehicles — FCEVs — are indeed EVs just as much as BEVs and PHEVs. They’re just not practical EVs, and never will be.

https://tinyurl.com/y7d8fopb

That would be a nuclear-powered car. I assure you that’s what everyone would call it.

Electric propulsion does *not* automatically make an EV. Or do you truly thing plug-less series hybrids, such as Nissan’s e-something hybrids, should also be called EVs?

The Nissan “Note E-power” is indeed called ‘electrified’ — it’s propulsion is via E-motor, it has a small battery like a standard-hybrid, and it has a gasoline engine which is running most of the time (during highway driving) to re-charge the small battery, just like RE-EV.

And FCEV (the EV is indeed for electric vehicle) is very similar, like a continuous range extender via fuel-cell is recharging the buffer battery to power the electric motor.

Legacy makers often use the marketing term “electrified” for anything that has an electric motor, including all kinds of hybrids, in an attempt to intentionally blur the distinction. But “electrified” doesn’t equal electric.

But at the end of the day the Note e-Power runs 100% on gasoline and HFCVs run 100% on hydrogen. Only EVs run on electricity from an external source.

In the end most of external sources of energy run from the same mix fossil fuels, so why not call it natural gas or natural coal car with extra long tailpipe? 😉

If you want to emphasize zero tailpipe emissions, there is special term specifically for it, ZEV (zero emissions vehicle, though they missed “tailpipe” here).

“EV” is just about drivetrain, people used terms like BEV, PHEV, HEV, FCEV for long time and “EV” part is common in all these terms.

Except nobody ever omits the “hybrid” part of a plug-less HEV — or the “fuel cell” part of the FC(E)V — unless they want to mislead on purpose.

And yes, ZEV is the correct term to use for vehicles with zero (tailpipe) emissions — no need to abuse the term “EV” when referring to another type of ZEV that doesn’t actually use electricity as the power source.

What happens outside the vehicle following the energy chain upstream is a different discussion , when defining vehicles withing the frame work of an environmental/energy discussion what matters is what form the energy has at the moment is enters the vehicle.

That is why you have terms like ECV (electrically rechargeable vehicle) used in Europe.

Because indeed EV is ambiguous and people put whatever meaning into it. And yes, historically it was just electric drivetrain, and series hybrid technically may also be called EV. The problem is with the term, not car, if you need to argue about term.

Picture an imaginary vehicle powered by a coal fired steam engine that drives a generator that powers an electric motor. This smoke belching contraption is technically an EV if you define an EV as any vehicle that is powered by electric motors but does that feel right to you? It is indeed possible to use a powertrain based definition like that but since the EV discussion is mostly about solving energy and environmental problems it’s more productive to use an energy based definition.

You may glamorize “EV” as meaning something holy and worth religious worship, but it is just technical term used for long time. E.g.:
“Today’s hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs) are powered by an internal combustion engine in combination with one or more electric motors that use energy stored in batteries.”
https://www.afdc.energy.gov/vehicles/electric_basics_hev.html

Funny, now you suddenly don’t like the term any more, after previously using it to falsely glamorise fuel cell cars 😛

They are too late unfortunately.

I’d call that too late *fortunately*. If they came earlier, a lot more resources would have been spent on that dead-end, before realising that BEVs are more practical.

The “hydrogen economy” was pushed as solution for ‘peak-oil’ and global warming since the late 1970s and FCEV or H2 gas engines (BMW 750 hydrogen) were always “10 years away” from practicality since the 1980s. So not “late to the game” at all, just never coming really out of the wood until the BEV got market share and some Japanese top management at Toyota don’t like to ‘loose face’ for dumping billions into hydrogen had to come out with the Miraj to save face.

Concept car that was basis of Mirai was unveiled at 2011 Tokyo Motor Show, and it probably took years to make it. So no, this conspiracy theory doesn’t pass smell test.

The development started much earlier, after cars like EV1 or first generation Toyota RAV4 EV (1997 to 2003) were proven to be impractical for any serious mass production, as an alternative to reach zero tailpipe emissions target, and as part of future carbon-free economy.

It took many years, but it is how it always works when you try to create something new. Even regular new car model using the same technology takes years to production.

Nice attempt rewriting history. Except we all know hydrogen cars have been touted as “the future” long before EV1 was killed.

Mirai, the future. Of course it’s a future in which most of us will already be long dead, when it arrives, if ever.

The value proposition for these cars is at minimum 2.4x as much cost per mile driven as a battery EV, in return for faster refuelling. That’s it. The Tesla model 3 long range version (75 kWh) has about the same range, is lighter, is a lot cheaper, and uses 40% of the energy to travel the same distance as the Mirai does. And the 2.4x figure is based on efficiency alone, assuming that people will build hydrogen fuelling stations for free and never expect a return on their investment. Obviously that’s not true- and that’s why California hydrogen, which at those fuelling stations is only 1/3 renewable (the other 2/3s is made from fossil methane), is $15/kg…Details on the efficiency argument here: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/hydrogen-fuelcell-vehicle-great-idea-theory-paul-martin/

It is complete BS to call it “cost per mile”. Most of cost per mile driven comes from depreciation, not fuel cost, unless you drive untypically long distances. Model 3 that would come closer to $1000/month (buy only, no leasing available) can’t compete in this particular aspect even with current pilot level car like Mirai, that leases for $350 including options & fuel in the same California with similar EV incentives.

You may argue about other aspects all day long but it is not “cost per mile”.

$1000 per month? LOL. Nice attempt to make a point with absurd BS numbers.

I suppose we must resign ourselves to some having a continued belief that fool cell cars might someday be practical. Just as with perpetual motion machines (aka “free energy” or “zero point energy” devices or LENR), no matter how many times we point out that basic laws of physics and thermodynamics will forever make it impractical, some people will continue their wishful thinking that someday it will magically become practical.

https://insideevsforum.com/community/index.php?threads/how-to-promote-the-hydrogen-economy-hoax.429/

Which of the “basic laws of thermodynamics” make fuel cells intrinsically unpractical? Don’t bother to explain, just state which law – 0th, 1st, 2nd or 3rd. I studied this kind of stuff back in the 1970’s and 1980’s and may be missing out on some newer information 😛

You are missing Holy Laws of Physics (c) Pu-Pu. He never discloses them to infidels, so it may be hard to understand for these legacy physicists who don’t get disruptionary strong forces of expanding universe. But it is great and it is the future!

The Mirai as a whole doesn’t belong in the future for 4 reasons I can think of: 1. It’s too expensive, 2. The range in unimpressive, 3. The battery is too small to properly capture the energy of deceleration/going downhill + It doesn’t capitalize on the plug-in opportunities that are becoming more and more widespread, and 4. The body shape is neither utilitarian, nor luxury/sporty, and 6.

Like everyone on this forum, I believe the future of transportation belongs to “plug-in” (which would include non-plug inductive charging) BEV’s, some of which would have on-board range extenders for operation in the areas and situations where the battery cannot be charged fast or often enough for the specific driving needs, and for emergencies.

Such range extenders may be either ICE, like in the i3, or FC – to limit our choice to the existing tech. I would love to see the FC in that role, and I see no reason why this wouldn’t happen, given the amount of work that is being invested into bettering the FC tech.

A fuel cell range extender (using traditional fuels though, not hydrogen) would indeed be nice — but it would have to become affordable for anyone to consider it. If it costs way more than just getting a larger battery, it will be relegated to extreme niche uses where charging just doesn’t work…

“closest one to my home in Boston is 2,547 miles away”

As usual big battery fanboys don’t do any research before making far fetched cliche claims.
There is at least one operation H2 station next to Boston in Nuvera headquarters, another bus station inside Boston, and 5 total in various stages of planning/construction/operation in Boston-Providence area.

Seems the H2 bashers don’t really do a lot of reading. It will take more than just batteries to get the world off of fossil fuels, that’s simply a fact. Korea and China are paving the way forward for hydrogen and it will be funny to see all the coming denials. ROFL ON, Bashers!

Postulating it as a fact doesn’t make it one.

You should talk to a real owner about how horrible it is to get hydrogen fuel. I have owned one for almost 2 years and the last 6 months have been outrageous. The system to tell us if a station has fuel is completely unreliable. I only get 210 miles per tank. (the more hills you drive the worse it is. It has costed my as much as $70 to fill up the tank. At that rate I am getting 12 MPG when compared to $4.00 for a gallon of gas. To add insult to injury, getting fuel has become a horrible experience because there are too many hydrogen vehicles for the amount of stations. One time I went to the UC Irvine station and there were 10 cars in line waiting to get fuel. The last time I filled up there with only one car in front of me it took 20 minutes and I could only get 2/3 of a tank of fuel. The stations often get low on pressure as more people fill up. The infrastructure is lagging WAY behind the current number of hydrogen cars on the road. I understand the Honda has stopped selling them.… Read more »