Re: was Car Craft Ramblings, now Alky fuel

[farna@xxxxxxx]

Yes, hydrogen fuel cells that produce electricity, not burning hydrogen gas. Big difference, especially as far as safety! Remember films of the Hindenburg? I don't know about interchangeable bodies -- cost would be to much for most people. It would, however, be VERY cost effective for the manufacturer! One chassis, many bodies. Would even make it cost effective to remanufacture the vehicles. Hmmm.... upgrade instead of buy totally new by buying a more powerful or efficient chassis and having your body swapped on. Now THAT concept sounds interesting, but most people will be tired of a body style, especially if the car is worn, and will want a whole new one. But that's where remanufacture could come in. Trade your old car in, it gets sent back for a refurb and new body, saving roughly 20-25% of the initial manufacturing cost even if all moving parts are replaced. That could work as long as the manufacturer can sell the resulting vehicle as "new" again rather than as a lower co!
 st used or remanufactured vehicle.... I'd have no problem with it but would expect some of the savings to be passed on to the consumer. Say the "high line" cars are all new, and the lower tier cars get the remanufactured chassis along with the lower price. Sounds like a perfectly workable deal to me, and would keep resale value up a bit. 

Remember a few years ago when we discussed a remnaufacturing venture on this board? Well, the conclusion was for a truly remanufactured car (everything gone through to like new status) you'd need one of the high volume mid size models (like a Taurus, Lumina, etc.) that was built over a long period to have enough raw material. At first it would probably work well, but then the price of the refurbed model would go up. I finally concluded that even in a mass production facility the final selling price would have to be equal to the next model down as a true new car. Buy a remanufactured Taurus that still had 4-5 year old styling or a brand new, and new looking, Contour (or whatever replaced it)? Some would want/need the bigger car, but there are to many hurdles. IF banks and such would finance it as a new car instead of used that would help, but I don't think there would be a high enough percentage of totally new parts to get a "new car" rating from the government. Going with on!
 e model you could have something like a new nose/grille and some side trim to make it look slightly different and maybe a bit more up to date, but I doubt enough. 

Now with the common platform and the chassis going back to the manufacturer such a remnaufacturing will work, especially if a totally new body is put on it. Volume and a steady, easily obtained source of cars to remanufacture is ensured for one thing. Trucks going in delivering new cars have to turn around and go back, so shipping cores doesn't cost quite as much either. Then there is the number of parts that will be replaced and the fact that you're "buying" the new parts from yourself that makes the whole operation more efficient. Would be nice if that's what they have in mind! The "lower line" remnaufactured cars could even be a spin-off make instead of one of the more well known brands. My first thought would be for GM to keep the higher end names as they are and make Chevy the remanufactured brand (because it's the price leader), but Chevy sales volume is to high. Oh well, maybe John Mahoney (who seems to have ears in the auto industry) can pass some of these ideas alon!
 g! Would be nice to at least get recognition for it, but I don't mind so much if it actually improves the US economy and environment. 

On May 3, 2005 Matt Haas wrote:

> At 09:15 AM 5/2/2005 -0400, you wrote:
> >John, the US auto industry has decided to "wait and see" how hydrogen
> >power turns out. I'm sure they are doing a bit of research, but other than
> >hybrids they aren't real interested in anyhting else. I don't know if
> >hydrogen is going to be the real answer, but that's what Detroit is betting on.
> <snip>
> 
> I actually saw something recently that said GM is investing heavily in fuel
> cell technology (actually, it was more along the lines of they think it's
> going to save them). The current platform they've been showing a lot of is
> interesting (to say the least). It's basically a universal chassis that you
> can swap bodies on. One of the possibilities they're exploring with it is
> making bodies available separately from the chassis so the owner can change
> them out as needed. Also, they are now doing an evaluation with the Army
> where they're looking into using the trucks to produce potable water.
> 
> Also, D-C did something recently with fuel cell trucks in one of the Nordic
> countries. Of course, the Nordic countries have a huge advantage in that
> they can use plentiful geothermal energy to aid in splitting hydrogen off
> from water. This is typically done elsewhere using electricity which, to
> the best of my knowledge, results in a net loss of energy. Availability of
> hydrogen is one of the two big problems that fuel cell technology faces
> (the other is a lack of refueling infrastructure).
> 
> GM also does a lot now with hybrids (and has for a long time -- much longer
> than the term hybrid was being used) but it's mostly in the commercial
> sector (buses, trains, and such). Last I heard, they plan to bring hybrids
> down through the truck lines first. This makes sense to me since most of
> their technology is truck sized.
> 
> I personally like the idea of hydrogen fuel cells since the exhaust is
> mostly water but I'm really holding out for a decent warp drive or, at the
> very least, Mr. Fission.
> 
> Matt
> 
> PS - There are already Ion drives that have actually been used in real
> vehicles. NASA launched a small probe several years ago. You can find a
> bunch of information on it (the probe was called DS1) starting at this
> search: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=nasa+ion+propulsion.
> 
> mhaas@xxxxxxx
> Cincinnati, OH
> http://www.mattsoldcars.com
> 1967 Rambler American wagon
> 1968 Rambler American sedan
> ===============================================================
> According to a February survey of Internet holdouts released by
> UCLA's Center for Communication Policy, people cite
> not having a computer as the No. 1 reason they won't go online.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .


=============================================================
Posted by wixList Archiver -- http://www.amxfiles.com/wixlist