Featured Drove the Mirai

agreed, but at least it doesn't freeze.

 

i have yet to see an A/C system that dumps the amount of water described upthread. and that was after a small test drive – not say a 300 mile trip (which I thought was the whole point of these cars).

 

4 or 8 ounces is not really dumping, but a drip.

 

4 oz/4 miles (can't imagine the test drive being much longer than that) => 300 oz for 300 miles = 2.3 gallons.

 

I did the test drive and we drove for 15 minutes. Parked the car, and barely saw any moisture on the ground. Maybe it was raining the day they drove!

 

At $60,000+ MSRP, it darn well better be nicer than a Prius.

 

Ironically one was 'supposed' to be constructed (fracked natural gas was coming of age) in/around 2005. I never read anything about its completion. With all the fracked natural gas - for "not quite as" outrageously expensive reformation to hydrogen, you'd THINK Toyota's HQ would want to send a stronger message to Texans about how GREAT hydrogen is ... at least if Texas gets a hydrogen station up and running. Maybe in 10 years. Maybe Toyota thinks it'd be harder to rape Texas taxpayers for the infrastructure that it was for Cali. I'm still curious if Toyota worked a back room deal with Texas legislators ... "we'll bring our HQ here, if you bend over your taxpayers for hydrogen. If they do that, they better make a deal on how long the HQ stays in Texas ... otherwise like Calif - the HQ will just keep moving ... state to state until all 50 are hit up.

.

 

Still trying to spread your dislike of Toyota, how do you bare to drive one?

 

Funny you say that, I considered him a Toyota fanbois for several years until Toyota went fuel cell/anti plug-in on their message. Check the past fuel cell sub-forum here and you'll see he has always been against FC unlike other PC Toyota fanbois who will sway which ever way the corporate wind blows. I admire him for that.

 

Being loyal to a company is not swaying in the wind. I don't believe one needs to agree with every type of vehicle made by Toyota, but to continue to present Toyota in a negative way hurts the entire Eco industry for future growth regardless if its EV, Hydrogen or Hybrid. All of these technologies are better for our earth then cars of 10 years ago. We really should be supporting any company that is trying to change history and the path of this world! Cheers!

 

It here are a few here with blind loyalty, and that stifles competition.
As for hydrogen, Toyota is actually slowing down advances in the plugin market and thus slowing down the path this world needs to take.
Perhaps not outside of the U.S.. But their actions in Califonia (along with the actions of CARB) is not lowering the GHG emissions as quickly or as much as it would if they helped with plugin adoption.

Which is a shame, as they could have been a very bright light in bringing in an age of EVs. Tons of people have a lot of faith in Toyota and would more easily make the switch to EVs if Toyota were leading the charge.

 

Realistically, EVs are NOT the future. The tech to make a battery that holds enough charge to travel what an ICE car covers on a tank (500-600 miles of highway driving) and can be quickly recharged simply doesn't exist, and the demand for rare minerals that make the batteries possible will be a barrier if there is ever market saturation.

A clean-fuel EV would be much more realistic, but we've long fought over what that "clean" fuel should be. Hydrogen is the obvious choice.

 

Better read what source fuel Japan plans on using to distill hydrogen. Hint: Black, ash, CO2, from Australian mines. Good luck buying into that as "clean". Even if the CO2 is sequestered, do you really think Japan is going to take those mountains of coal ash and all of its toxicity back to their home land? Or, is that not the perfect definition of NIMBY. And for the record .... thank you Toyota for Our Prius - and our Lexus hybrid SUV. Both are head & shoulders above the competition.

As for plugins rare minerals (like lithium)? Better check again. Hydrogen fuel stack are less obscenely expensive, only when they have a battery pack to buffer a smaller stack ... which translates to smaller amounts of another rare mineral - platinum. Yes, its no big deal if some relish hydrogen concepts. It's only when the better/less expensive tech gets tossed to the side that it becomes a tragedy.
.

 

No, something better exists.
An internal combustion engine that starts every morning with a full tank just doesn't exist.
True, for the minority, an EV will never meet their needs. But for many, it will. For some, it already does.

 

Totally agree.

 

Obvious choice is hydrogen? I just can't stand it anymore. hydrogen is clean fuel? Again, where does the obvious part fit? Oh, wait, is this another I believe/disbelieve science and physics thing? huh. maybe we are able to beat those thermo laws into submission. Put me down for the big battery scenario. I don't want a large pressurized vessel rocketing around the roads...with other large pressurized vessels. Simple. keep it simple. let me fuel my car at home, while it's parked. Make it efficient and easy to maintain. How about NOTHING coming out an exhaust pipe. Maybe some FAST 'fuel' stations along travel routes that i can use when on a roadtrip. Make those high power, maybe 30 minute break or so, perfect to refresh and go again. Plus 'fuel' stations at my destinations. 'Fuel' stations at relatives homes. 'Fuel' stations where i park for work. wait, wait, there's more. Make it fast, make it fun, make it roomy, and don't uglify it. Well there u have it, there is an obvious choice afterall...

 

95% of the cars and trucks on the road are large pressurized vessels rocketing around the roads, sure car fires can happen, and you can be killed in a car fire (RIP Paul Walker), but not too long ago Tesla had a few unattended fires as well. There is no perfect technology as transportation. You can be killed riding a horse, and it does not get any more basic then that....

 

whether anyone fears hydrogen instantaneously exploding or not, has nothing to do with Tesla's fires in the early days back prior to ballistic armor plate underneath installations. If batteries were ruptured prior to the upgrade - the car itself directed the driver to pull over immediately and get out. Had they not, the cabin is designed to withstand a fire. In any case it's a slow startup process. Typically the driver has time to gather all their things prior to getting out. Because it was so safe the driver or occupancy or both could walk away. Not a violent explosion. Now contrast those safety elements to the Toyota hydrogen car - - it had to receive safety waivers. Honda's didn't - which means Toyota could have built it safer. My earlier van conversion ran on propane - I wasn't afraid of it rupturing & exploding. But if it did, that's exactly what would happen. Just saying - flammable gas or liquids are a different animal. There are much better ways for you to defend hydrogen than stretching an anology to potentially unstable batteries.
.

 

Anything is possible.....one won't know till it happens.................

Oh by the way, the safety waiver is not indictaive of the car not being safe, the car is safe, Toyota is just doing things different, you know thinking outside the box! Here is the article on this safety waiver:

Cars sold in the U.S. have to meet certain safety regulations in order to ensure their legality on U.S. roads.

Unfortunately for Toyota, one of those safety regulations for electric vehicles would prevent its upcoming fuel-cell sedan from driving after even a small fender-bender--so the company is seeking exemption for the vehicle.

According to Bloomberg, rule FMVSS No.305 requires automakers to isolate high-voltage parts in electric cars in the event of an accident.

The aim is to make the car safe for occupants and first-responders should the vehicle be involved in a crash.

Toyota though says its fuel-cell vehicle would be rendered inoperable in a low-speed crash if such a system was installed, and seeks a two-year exemption from legislators, allowing it to sell the vehicle in the States.

The company says its car will protect occupants and first-responders in a different way, insulating cables and surrounding components such as the fuel-cell stack, motor and battery with special metal protection barriers.

Toyota says electrical safety of its fuel-cell car will be at least "equivalent" to those meeting current NHTSA standards.

 

Metal barrier to protect against shock hazard? Fail?