BYD Plans Limited Introduction of e6 EV in US Next Year
Emissions of Air Pollutants down in EU-27

Report: Honda To Debut Electric Car In US By 2015

The Nikkei reports that Honda Motor Co. will introduce battery electric vehicles in the US market in the first half of the next decade. A similar report came from Kyodo News.

Honda will reportedly unveil a prototype of the minicar-sized EV at the Tokyo Motor Show in October.

Of the big Japanese automakers, Toyota and Honda have so far focused on hybrid vehicles. But tougher environmental regulations in the US state of California will likely require major carmakers that sell a certain number of vehicles in that megamarket to increase sales of zero-emission vehicles.

Nissan is concentrating on electric cars, and it plans to introduce them in 2010. Toyota, meanwhile, intends to launch electric cars around 2012. As for Honda, it started selling vehicles powered by fuel cells last summer, a technology that would meet California’s requirement because it does not emit any exhaust. But sales of such cars have been limited by their high prices, prompting Honda to decide to develop electric cars.



More good news for electrified vehicles but BYD (with the e-6) may be the first extended range e-car in worldwide distribution.

The world may see 20+ electrified vehicles in the market place by 2015 and up to 100+ by 2020.

Interesting decade ahead.


More good news for alternatives to oil.


It looks like the technology is finally here.

I don't buy the conspiracy theory about killing the electric car garbage. We have electric golf carts and a step up from that in my opinion couldn't be called a general purpose car from which car companies could make money on. More accurately would be: who killed the souped up golf cart?

This is similar to the iPOD. The idea was there for a long time, but until miniaturized hard disks with critical storage capacity became cheaply available, the iPOD was not launched.


I would bet that the 2015 date gets moved forward. If the Volt does remotely well Honda will step up the pace.
It's looking promising.


It's funny to see Japanese newspapers spouting untruths in their home market. Honda does not sell a fuel-cell vehicle in California, it is leasing a limited number of prototypes of the FCX Clarity in a few Southern California areas for $600/mo.

@ "TM"
The GM EV-1 and the Toyota RAV4-EV were not "souped up golf carts", they were real freeway-legal general-purpose cars 10 years ago and many of the Toyotas are still running. Car makers lose money on many innovations initially, then reap profits later. But the auto makers pressured the California Air Resources Board to abandon its requirement for true zero emissions vehicles.


The EV1 and RAV4-EV were indeed freeway-legal cars 10 years ago.
Except the EV1 was not much of a real general-purpose, car; it was only 2 place with development forced by the CARB mandate that "10%" of all cars sold by 2003 must be ZEV.

Toyota terminated the RAV4-EV in 2003. Why ? Because it was not viable in the market place.

Honda terminated the 2 place Insight 1 in 2006. A genuine tour de force in efficient transportation; Extra seats? NO ! Extra weight? NO ! Cheap heavy steel everywhere? Never ! Good sales? Umm, no ! Viable? Terminated!

Any company in the world can try to sell an EV.
Why didn’t any ? Because they were not viable in the market place then (and may not be yet).

Why the world wide lack of interest in the PNGV and EV for the last 10 years (until now) ?" No market. The overwhelming majority of automobile companies cannot all be wrong.

Car makers can loose a lot of lose money on many innovations that are simply not ready.

Then other makers, that have not wasted money, simply adopt the technology (which may or may not be a result of the pioneers efforts) when it is (by definition) ripe, readily available, and reap the rewards.

Obviously the key is investing in both the right technology AND at the right time; EVs were NOT right 10 years ago. There was no missed opportunity.

EVs are NOT rocket science. Almost anyone can make one – when batteries are affordable. Pouring money, too early, into a technology that is simple, yet not ready, is foolish.


I'll leave it Toyota RAV4 EV owners to vehemently dispute "not viable", there was a waiting list for them when it was discontinued the day after California Air Resource Board scrapped the ZEV mandate and Toyota never sold them nationwide. Also Chevron dismantled the NiMH battery production line when they acquired it. It smells like conspiracy (and I haven't seen "Who Killed the Electric Car?"). Go read the Wikipedia article.

The missed opportunity is reduced costs through mass production, which would help expand the market and lead to profitability, as happened with hybrids. Yes, manufacturers required a kick in the ass from CARB to do it because they're risk-averse, but the societal and environmental benefits if CARB had continued kicking them would have been enormous. Demonstrably the technology was ready for a niche market of real EVs with 100 mile range, because Toyota made 100s of them.


Vehement support by a spurned lunatic fringe does NOT make a vehicle viable. Sales do.

What IS almost conclusive evidence that it was simply "not viable"? - Being discontinued by Toyota the day after California Air Resource Board scrapped the ZEV mandate.

Why did this fringe abandon the Insight 1?

Why should any car maker take a non-viable car to mass production? Why would it sacrifice billions just to satisfy some niche market. Mass production would only mean mass losses.

Who, of substance believes that making an EV in volume can MAKE it viable, why do none of the worlds car makers believe this? And why did the Insight 1 fail?

The Prius has been in mass production for about 10 years. It is working toward 3% market penetration while the entire world has waited and is only now preparing, in small steps but with big press releases, to get into the market, most likely because of Li-ion battery progress, unrelated to the Prius.

Cobasys, Stanford Ovshinsky, Chevron, GM – juvenile conspiracy paranoia – show me something that is not a lunatic rant. Wiki does not and can not validate the paranoia.

The Prius is very visible and truly innovative and maybe responsible for much of today’s attention to EVs.
But maybe the Volt is equally responsible for the competition for headlines and reports like this one.

The EV is coming – soon, when it makes economic sense.



I don't think they really even gave EVs much of a chance. The Prius had slow sales initially too, but they eventually reached the second gen model (2nd gen for the US), it started picking up, and now it's a fairly popular car.

Of course it is true the costs for EVs are very expensive (much more expensive than hybrids, and they still are expensive) so that is probably why they were so quick to end the programs and I don't think any of the automakers voluntarily wanted to build EVs. That and automakers are unsure about the reception of a plug-in vehicle: it's too big a departure from traditional fueling. It's just too much of a risk for them (Honda and Toyota still seems to see it this way).

As for what time the public perception shifted for EVs? I don't think the Prius played much of a role. It's a hybrid and automakers emphasized that you didn't have to plug it in. The Prius is just a more efficient gas car. It didn't make anyone want a car that could plug-in..

I think the Tesla Roadster played a much bigger role. It's the first EV to greatly top the ~100 miles that all the automakers say EVs are limited to and the probably the first EV most people know about (it was the car that got me interested in EVs). Even GM says they were inspired: if such a small company can build something like that, why can't a large automaker? This was what led to the Volt (which also played a big role in changing perceptions about plug-ins by introducing the "range extender" idea). I think "Who killed the Electric Car" played a big role too in bringing EVs into mainstream perception (it especially made the EV1 well known and probably also pushed GM to develop the Volt to fight the backlash).


It is not a matter of giving EVs a chance. It’s a matter of profit – what will sell.

As you say, EVs are very expensive so that is probably why they were so quick to end the programs.

The Prius is now it's a fairly popular car, but it’s sales, along with all the other hybrids, still total about 3%, not very significant.

I am not sure the Tesla is significant; building an electric car people would want (if it were affordable) is easy. Building an affordable electric car that people will buy has never been done.

I didn’t mean to imply that the hype about EVs necessarily means anything – I am sure EV sales will NOT follow until EVs make economic sense.

Green Destiny

"Economic sense" is not a concept that has a defined meaning without a defined marketplace, or defined set of regulations. CARB caved to automobile manufacturer pressure. Otherwise it would have made "economic sense" to continue the development of EVs.

Keep in mind that small cars have very low profit margins, so without EPA fuel economy regulations it would make very little "economic sense" to produce those cars as well.



What was the MSRP for the EV-1 and RAV-4 EV?


The marketplace and regulations are what they are - and were.
They vary throughout the world.
What's to define?

The marketplace is affected by gas taxes, street width, culture and regulations but people generally buy what they perceive as the best value.

CARB caved to automobile manufacturer pressure. Otherwise it would have made "economic sense" to continue the development of EVs. Sure, regulations can and did affect what can be sold.

People would buy few of the EVs that technology could make in the early 2000s; at least that is what the world's manufacturers believed; unless regulations forced them to make them.

Small cars have lower profit margins for US makers when they must compete with Asian imports so, until required by EPA fuel economy regulations it made little "economic sense" to produce those cars in the US.

Foreign markets are different - due in large part to high gas taxes.


Google and Wikipedia work for everybody. Toyota RAV4 EV MSRP was $42,000. GM EV1 was only leased; GM based the lease payments for the EV1 on an initial vehicle price of US$33,995 and lease payments ranged from around $299 to $574 per month, depending on the availability of state rebates.

Your economic analyses are correct as far as they go. But thankfully not everyone focuses strictly on your notion of "economic sense", otherwise everyone would be driving a 1994 Geo Metro XFi, no one would buy fancy wheels (let alone hybrid versions of existing cars that cost more than they save in fuel), and Toyota would never have introduced the Prius at a loss.


You are exactly right - and unless the gov takes over, everyone will never drive some Geo Metro.

And the likes of Toyota will continue to introduce Priuses and Insights and Volts and Teslas and Leafs and F3DMs and Fusions.

But what form of mental defect leads some to then conclude that GM should be FORCED to make the EV1.

Why would some be so positive that it will be profitable while GM believes it will not.

The comments to this entry are closed.