• Comprehensive List of 2018 Pickup Trucks with a Manual Transmission

    In the world of modern pickup trucks where 8-speed and 10-speed automatic transmissions are becoming the norm, it’s still refreshing to know that some of the pickups are still offering a manual transmission option.

    2018 U.S.-Market Pickup Trucks available with a manual transmission

    Make/Model (Body style)  Gears Trim Levels (All unless specified)


    Colorado 6 2.5L I4


    Canyon 6 2.5L I4


    Frontier S 5 S model with a 2.4L I4
    Frontier 6 4.0L V6 4×2 & 4×4


    HD 2500 & 3500 6 6.7L I6 turbo-diesel (350 hp / 660 lb-ft)


    Tacoma 5  2.7L I4 4×4
    Tacoma 6  3.5L V6 4×2 & 4×4

    The majority of trucks with manual transmissions are in the midsize category. There are no half-tons with a manual transmission, and there is just one heavy duty truck with 6 “row your own” gears.

    If you are curious about what 2017 and 2018 cars and crossovers still have a manual transmission, check out this Comprehensive list of Cars with a manual transmission on TFLcar.com.

    Here is a direct comparison between a 2017 Toyota Tacoma TRD Pro with a 6-speed manual transmission versus a 6-speed automatic.

    Andre Smirnov
    Andre Smirnov
    Andre Smirnov is an Automotive Enthusiast, Producer, Reviewer, Videographer, Writer, Software Engineer, Husband, Father, and Friend.

    Similar Articles

    166 thoughts on “Comprehensive List of 2018 Pickup Trucks with a Manual Transmission

    1. I give it about 10 years and most pickups will have any transmission at all. Maybe a low range.

      And yes, the Honda Accord Hybrid and its CRV brother has absolutely no transmission whatsoever, like many other mass produced vehicles in the mainstream.

      But will Daniel or Sparky21 ever admit that they are wrong on this point?

      Just so ye’all know who you are dealing with. Beware of people who assert untruths, for whatever reason.

      The TRUTH is, electric motors directly connected to the wheels or a single shaft are far more efficient, cheap, and powerful and simple to build, maintain, and buy when mass produced.

      1. TRUTH is it has a single speed transmission and it uses it to bypass the generator for maximum efficiency.

        Engineering and physics can be tough, I know, and the word “transmission” conjures up images of a mysterious complicated “magic box”. But don’t worry, you’ll get to it in the higher grade levels. Just be patient…

    2. The loss of the manual transmission is sad. Modern automatics have become so good that they have less driveline losses then a direct mechanical connection. That’s amazing, but automatics are boring. Paddle shifters are pointless. It’s not being able to choose your gear that makes a manual desirable, it’s all about the clutch. It’s the satisfaction of a smooth takeoff, holding on a hill without using your brakes, a high rpm dump without bogging or sending your clutch up in smoke, or hitting a 5-3 downshift just right even with a sloppy shifter. It’s the fact that you aren’t giving orders to your vehicle, you are an integral part of your vehicle…

      1. TRUTH is, you are mistaken just like you are about many things.

        I’ll let others tell you that the Honda Accord Hybrid and CRV have no transmission at all. No single gear, no transmission , no nothing.

        Daniel, if the Honda Accord Hybrid and CRV have no transmission at all completely, will you never again post on this site ever again?

        You promise? Or will you continue to assert error to everyone around?

        1. Oh Rambors Bor, if it does in fact have a clutch and single speed overdrive mechanical connection from the ICE to the wheels, do you promise to stick to a single posting name on the TFL forum?

        2. That box that’s connected to the engine, it transmits power from the crank to the axle shafts. Whether it uses gears, hydraulic turbines, belts, unicorn tears, or electricity to adjust the needed output speed and torque, it is a ….. transmission.

      2. Daniel, you are spot on. I would also add there is satisfaction in feeling the heft of a manual transmission lever especially compared to a paddle shifter or auto shifter. I like the little “snick” feel of a manual transmission lever slotting into a shift gate. I like the control.

        If there is one thing that would make me buy a RAM, its the Cummins / manual combo. Granted, the Cummins is quite neutered but you still have complete control.

        Alas, I haven’t driven a car with a manual since 2012. I still ride my Harley as often as I can, which of course is manual…but even that is not as satisfying as a standard shift car. And one of my Kubota tractors is a full on standard as well, but I don’t find that super fun.

      3. I don’t believe that they have fewer losses than a mechanical but they have improved to a point where the losses are very similar to a manual transmission. The CVTs are able to offer more “ratios” and can therefore, sometimes, outperform manuals in terms of MPG.
        This is where an electric drive train (ie Electro-mechanical transmission; http://papers.sae.org/2005-01-0281/) could potentially be more efficient-in that is can operate as a CVT. It would be very difficult for it match the efficiency of a “mechanical” CVT however (if not impossible). It does have the advantage of being able to handle high torque. The losses in a elctro-mechanical transmission however are significantly higher than that of either a manual transmission or a modern automatic “conventional” transmission. The cost and complexity also hinders its wide scale adoption. GM sort-of put one in their full size SUV’s for a while (hybrid-it used a battery bank). It was used in parallel with a 4 speed automatic to take advantage of the higher efficiency a geared transmission offers.

      4. You are right. It’s kinda like having a V8. The ecoboost performs fantastic but nothing like the sounds an emotional response you get from a V8

      5. Having driven various cars in 45+ years as a licensed driver, I can say the following; For someone who “enjoys the ride”, there is no substitute for a proper 3 pedal arrangement. My son and I both have Hyundai elantra sport models. His has paddle shifters and mine has a clutch. I don’t find the paddle shifters the least bit engaging, and were it my vehicle, would just leave it in Drive mode. IMHO, paddle shifters are like making out heavy with a girl who will go no farther. To me, why even bother

    3. In this days of computerized throttle and shift mapping set by the factory, I still prefer a manual – if all I have is a four cylinder to work with.

      My 2015 Tacoma 4×4 with a 2.7 isn’t exactly a power house. A manual transmission allows me to select my shift points, be it low rpm for fuel economy putzing or higher rpm for $hiting and getting it – without depending on software to guess my intention.

      There are big trade offs – using a clutch is a hassle, while stuck in a 20 minute grid lock at 5 PM. *** On the other hand, I feel more secure coming down a mountain switch back with gear box firmly engaged in 2nd or 3rd gear, which means less use of the brake pedal.

    4. Manual Transmissions (MT) !

      Near and dear to my heart. Even had to buy the Ram 2500 Cummins just to have a new full-size truck with an MT, as you can see from the table above.

      Advantages of Manuals (all else equal):
      1) More robust, durable, and longer-lasting;
      2) Less expensive to buy;
      3) Superior driver involvement**;
      4) Owner-doable oil change, which is also less frequent and less expensive;
      5) Requires no separate cooling system with its own radiator;
      6) Wear item = easily replaceable clutch (not the whole tranny!);
      7) Superior traction in slippery snow, by “feathering” the clutch;
      8) Theft deterrent (crooks drive automatics!).
      9) Less Opportunity for Distracted Driving >> Safer
      10) For trucks, better fuel mileage

      ** A car with an automatic offers typically 40% less opportunity for driver involvement than those with manuals.
      1) Number of Driving inputs with typical Manual = 5 (steering, gas, brake, clutch, shift);
      2) Number of Driving inputs with typical Auto = 3 (steering, gas, brake)
      Deficit = 2. Therefore, percent that Auto Trans is less involving = 2/5 = 40%.



      D: “Modern automatics have become so good that they have less driveline losses then a direct mechanical connection.”

      And that implies, “Get better fuel mileage” which actually does happen for some cars. Ironically, some of that effect comes from the early slip in the torque converter (TQ) which allows an engine to get into the plateau of its torque profile faster, and then the TQ locks up on most modern automatic transmissions (AT).

      But the “better fuel mileage of AT’s” (that we read about with cars) has some built-in fallacies: they are NOT built and tested as all-else-equal (AEE) situations with MT’s.

      But, if you have a TQ/AT and an MT in a truck, — with the following features — the MT will always have lower drive-line losses and get better fuel mileage:
      1) Same number of gears
      2) Same gear ratios
      3) Same differential ratio
      4) Same test conditions (humidity, temperature, air pressure, road course, speed, load, GVWR, etc.)

      Crude Example (not even AEE): My 7500-lb. Ram 2500 Cummins 6-speed MT got 23.4 MPG (highway); my friend’s nearly identical Ram 2500 Cummins, with a 6-Speed Automatic 68RFE Transmission got, 20.7 MPG (highway). And yes, we drove them together on a little trip. I know it’s not a big difference, but it is something.


      1. Agreed. There are really only a couple sports cars that you can even compare manual/automatic. They have very low drag and can take advantage of minute changes in “rolling resistance” of the transmission itself. On a truck, pushing a big wall of air, a manual would reign king.

      2. @Bernie,

        Have to disagree on a number of your points while still agreeing MT is definitely the best for driver involvement and control.

        1. Not necessarily. There are plenty of modern auto transmissions which can go well over 200k…some over 300k. A friend just replaced his 2003 Chevy Silverado 3500 long bed gas 6.0L V8 with the automatic. The transmission is what failed, but the truck had 350,000 miles on it. Another acquaintance just replaced their 2004 Chevy Avalanche with a failed transmission at 205k miles. Neither transmission had ever had a fluid / filter change. On the other hand, the G56 transmission has quite a history of issues.

        4. Changing the transmission fluid and filter in an automatic is also perfectly do-able by the home mechanic. It is not complicated at all. The interval is every bit as long as a MT, if not longer. The Ford Powerstroke trucks since 2011 have an auto transmission fluid / filter change scheduled at 150k miles. Note, however…that in order to get all the old fluid out you would need to do a flush (not do-able by the home mechanic) or replace the fluid several times in a row (much more expensive and time consuming). I would agree auto trans fluid is much more expensive, and modern autos generally use a lot of it.

        6. The clutch on a MT is a wear item. Auto transmissions don’t have this wear item. They can go 200-300k without replacing anything. And changing the clutch is not at all that easy. On a big truck like yours, it requires removing the transfer case and then removing the transmission from the engine to access the clutch. On your truck, with a heavy duty transmission and transfer case, you would need a heavy duty transmission jack and supports. It would also require a lift. The home mechanic would likely not be able to complete this task. I don’t consider clutch replacement an “advantage.”

        7. Disagree about superior traction in snow. Modern traction control regulates the throttle quite well. Many auto transmissions also have some sort of “winter” mode which automatically starts the auto trans off in a higher gear and may reduce the sensitivity of the throttle. Volvos with auto trans had this feature in the mid 1990’s, as did many other Euro rigs.

        10. I don’t see better fuel economy with an MT truck. Torque converters now lock up in 2nd gear. With the torque converter locked, you have a direct mechanical connection to the wheels, same as a manual. A manual slips the clutch to get moving; and auto slips the TC in first gear to prevent stalling. It used to be TC’s didn’t lock up until top gear or close to top gear. Now they lock up in 2nd. Another advantage an auto has over a manual for mpg is “coasting.” Modern autos can release a clutch while still in gear during times of no throttle or brake input. This allows free rolling, which gets you further down the road without using fuel. You could do the same in a manual, but you’d need to depress the clutch the whole time. Most people wouldn’t.

        One reason to consider why your truck did better on your trip than the identical RFE truck is because the Cummins is making more power and torque in the RFE truck. It takes more fuel to make more power and torque. But as to your first point about the MT being more robust than the auto…why do you suppose the highest rated Cummins trucks are autos while the lowest rated in a MT? It is because the autos can handle the torque while the manual cannot.

        1. Hi Troverman – – –

          Gotta run right now, but will get back to your thoughtful comments, probably with irrational mumblings, later this evening….I hope. Thanks for you insights….B (^_^)


        2. Hi again, Troverman: I’m back, sort of – – –

          Here are some thoughts on your comments:

          T1a: “Not necessarily. There are plenty of modern auto transmissions which can go well over 200k.. ”

          Yes, nowadays SOME AT’s can go 200K or more with proper care and feeding; regular band adjustments; no overheating; and no intense usage (and, Heaven forbid, NO rocking back-&-forth to get unstuck out of a snow bank!). We all have anecdotal stories about those successes. But we also have stories about the guy went through 3 AT’s before 150K miles had expired (^_^).
          FACT: The NP435 I had in my 1974 D100 was MINIMALLY rated for 500K miles. But I gave the truck away at 225K miles with NO detectable wear- behavior in that transmission. Here is also a comment from the guys at “Mechanics StackExchange”:
          “An automatic transmission is inherently more complicated which means more can go wrong and usually does (more so than manuals). The increased complexity also makes them more expensive, heavier, less fuel efficient etc.
          A manual transmission is less complicated which means there is less that can go wrong. Through normal use a manual transmission should far outlive an automatic transmission with regards to absolute lifespan.”

          T1b: “On the other hand, the G56 transmission has quite a history of issues.”

          Absolutely right. Do not like the G56: yes, it’s smooth-shifting, but I will still get the AT4 out of there to fill with of Royal Purple “Synchromax” in Spring. I would have preferred a Ram- or at least other American-developed alternative, like a version of a Borg-Warner/Tremec. But, for now, if I want a Ram truck with an MT, what other choice would I have had? Let’s see how it holds up…

          T: “4. Changing the transmission fluid and filter in an automatic is also perfectly do-able by the home mechanic. It is not complicated at all. The interval is every bit as long as a MT, if not longer. ”

          Guess I’ll have to disagree with your disagreement (^_^). Doing a home-brewed fluid, gasket, and filter change, on an AT (e.g., Ford C4), while lying on your back with the bloody vehicle on jack-stands, — versus removing one drain plug and one fill plug on an MT (e.g., NP 435) — is a nightmare by comparison. The former takes seven (7!) tools, two added parts, and 90 minutes — without band adjustments; the latter takes one tool, no added parts, and 15 minutes! Here is a cute little video showing the messy, drippy C4 nightmare:

          T: “6. The clutch on a MT is a wear item. Auto transmissions don’t have this wear item. ”

          The clutch is not part of the MT. But with proper usage and good shifting technique, I have gotten over 200K miles on the Dodge/Ram clutches. The first cost me $350 to replace; the 2nd will cost $750 to replace after 20 years. Neither is a big deal.
          But the restriction bands that lock up the planetary gear sets on AT’s ARE the clutches, and they ARE inside the transmission. When they get burned up, polished (“burnished”), or worn down, — as they did often on my C4 — you don’t replace them: you buy a new transmission!

          T: “7. Disagree about superior traction in snow. Modern traction control regulates the throttle quite well.”

          With or without an open differential, an MT can get unstuck, accelerate, swerve the vehicle, stop the vehicle, and provide better stability at road speeds on slippery surfaces than any AT, all else equal (RWD, no nanny’s, etc), — with a skilled and proficient operator (that’s me: I used to race!). PERIOD.
          If you don’t believe me, try this (DON’T REALLY!): Take 2 identical cars, one with an MT and one with an AT. Go down a snow-packed, glazed-over, 4-lane highway (or BIG parking lot) at 40 MPH, and try to throw the vehicle into a smooth 360-degree spin, — coming out the other side as though nothing happened. See what you get with the direct, immediate response of the MT; versus the ambiguous goofiness of the AT!

          T: “10. I don’t see better fuel economy with an MT truck.”

          I do. But I tried to address this with the “all-else- equal” (AEE) scenario listed above in my original post. Since AT’s can and do come nowadays with more gears than 6, they should get better MPG’s even with lost efficiency from the torque converter. But that’s not AEE, and the Tacoma guy in the video who told Andre that the MPG difference was caused by shifting the MT is wrong: the % time shifting is minuscule compared to the effect from different gear ratios between the two.
          AEE, with direct mechanical connection furnished by the MT to the ground, means that an MT vehicle, “AEE”, must get better MPG’s, or we’d be violating some laws of physics (^_^)…

          T: “One reason to consider why your truck did better on your trip than the identical RFE truck is because the Cummins is making more power and torque in the RFE truck.”

          Yes, that is a possibility. But neither of us were driving under boost (mine was “zero” the whole time); and I assume that the primary way for the Cummins to get 395 HP and 900 lbs-ft is to increase the boost. If both were low, then the engine difference would not matter much, but the transmission difference would.

          T: “Why do you suppose the highest rated Cummins trucks are autos while the lowest rated in a MT? It is because the autos can handle the torque while the manual cannot.”

          No, not really. It is because that particular MT (the MB G56) is not optimum for the current Ram 2500 Cummins (IMO). This is discussed in some detail to “Drifter64” (September 26, 2017 at 8:40 pm) down below. Some Eaton-Fuller MT’s on Semis have no trouble handling almost 2000 lbs-ft of torque, so there is nothing wrong with MT’s, per se.


          1. @Bernie: Just a couple more comments. I personally have gotten 200k out of two different automatics (never had another automatic longer than that). Both were still operating at 200k…definitely clunky, but not slipping. *Neither* had ever had *anything* done to them. No fluid / filter changes, no band adjustment, nothing. Both were 4-speed autos made by ZF installed in European vehicles. One of those vehicles I owned was a 1992 Range Rover and was used extensively for off-road driving in the second half of its mileage. Much larger than stock tires, lots of mud, rocks, water holes, climbs, etc.

            And finally, the fluid / filter change. In my opinion…not much harder than doing an oil change in which you also lay under a vehicle. Trucks are great…no jacking required! I’ve done several AT fluid/filter changes in my life. Takes maybe an hour.

          2. Most modern autos are capable of 200k+ miles, even without scheduled fluid changes. If you do heavy towing, then you really should do the fluid changes. Some autos are now sealed with no drain and refill capability.

            Dodge transmissions are the exception, they are designed to run 60,001 miles, they don’t dare quit while under original warranty. I’ve personally had to have at least six pre-FCA dodge/chrysler transmissions replaced. And do I learn? Nope, still daily drive a Dodge…

            Clutch life? Can vary significantly based on driver skill. What’s the point of having one if you aren’t going to slip it from time to time on hard launches? 😀 Changing a clutch can be quite an undertaking in certain vehicles, but it’s kind of a “Man Badge” so it goes both ways

            As far as traction, a very skilled driver can do quite a bit with a manual, but a 15-year old kid on his first day driving can put a Taco in “Crawl” mode and traverse some pretty extreme stuff. I dislike electronics, but they CAN be smarter than us…

            Power handling? All about design and application. Probably Ram decided to go with an “off-the-shelf” transmission rather than spend R&D bucks for an application specific transmission that will never get much of a take rate.

            In fact, I bet there is ONE person at RAM that holds enough clout to have maintained the manual trans offering. When that ONE guy gets moved or retires, the manual trans is dead in the 2500 too.

            1. From 2001 to 2005 dodge was using thw nv5600 6spd behind their diesels for a manual trans. Probably the heaviest suty manual trans ever offered in a pickup truck. Was told, not sure if accurate, but was told they swapped to the g56 because it was a lighter unit and helped them with gvw concerns. Used to be if you wanted thw high output option which was 10hp more at an astonishing 245hp lol, it was with the nv5600. And your absolutely right about dodge/Ram automatics, by far the highest failure rate in truck auto trans. Haven’t seen one with an aisin come in yet so this may be their exception

            2. Hi Daniel – – –

              D: “Most modern autos are capable of 200k+ miles, even without scheduled fluid changes.”

              Probably for cars, not real trucks used as trucks, and not if you care. I wouldn’t even go 30K miles in an MT vehicle without spending the 15 minutes putting 2.5 quarts of AmSoil or Royal Purple in my NV3500 or the old NP435. But maybe that’s just me. [As a lubrication surface chemist, I may be suffering from metal-to-metal paranoia (^_^). You can only squash molecules so hard before they become unhappy.]

              D: “Dodge transmissions are the exception, they are designed to run 60,001 miles, they don’t dare quit while under original warranty.”

              Ha! This is a hoot, and is exactly what I had heard before, re the old version. Hopefully the newer 68RFE and others may be better behaved.

              D: “Clutch life? Can vary significantly based on driver skill.”

              Yup. Got only 20K miles out of the one I raced in the old Porsche 356B; got 200K miles out of the 11-inch HD in the ’74 Dodge D100 with the NP435. What a difference! (And yes, I did often use the NP435’s 6.69 “granny gear” for starting up in ANY difficult situation: that was a real clutch-saver!)

              D: “I dislike electronics, but they CAN be smarter than us…”

              Computers/electronics ARE growing smarter than we are, rapidly. Stephen Hawking sees artificial intelligence as the largest threat to the survival of mankind! We may be creating our own evolutionary replacement. So the “15-year old kid on his first day driving can put a Taco in ‘Crawl’ mode and traverse some pretty extreme stuff” only reinforces it. There is a virtue in leaning how the play the violin, as opposed to just turning on the audio system and listening to somebody else play it for you…

              D: “Probably Ram decided to go with an “off-the-shelf” transmission rather than spend R&D bucks for an application specific transmission that will never get much of a take rate.”

              No doubt. See my comment to “Drifter 64” down below (September 26, 2017 at 8:40 pm).

              D: “In fact, I bet there is ONE person at RAM that holds enough clout to have maintained the manual trans offering. When that ONE guy gets moved or retires, the manual trans is dead in the 2500 too.”

              Yeah. Jim Morrison**. Quite an advocate.
              But, before buying the 2500 Cummins, I contacted an in-house Ram guy I know, — and the MT for 2500 HD trucks is still part of the plan for at least several years to come. He would not/could not be very specific, of course. Among other virtues, the MT, — by Ram’s own testing — does a more controllable job backing up with a tow load, and “creeping” in marginal traction situations under load, all else equal. Slow stuff.

              ** http://media.fcanorthamerica.com/newsrelease.do?id=17452&mid=


      3. Correct on all accounts except one Bernie,

        The manuels in a truck like your Ram have one serious limitation or Negative that makes people not buy them that don’t mind shifting – they come with a much lower power rating!

        The physical space required of a clutch to hold over 660ftlbs of torque just aren’t there in a full size HD truck like your Ram 🐑.

        So if your happy not having 930ftlbs and can live without then so be it. Most aren’t and want the higher power levels when purchasing a modern new pickup!

        1. Drifter64 – – –

          D: “The manual’s in a truck like your Ram have one serious limitation or Negative that makes people not buy them that don’t mind shifting – they come with a much lower power rating!”

          Yup. But 660 lbs-ft is HUGE for me: more than enough. At ~900 RPM, in 6th gear(!), moving at about 33 MPH, I can just touch the skinny pedal and not only accelerate, but lay tidy little patches of rubber on the pavement behind me**!

          D: “The physical space required of a clutch to hold over 660 ft lbs of torque just aren’t there in a full size HD truck like your Ram 🐑.”

          You are right again: not with present design. The current clutch is a 13-inch HD dual-plate. But that undercarriage space could be made with a larger transmission “hump”, as in my 1974 D100. Then a Borg-Warner/Tremec T56, with large 15-inch triple clutch design, could be installed to handle up to 1500 lbs-ft of torque, if needed.
          Poor Example Ref – – – https://books.google.com/books?id=EEWMh9t9fKsC&pg=PA110&dq=manual+transmission+with+input+torque+of+900+lb-ft&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjwq_elpMTWAhWJyoMKHXxlDhUQ6AEIPDAE#v=onepage&q=manual%20transmission%20with%20input%20torque%20of%20900%20lb-ft&f=false

          So, Ram/FCA could come up with an MT that would handle way over 1000 lbs-ft of torque, if they wanted to, and did not just select an easy off-the-shelf purchase from MB.

          But, two BIG problems with that (meaning it won’t happen):
          1) That Tremec is an absolute bear to shift, and people who don’t routinely double-clutch have been belly-aching about it, going DOWN the gears.
          2) The extra space requirement might mean TWO HD chassis designs: one for MT’s and one for AT’s. And, considering FCA’s financial state, that probably would not make economic sense.

          ** Empty bed.


          1. 660lb-ft is a lot of torque (although my recent addition to the fleet, a 2018 Raptor, makes only 150lb-ft less with a measly 3.5L V6 running gasoline. That said, I like the RAM Cummins / manual setup. Next year I’m looking to purchase a dump truck for my side business. It will likely end up being a Ford F-550 with the gas V10, but if I could get enough discounts I might consider a RAM 5500 with the manual trans.

            1. Troverman you peaked my interest on that one. The Raptor per litre has more torque available than any other truck on the market that I know of, however it comes on at 3500rpm, but I imagine Ford set the torque at that rpm for the driving experience. With turbo’s I am sure the manufacturer can set the torque where they want when we look at the Sante Fe from Hyundai it make 260 foot pounds at just 1450rpm in a 2.0L gas motor. And Audi has a monster at 442 foot pounds at 1900 rpm in a 2.9L gas motor which would be 1021 foot pounds in a 6.7L I think we will see a lot more gas turbo’s with low end diesel torque with the superior hp they bring.

              Bernie, I cannot see an HD clutch lasting very long pulling loads. You have to slip the clutch to take off and it is going to wear out and it will be over a 1000 to fix for the average Joe. You can baby a Auto transmission as well and it will last a long time and likely outlast any Northern vehicle subject to salt and rain.

            2. Rambro – – –

              R: “Bernie, I cannot see an HD clutch lasting very long pulling loads. You have to slip the clutch to take off and it is going to wear out …”

              Yeah, with the 3.42 standard diff ratio, I was worried about that too. But the salesman (knowledgeable) advised that it would not be an issue, even towing 15K lbs on level, good surfaces but starting up in 1st gear. (I have so much torque that “empty driving startups” in 2nd gear is the norm.)

              He queried me at length on my usage mode. And we together decided that the 4.10 diff was probably not needed, but always available as an option. That, of course, if swapped in, — coupled with the Cummins — would solve ANY clutch wear issues upon startup in even extreme situations. After all, now much clutch wear do Semi’s experience? Largely a matter of gearing.


          2. The t56 was in basically every American sports car from the early to mid 2000’s(corvette, mustang, viper, Camaro, gto, etc) and was generally a solid performer. If people were having trouble shifting it it is probably because they had the clutch to slave distance messed up which was common from the factory for the gto. Took care of that with a bigger master cylinder that moved more fluid.

        2. Actually this is inaccurate. The aftermarket has been making duel disc perdormance clutches for years. I had a 1000ft lb rated double disc south bend clutch in my 2002 2500. Was definitely a stiffer pedal than stock but samn thing would NOT slip lol

          1. Brewhaha – – –

            BR: “The aftermarket has been making duel disc perdormance clutches for years. I had a 1000ft lb rated double disc south bend clutch in my 2002 2500. ”

            Yeah, absolutely. You are confirming that high-torque options were and are available for Ram (as I also noted in the reference above), — and either:
            1) Ram tightened up the undercarriage chassis space unreasonably with the 2009 redesign, OR —
            2) Chose the smooth-shifting G56 because of price, and complaints about shifting effort in the older NV5600 (which, reportedly, was also limited to 550 lbs-ft of input torque).


            1. Brewhaha – – –

              BR: “The 5600 was a smoother shifting unit with a much shorter throw imho; But it had narrower gates for gears so someone not used to it may complain about it lol”

              Actually, I have never had a problem shifting any “NP” or “NV” transmission, given a little practice for position of the gate pattern, and a bit of break-in accommodation. The G56 “smoother” reputation may come from its INITIAL shifting ease, but the others catch up within a month or two. And frankly, my old NP435 was smooth as silk after 200K miles, — nicely broken in (^_^).


    5. I sure wish TFL would review a manual Tacoma and a Frontier, both manuals will likely be faster than the Honda Ridgeline which claims to be the fastest 0-60 midsize. I know these trucks are not super fast but at least it is a manual vs auto mashup that has yet to happen. We also have another contender and that is the Colorado with the 10HP gain from a factory exhaust install bringing it to 318HP. I don’t think Honda’s claim will stand up to any of these combinations.

      1. And just an FYI, you not only get the advantage of full rpm and clutch slip from the Tacoma launch vs nothing from the automatic but the Manual Tacoma has a bigger gear set that gets more power to the ground at launch. Hawaii and driving around on grass does not count TFL. We want gauntlet runs and 0-60 tested in Colorado. And Mike Sweers stating in that video that autos get better fuel economy when the Tacoma have different gear ratios is not apples to apples.

        1. Have you seen the ecoboost launch in 4×4 with a brake boost? It’s neck snapping and nothing you would be able to do with a manual. Stand on the brake rev the truck to 2500-3000 rpm and launch at basically full torque. There is a video out there of a guy with a tune only 2017 f150 taking down ZL1 camaros and hellcats because he gets such a massive jump on them off the line.

    6. No one calls a linkage a transmission. Like the rear end of your pickup, the rear end does not “change gears”. Transmissions change gears. That is what the word transmission means. But don’t take my words for it.

      “As with all the Accords, the Hybrid comes now equipped with Normal and Sport settings, which let the driver dial-up/down the vehicle’s sporting potential. As before, the Hybrid uses no actual transmission, so of course this is all done virtually in the sophisticated car.”

      1. You really ought to rely on dictionaries for “definitions”…

        the action or process of transmitting something or the state of being transmitted.
        “the transmission of the HIV virus”
        synonyms: spread, transferral, communication, conveyance; More
        the mechanism by which power is transmitted from an engine to the wheels of a motor vehicle.
        synonyms: power train, drivetrain
        “her car had a faulty transmission”

        And nice to see how you drink up the marketing cool-aid. Try taking a service manual with you into the restroom next time instead of a sales brochure…

        1. If transmission meant that “the mechanism by which power is transmitted from an engine to the wheels of a motor vehicle”, as you quote from the dictionary, then all Teslas and all electric vehicles have a transmission.

          Do you know anyone that would say all these Teslas and Chevy Bolts and electric golf carts have transmissions?

          You need to get your head out of dictionaries and into the real world.

          I may need to introduce you to a “usage” dictionary. But I am sure you don’t know what that is.

          1. Did you know those wires strung from pole to pole outside your school are called “Power TRANSMISSION lines”? Yes, in the real world, “Transmission” refers to transfer of power.
            A Tesla or Bolt has no direct drive transmission because they don’t have range extenders, but the motor controller “transmits” power from the battery to the drive motor and the axle shaft “transmits” power from the motor to the wheels.

            1. A vehicle transmission changes gears to a live axle Daniel. Read the Merriman Webster dictionary. You are bastardising the word through the use of short forming it to Transmit. We can play word games like this all day, mental does not mean mentality, commute does not mean community, etc, etc. A vehicle transmission selects gears, its in the Webster Dictionary. See my post below or go here


            2. Show me something stating a transmission needs more than one speed to be a transmission? Boats have transmissions and most are single speed

            3. Daniel the dictionary clearly states plural. So I already showed you something, the fact you can’t understand it and choose to play on words is the problem. Or should I say Pro or prohibition or probably.

            4. All electric cars has transmissions, or gear boxes to be more precise. Only Hub electric motors doesn’t have any.
              I don’t see an advantage to use electric motor and then 2 speed transmission for each axle and portal gear box on each wheel, like Bollinger does. To much loses from the power plant to the ground.

            5. Zviera – You understand the big picture. The Bollinger is a wicked cool toy, but it’s design isn’t applicable to the general automotive marketplace.

    7. “The hybrid powertrain will return for 2018, with production shifting to Ohio after a few years in Japan. It’s slated for an official debut later in the year, but we do know that the Accord hybrid will be powered by Honda’s third-gen, Atkinson-cycle 2.0-liter four-cylinder/dual-electric-motor system that eliminates the need for a conventional transmission. A new “intelligent power unit” (essentially the batteries and electronic controls) will be mounted under the floor to maintain the Accord’s trunk space and folding rear seat. The hybrid will be available in five trims: base, EX, EX-L, EX-L Navi, and Touring.”

      1. ” that eliminates the need for a CONVENTIONAL transmission. ”

        Just because it doesn’t have a “conventional” transmission does not mean it does not have a transmission. Again, put down the sales brochures

        1. “Basically, the rare earth magnets do the duties of a transmission in Accord Hybrid. The downside is an instantaneous high revving of the gasoline engine on hard acceleration, there is no controlled “shifting.” This is the only time that Accord Hybrid is not library quiet.”

          1. You can twist your words all you want. But a rear end of a pickup truck aint a transmission, and so aint this Accord.

            “To be more precise, there’s nothing in a form we’d normally recognize as a transmission—no conventional automatic transmission, no automated dual-clutch system, no belt-and-pulley continuously variable transmission (CVT) either. There’s no torque converter, either—not even a drive clutch to slip the engine from a standing start.”

            1. L.O.L.!

              A clutch is a “CLUTCH”.

              Not a transmission.

              My baby transmitted a virus to me one time, so is my baby a transmission?

      2. Wow. This is really a big deal to you. I applaud your passion. It’s starting to wan a bit to the side of crazy however.
        It is great to see that you recognize that there are other power train configurations on the market. It is a little odd however to so adamantly claim that a technology that has been on the market in a high production vehicle for over 15 years and still has very small market share will completely replace technology that has been mainstream for the past 100 or so years in a very short time. Those who disagree with you have offered polite and rational explanations as to why they disagree. They show a good level of understanding of the technology. You however seem somewhat confused as to what different terms mean and an overall lack of understanding of the drawbacks of the technology you hype so much.

    8. “In the latest Engineering Explained video, host Jason Fenske explains exactly why Koenigsegg and Honda decided to skip the transmission entirely on their latest hybrid vehicles “

    9. Automobile Magazine:

      “The two-motor hybrid needs no transmission thanks to its unique design.”

      Need I take more of the comment section?

      1. Hal, Daniel knows there is no transmission, he thinks eventually electric may use a gear selector and that could very well be true which will add even greater acceleration but then you lose mpg through the losses. A transmission is needed in an ICE engine which is why it is not as efficient as it could be without it, it is a huge loss. Daniel knows it is a huge loss and I think he wants to hold that an electric motor has a transmission so that he can try to say the electric drive shares the loss of the ICE engines transmission at some point in a future post.

        Electric drive is more eficcient and I see it being proven and Workhorse has proven it, especially with regenerative braking that gives back mpge in their fleet vehicles.

        Daniel, this is straight from the Merriman Dictionary and it states a Vehicle transmission changes gear ratios to a live axle. Sorry had to chime in when the electric dance is on.

        “an assembly of parts including the speed-changing gears and the driveshaft by which the power is transmitted from an engine to a live axle; also :the speed-changing gears in such an assembly”

        1. Electric drive is not more efficient. There are losses in the generator, converter/controller and the motor itself. The sum of these losses are greater than that of the losses of a modern “conventional” transmission.

          1. Yeah, that’s why all the hybrids and electric vehicles get way better mileage than their combustion only vehicles with transmissions.

            How ignorant can you be?

            Everything is going at least partial electric right now, from Ferraris to race cars you can’t buy, to heavy duty haulers to mainstream sedans, and they all use less energy to go farther. YOu can’t read this site or any other and come to any other conclusion.
            I’m tell’n ya, some kinda serious blind spot on your sould to be persisting in error like this.

            1. No my friend, it is due to the battery being able to re-capture energy normally lost during braking. Also, being able to use a smaller engine in conjunction with the battery and electric motor saves some fuel and weight. It it is not because the electric portion is more efficient than the mechanical. Do some basic research-if you care to actually understand these things.

            2. In other words it is the “hybrid” portion that makes it more fuel efficient. The electric portion has greater losses than the mechanical but the amount of energy that is recaptured and stored by the battery more than makes up for those additional losses. If I am not mistaken the Accord you hold such high regard tries to avoid using the electrical portion by driving the wheels “directly” (meaning skipping the electric portion entirely) as much as possible-through gears I might add.

            3. Ha, ha.

              It just gets more more ridiculous with you old weirdos.

              So according to you. Its not more efficient, but it is more efficient. I get it. And we all do get it. Keep talking’.

            4. The overall efficiency of a hybrid-as a collection of systems-is more fuel efficient in the proper applications. Were one to simply replace a conventional transmission with a motor/generator (leaving out the other components that make it a hybrid) then the conventional transmission would be more efficient.

            5. Sparky21

              Exactly. In a passenger vehicle, with an extremely low duty cycle, hybrids can gain efficiency over traditional powertrains. Do the math and the extra cost of the Hybrid system rarely pays off based on gained efficiency.

              Take a high duty cycle vehicle, like a truck that needs to haul and tow long distances, and there are no realized gains in efficiency, much less any payoff in initial expense.

              Certain high duty cycle applications do make sense for hybrid powertrains. That would be metro buses and maybe trash trucks that do a lot of stops and can benefit from regenerative braking.

            6. Hal, you are terrible at arguing your point. Take a deep breath, maybe listen to what people are saying, and make some posts with substance.

              There is a reason why many hybrids get better mpg’s in the city than on the highway. It is because it is trying to recouperate much of the fuel and electric energy that was expended accelerating the car when trying to stop. You lose energy in rolling resistance and what not but some portion of the energy used to accelerate the mass is recovered. This is better than recovering no energy at all and burning it off as heat energy with conventional brakes. You don’t even need a full hybrid system to do this. Just a capacitor and KERS type system to recover the energy and use it briefly to reaccelerate the car.

              For me a hybrid has no benefit. I drive in the country and once I get up to 55-60mph I rarely slow down. It’s doubtful A hybrid would offer any benefit over a similarly equipped gas or diesel engine.

      2. The three drive modes are:
        1. Electric only from the battery
        2. Electric only, receiving power from ICE and battery
        3. Gas only, receiving power direct through gears and clutched to ICE

    10. I know, I know.

      To say that an automobile transmission is anything that “transmits” power to the wheels is to say that a shaft is a transmission.

      How dishonest can you be?

    11. The other thing that these fuddy duddies don’t know is that they are looking at the old version of the Honda Hybrid.

      “hwe’ll see on the 2018 Honda Accord Hybrid. A 2.0-liter, Atkinson-cycle gas engine mates to two electric motors, one of which generates motion, with the other acting as a motor-generator to help keep the battery topped off. It has a single fixed-ratio gear instead of a CVT or traditional torque-converter automatic transmission.”

      So, “It has a single fixed-ratio gear “.

      They are behind the times as usual. They are building the 2018s now.

    12. Not only is it not a transmission, it isn’t even a lowly gearbox.

      “Rather than relying on a conventional gearbox to manage torque from the two power sources, the i-MMD system has a single fixed-gear ratio between the engine and motor. Honda says its method “creates a direct connection between moving components, enabling a smooth transfer of torque within the system,”

      1. It’s clear to see you now grasp the concept. It’s not a separate generator and electric motor. It’s an integrated system and max efficiency is being accomplished through mechanical means, not electric

          1. What was I wrong about? You are the one who has dug deeper and discovered it has a mechanical connection from ICE to wheels. It has a single speed transmission with a clutch. It has negative gear reduction. It’s a transmission no matter what you claim about the number of gear ratios it contains

            1. As I quoted and could continue to quote all the articles from automotive experts, there is no transmission, and the 2018 is even simpler.

              But all the experts are wrong compared to you.

              And electric motors will go on to be even more and more dynamic to the point where there won’t be anything but the electric motor.

              So why does Honda and all the auto engineers say it is not a transmission but you all do?

              Answer, you guys are weird.

            2. As you quoted:

              “September 26, 2017 at 9:02 am
              Not only is it not a transmission, it isn’t even a lowly gearbox.

              “Rather than relying on a conventional gearbox to manage torque from the two power sources, the i-MMD system has a single fixed-gear ratio between the engine and motor. Honda says its method “creates a direct connection between moving components, enabling a smooth transfer of torque within the system,”

              You need to read your quotes. It clearly states that it has a gear ratio (accomplished by means of a gearbox “transmission”) mechanically coupling the engine to the differential and finally the wheels.

              You need to pay attention to your “experts”.

              “And electric motors will go on to be even more and more dynamic to the point where there won’t be anything but the electric motor.”

              How do you figure this? Your saying the electric motor will progress to the point where it won’t need a controller? It’s won’t need a battery? It will generate it’s own electricity? Really, do share what you mean

          2. You seem to be stuck on the definition of a transmission. You clearly don’t understand the term “gearbox” as it is used in common vernacular. Perhaps if you put some of that effort into understanding why the 2018 Honda Accord hybrid is as good as it is, rather than trying to twist peoples words with syntax, you would see that Daniel understands it better than you do.

    13. Wouldn’t a 2 speed transmission / differential, actually help increase torque to the wheels while saving power?

      Doesn’t the electric motor lose power/efficiency as the rpm increase?
      Even though it maybe more powerful at lower speeds.

      Doesn’t the electric motor use a Great deal of power when it is stressed at low rpms.

      1. “Wouldn’t a 2 speed transmission / differential, actually help increase torque to the wheels while saving power?”

        Yes buy I think due to packaging constraints they didn’t use a full planetary gearset.

        “Doesn’t the electric motor lose power/efficiency as the rpm increase?
        Even though it maybe more powerful at lower speeds.”

        Yes, just one of the reasons they went with mechanical overdrive

        “Doesn’t the electric motor use a Great deal of power when it is stressed at low rpms.”

        Yes but the battery is capable of supplying what it needs for everyday casual driving

      1. they got a hell of a push for EVs in Europe. heard on radio ICE are going the way of dodo by 2045 via law. Wonder if th Dyson vechile will suck. 😁

        1. They want to get people to be dependent on electricity instead of oil. It’s easier to control them.
          Britain is building new Nuclear power station to cover 7% of their electricity needed. They need 40% more electricity to get rid of ICE till 2040, the plan, they want to stick to.
          New power lines and charging stations everywhere.
          I don’t know if is it wise to bring that kind of brain killing environment from abroad to the every home in the UK, but eco nazis should be the first one to buy a house under 500,000V Power line.
          Maybe they did already and got crazy.
          All those high pitch noise making inverters will have impact on everyone, but no one wants to talk about it yet.

        2. Canoepaddler it is my prediction by 2050 you will need a permit to take out a vehicle with an ICE engine. They will not be able to cancel the tradition completely but it will get very expensive to run a ICE engine in a vehicle in the future.

          Once people visually see and smell the difference in smog the push to get rid of the ICE engine will be unstoppable. Same thing we did to smokers, they have designated areas now and are fined for doing what used to be allowed and that was a huge move but it happened. Human rights will also cancel the ICE engine. Whether you or I like it; it will happen.

        3. Dyson-that’s funny.
          I’ve read the same thing. It will be interesting to see if they pull it off and how it all works out-cost and all.
          They are going to need a lot more electricity. Hello Nuclear!

    14. How about when taking 32000lbs or 90,000 lbs up Ikes Drive. ;>)
      Would it be better to lug the load up the road.
      Or have selectable gearing to increase power and efficiency.
      Wouldn’t the 8 mile grade decrease range by a tremendous amount.
      Storing the diesel energy to climb up Ike requires much less space than storing the electrical energy needed to climb the grade.
      Space saving is one of the benefits of using a fuel cell. Hydrogen is the most perfect battery available at this time.

      1. The real problem with fuel cells is an almost complete lack of infrastructure.I’m aware of several stations I believe are down in LA,and that’s about it.

        Until it’s decided that fuel cells are the way to go,(which I like the idea of those) and the pumps become as common as reg gas pumps,it ain’t gonna happen,not yet at least.

        Now,being a “fuddie duddie” and an old one at that,I doubt if I’ll ever see fuels as common as gas or diesel ICE’s.

        This falls into younger hands as far as I’m concerned. And,it’s the same as electric/batteries. A lack of recharging stations nationwide. Again,it’s an infrastructure thing.

        1. Another problem is where to get the hydrogen in the first place. Most of it currently comes from natural gas-which begs the question: why not just burn the natural gas in an ICE?

            1. That makes more sense to me. I have heard of fuel cells being used in lieu of standby generators. Running them on Natural gas would be a good way to go.

        2. You are right, infrastructure is a problem for both.

          But storage is a big problem for batteries. They have to be huge and you still have the transmission problem.

          Hydrogen can use the natural gas pipe system. Or tank trucks just like we do with gasoline right now.
          But, 2.19 lbs of hydrogen equals the same power of a gallon of gasoline.

          It can also be produced at the individual fueling station using renewable sources during off peak times.
          The space difference needed to store equal amounts of power in hydrogen compared to electricity is
          A tremendous amount.

          If we store electricity in the form of hydrogen. We are on the way to a solution

          The problem isn’t that we don’t have the ability to produce enough energy.
          We just can’t produce enough electricity at the times of need.

          1. Hydrogen can not be transfer in natural gas lines due to hydrogen embrittlement of the steel pipes. It would require entirely new pipelines.
            Hydrogen is a gas, transported at very high pressures (3600 psig or higher). Alternatively, it can be liquefied at -423 degrees F. Either way current gasoline tankers, storage tanks and distribution lines can not be used for hydrogen. Transporting it will require completely new systems made of more expensive materials.
            Hydrogen does have about 3 times the energy density of gasoline by weight, but again it is a gas, unless cryogenicly frozen. Hydrogen gas at 10,000 psig takes up more than 6 times the volume of gasoline for the same energy equivalent-and a tank that can withstand 10,000 PSIG is a substantial piece of equipment.
            Hydrogen can be produced at remote stations but the amount of energy (read:electricity) is substantialy greater than the energy content of the hydrogen produced.
            As you state, we don’t produce enough electricity. This is a substantial hurdle-one we are going to have to overcome eventually.

            1. The cost to liquify and store hydrogen is the cost to install solar cells or windmills ECT.

              After the basic roll out cost. It is only maintenance costs.

              The way the structure is right now, my solar cells over produce my needs by about 3500 kwhr/ year. The utility company must purchase that from me. It’s a low rate so that isn’t the big problem for them. The big problem is that they must shut down some of their own generation capability to accommodate me and other green energy producers. That’s where hydrogen becomes their moneymaker.

              Utility companies must have stand by production running at all time. So when they have too much. They are already paying other utilities to take their excess energy.
              If they instead used that energy for hydrolysis they would have a product that could make them money, hydrogen used for transportation, instead of just giving away their excess energy.

              Hydrogen is the only battery/energy storage system that can do that right now with out some intermediate changes.

              Newer communities are using plastic pipe to transport natural gas. These are thought to be very capable of handling low pressure hydrogen. England is in advanced planning for these types of pipeline conversion.

              And hydrogen will be converted using the neighborhood plan not a plan like our current way that concentrate 25% or more of our energy production in hurricane alley.

              There are already homeowner compressors for natural gas ECT.
              The same can be done with hydrogen. Either in the neighborhood or individual homes.

              My excess 3500kwhr would produce about 70 kgrams of hydrogen. Thats basically about 70 gallons of gasoline equivalent. Or about 175 dollars.

              My utility company pays me 3 cents per kWh. Or about 105 dollars. So there is room for some profit just through home owner or neighborhood hydrogen production.

              Concentrate on localizing the hydrogen energy production using green energy. Don’t infission the spiderweb of energy distribution we use now.

            2. It requires a considerable amount of energy to either compress or freeze the hydrogen, something like 20% of the energy contained in it-that is not a little! Those compressors/refrigerators also require a lot of maintenance-they don’t last forever. They are also very expensive.
              The home compressors you mention would likely work but they are expensive-several thousand dollars, and have a fairly short service life.
              Nobody pays anyone to take electricity! Especially not utilities. Electricity not produced is fuel not burned and therefor not purchased. Fuel is by far the largest portion in the cost of electricity. The utility is making money on the power they are buying from you-trust me!
              HDPE natural gas lines are used in local distribution yes, and they can likely handle hydrogen. But then how would you transport the natural gas? Natural gas is not going away anytime soon. It is currently plentiful and many times less expensive than hydrogen. Long distance transmission lines are steel-those are the ones that would be the most useful.
              3500kWh of over production is HUGE! That is a very large investment in solar panels. It would take a very long time for an ROI @ $175/year (never, several times over). Without incentives that has to be a setup worth well over $10,000. And they typically last about 25 years. If you wanted to produce your own hydrogen you would be spending many thousands more for the equipment-which also has a tendency to explode.
              Fuel cells are neat technology. I hope we see the technology mature to where they are available large scale. Hydrogen just does not make that much sense. Batteries use electricity far more efficiently. We are not likely to have cheap electricity available to produce hydrogen inexpensively, ever. We never have had an overproduction of electricity and there is no reason to think that will ever change. We would be foolish to do so.
              I do like the idea of a distributed network-so that things like hurricanes are much less disruptive, as you point out.

      2. Electric motors don’t vary in efficiency over their RPM range quite as much as an ICE engine-they are not limited by air flow to support combustion and there is not any reciprocating equipment-therefore they can generally spin much faster than an ICE. To generate more torque an electric motor has to be physically bigger. Using a multi-speed transmission could allow a physically smaller motor to generate the torque of a larger motor to get things moving and then change gears at higher speeds to stay within its operational RPM band. Whether or not the reduction in size of the motor would be enough to overcome the added mass of the transmission would be the question. It is my understanding that the Tesla roadster has a 2-speed gearbox.
        Fuel cells don’t take much room but hydrogen sure does. Conventional batteries start looking pretty good when compared to hydrogen so far as volume required and overall efficiency. There have been experimental methods of storing hydrogen at higher densities without high pressures and/or low temperatures but nothing that has been commercialized as of yet. Some fuel cells can process liquid hydrocarbons-which makes far more sense in conditions where you need to carry a great deal of energy with you. Build a cost effective, reliable fuel cell that can “burn” regular hydrocarbon fuels and then you would have a strong case for electric propulsion. So far, reliable, cost effective fuel cells (hydrogen or otherwise) have eluded us however.

        1. There are a number of commercially available vehicles available right now with over 300 mile range and 5 to 10 minute refill times.
          There are enough hydrogen refill stations to allow comfortable travel between San Diego and san fracisco and sacramento.

          I understand there are a growing number in the upper North East of the U.S.

          Right now the engineering is to the point solutions are at hand. For refilling.

          We just need commitment to bring down price.

          As long as we have this fight between batteries and fuel cells. We are handicapping our future.

          The fuel cell is the only way to maintain a future in travel that will closely mimic what we have today and the clean future we want tomorrow.

          1. True, they do exist and they do fill up rather quickly-like unto a CNG vehicle. Battery vehicles are “winning” because they cost less and we do have network to distribute electricity as well as produce it (though we need more). Hydrogen uses electricity less efficiently than batteries do. A fuel cell would ultimately use 3 or more times as much electricity to do the same work as battery can.
            Synthetic hydrocarbons can be produced in a manner similar to hydrogen-and could potential be “burned” in both an ICE and a fuel cell. They would use all the same systems as current hydrocarbons in that they would be identical apart from being purer. Not cheap to produce either but may be a good solution. Much easier to handle than hydrogen.

            1. Right now today. Using old technologies. Hydrogen is much cheaper than petrol products.

              For a long time I have been promoting ice engines with multiple energy capabilities.

              We have petrol / cng engines. We could just as easily have petrol/hydrogen ice engines.

              These engines would be just to transition from a petrol infrastructure to a hydrogen infrastructure.

              Tesla etc. with all their money is hampering our future. Throwing a wrench into engineering a infrastructure.
              But so far no one had come up with a storage system that is better than the one that held all the energy needed to produce the entire universe.

            2. Start adding the taxes of petroleum and take away the government incentives and it gets a lot more expensive.
              There are ICE vehicles that burn hydrogen, yes. Ford was building a V10 truck for a while to used hydrogen.
              Hydrogen cost 3x’s as much as natural gas (when made from natural gas-as most is), 6x’s as much when produced via electrolysis. Why not just burn natural gas instead? Same tanks, compressors but it is readily available and we already have a distribution network in place. There are many more CNG vehicles on the road and most will also run on petrol (the same could be said with hydrogen, to be fair. You suggested this. Really, you could have a ICE that could run on all 3).
              Hydrogen will not be produced using electrolysis on a mass scale anytime soon.
              From Wikipedia; “Hydrogen has been called one of the least efficient and most expensive possible replacements for gasoline (petrol) in terms of reducing greenhouse gases; other technologies may be less expensive and more quickly implemented.”
              Fuel cells, when they are ready, will be great. Then electric cars will really start to make more sense. Hydrogen is just to wasteful and difficult to work with. I think we can find a better energy carrier than that-one with a much better volumetric efficiency.
              Tesla is not hindering things in any way. Really, they have created a great deal of excitement with electric cars which is where hydrogen will likely be used if it is to have any real future at all. If anything, Tesla is paving the way for hydrogen.
              Hydrocarbons are pretty hard to beat as a energy storage device-that is why we have been using them. Carbon is pretty good a well-good enough that we have been using it almost exclusively for all of recorded history.
              Hydrogen is not the energy source used to build the universe-at least not in the way you are proposing to use it in a car. You get vehicles running on Fusion then you will really be onto something!

            3. But you can’t store the electricity you need for home. Converting it, Storing in batteries, then converting it back to a usable home energy makes the electricity very inefficient.

              As I said I support using natural gas as a way of changing to a hydrogen economy but it isn’t the real solution.

              As I said Microsoft is already testing natural gas fuel cells in one of their data centers.

              Also, batteries can not provide electricity to the home.

              Hydrogen produced the universe we live.

              And it is going to make life better in the future.

              The first fuel cell was about the early 1800’s.

              Batteries a good 150 before Christ.

              There is no comparison. Fuel cell advancements dwarf the battery changes.

              A fuel cell vehicle or a hydrogen ice engine would allow us to live much like we do today. But without the pollution.

              The same can’t be said of the battery car.

              And in real world use the hybrid is a very big investment with little increase in mpg. And very little reduction in pollution.

            4. Buddy,
              Batteries are actually quite efficient at storing and regurgitating electricity-about 90%. That is considerately more efficient than could be done with hydrogen and much less expensive. There is not even hydrogen generating equipment available to the homeowner to make that possible.
              Many homes are powered by batteries and it is absolutely possible to do so. They same can not be said of a hydrogen generating/storing system.
              Compare the amount of technological progression from 150 before Christ to 1800 to that of 1800 to now. What do you get when dividing by zero?
              The VAST majority of technological progression has occurred since 1800. Fuel cells may have been invented 6,000 years ago for the amount of overall technological advancement that occurred in the years that batteries proceeded fuel cells.
              Batteries are useful today, fuel cells are still at research stage. I hope they advance and anticipate that they will but today batteries are currently much more useful. Who’s to say that advancements in batteries will not outpace that of fuel cells?-they have the past 200 years or so. While we are playing what if: if a higher capacity battery could be produced at a much more reasonable cost than is available today, fuel cells would have not chance against a battery. A fuel cell will never be able to reach 90% back and forth efficiency. The very best technology we have today can not even get 1/2 of that. The only advantage that a fuel cell would have is the ability to to refueled rapidly-which I admit is a big one.
              In large part, hydrogen has produced much of the universe via nuclear fusion-not quite the same (read: not in any way, shape or from) as burning it in an engine or driving it through a fuel cell.
              There is pollution associated with fuel cells much as there is with batteries. There is a reasonable expectation that future batteries will be much more environmentally friendly as well-but that is the future (the place where fuel cells reside anyhow).
              Agree with you on Hybrids.

    15. All I care about is being able to hold my coffee mug while starting to move from a stop light so an automatic is fine for me. Driving stopped being fun after the first 40 years.

      1. Tom
        In 2013 when I was shopping for my present dually pickup. I was disappointed that there were no gas powered one ton trucks available with a manual transmission and I still feel the same way to this day. But I have to admit you are right about pulling away from a light with a coffee in your hand. I ended up “wearing” my coffee on more than on a occasion. Tom, I think you may have stumbled upon one of the universe’s “absolute truths”.

        1. I agree, the coffee in a free hand is one of the absolute truths to why people choose an auto, but rarely taken seriously.

          But I get the love that comes for a manual, being part of the vehicle.

      2. I think its similar to some of the comments made concerning big green. For my daily driver that I depend on I’m going to want modern electronic fuel injection and an automatic transmission but when I want something fun to drive I’m going to go for the old, carbureted, manually shifting vehicle.

    16. I am 67.
      I tread and can’t imagine the day I am to old to drive my 1980 ford with a 400m and a t18.

      But heck. I have a riding mower gathering dust wile I push my mower around the yard every other day. Even when it’s 115.

      Dang push mower is the best excersize machine ever invented. And it’s a lot cheaper than joining a club. Lol

      There may be a few who disagree. But it works. Keeps you young.

      I have syringomyelia. Spondyliosis, Osteoarthritis in my hole spine and 2 small herniated disks that Dr. Said I would grow out of. And he was right. Only surgery I had was to have a plastic drain inserted in my spinal cord to drain the fluid from my spinal cord.
      Oh, I forgot. Gaul bladder was removed.
      Oh, bladder cancer surgery.
      Oh hepatitis A.

      Just like my truck I’m, I’m in good shape. Lol

      1. Buddy – – –

        Hey, man, great personal story. Thanks. Just keep up the lawn cutting and have good cheer!
        I am 74 and had back surgery 20 years ago to remove a tumor from my spinal column, which means parts of two vertebrae are now missing. (Sure beats having a crushed spinal cord, though!)
        So I gotta stand up based on muscles. But what the heck: I love climbing into big trucks and shifting MT’s anyway!


        1. Enjoy, what ever makes you happy.
          I like to drive automatic, because I drive a lot and like someone said to hold a coffee in the bumper to bumper winter driving, but I enjoy my motorcycle shifting gears and it makes me smile all the time and wouldn’t get automatic even if the whole bike is for free.

          1. Once your on the interstate. You dont have to shift if your engine is powerfull enought.

            I’ve driven from southern California to North Dakota mostly on I15. And the only time I needed to shift was for a obstacle that might pop up in front of me.
            And I15 then through Logan and and hwy89 to Bear Lake and Yellowstone National park. Then to 212 to Cooke City up Beartooth pass to Red Lodge Montana. Is an unforgettable drive.
            Especially with a manual transmission. :>)

            1. I was driving manual for 18 years. In bumper to bumper it’s pain in the ass to drive manual for me. Constantly on the clatch. On interstate it’s different story and I wouldn’t mind to drive a stick,when travelling with my travel trailer and when on retarement.
              I am there mentally,but not financially yet.

            2. I was driving manual for 18 years. It’s pain in the ass for me to drive manual in the bumper to bumper. I wouldn’t mind to get manual transmission when pulling my travel trailer and when on retarement.
              I am there mentally, but not financially yet.

    17. I’m a die hard manual transmission guy. My very first car was a manual and the last three vehicles I owned prior to this one were manuals, but I’ve lived in manhattan for the last 10 years and it finally got to me. There is traffic and construction everywhere you go and I just couldn’t take the constant”on and off the clutch” anymore. So my new vehicle is an automatic and even though I sometimes pine for my manual when I’m in the country or on an open roads trip, once I hit the city and the congestion, I’m very happy to have an auto and they have gotten a lot better and more trouble free over the years. If I ever move to the country I may go back to a stick if they make them, otherwise pragmatism and comfort have won out. I’ll stick with the auto.

      1. Pretty soon it wont matter, all you will have to do is physically get in the car, tell it where you are going unless programmed to eliminate that step and go to sleep/have a nap until you get there.

            1. Or Going to the Sun road, or roads around Mt. St. Helens, or road 410 around Mt. Rainier I did last year.
              Tell me to sit down in the robotic car and not to drive my bike and I would kill for that.

      2. Frank – – –

        F: “I’m a die hard manual transmission guy.”

        This is very good.

        F: “…otherwise pragmatism and comfort have won out. I’ll stick with the auto.”

        This is very bad (^_^)….

        Seriously, one of the solutions for traffic congestion (stop-&-go driving) that I found and could configure, was, counterintuitively, to select a MT truck with a “granny” gear!

        Let me explain:
        I used to live in that commuting mess call the “Tri- Cities” in upstate NY. Most people were foolishly, impatiently bumper-to-bumper, doing lurch-and-halt driving; or trying to squeeze aggressively into the next (perceived-to-be) faster-moving lane to make more progress than everyone else. Imagine their frustration when that “faster” lane switched roles to become the slower one! They probably got so frazzled by the time they got to work that “kinder and gentler” productive employment was impossible!

        Me? I enjoyed my morning commute. Had coffee and a bagel. Nice music on the radio. Great views. Relaxed disposition. Smiled at other drivers. Got to work happy and rested.

        How did all this happen, you ask? On the very same road, you ask? In the very same traffic congestion, you ask?

        Simple! I put my truck into “granny gear”; maintained a good spacing and average speed to allow for the rubber-band or accordion effect of creeping traffic; and, Bingo, problem solved! I think I used my clutch an average of 2-3 times in 10 miles of what would otherwise have been a commuting nightmare.

        Full disclosures:
        1) I did get started about 5-10 minutes earlier;
        2) I did have a little sign on the back that said, “CAUTION: SLOW TRUCK”, even when I wasn’t really slower than anyone else. It just served to encourage “draining out” the misguided pimples who maintained the illusion that real progress was even possible (^_^)…


    18. Unfortunately California is paying Arizona to take its excess energy.


      Also the tesla’s whole house batteries are very expensive and only have about a 7 year life at full capability. Currently converting electric car batteries after they go bad for auto use, is being tried but they are also very expensive. Especially with instalation. And why would I invest 7000 dollars in a battery when I already over produce and I have a guaranteed buyer for my excess. The utility company. Maybe if I underproduced and I was on a time of use rate, a battery would be convenient. But I have a guaranteed production that is 2000 kwatt more than what i will use. I will actually produce at least 1000kwatts more than my guaranty. So a figure i will net a minimum of 3500 kw.
      Maybe the utility company will give me a battery. But why would they do that when they can buy my excess at 3 cents a kwatt and turn that kwatt into $2.50 of hydrogen. And they own the natural gas pipe systen. They could change out jets in home appliances an use hydrogen instead. That is a program they are testing in England also.

      You keep forgetting the price of solar energy. PG&E is paying me just 3 cents per kwatt. Cheapest electricity available now.

      Purchasing solar systems is not really the way to go for homes any more. My sun solar 20 year lease costs 155 dollars a month. That is saving me at least 1500 dollars a year. 5 Summer month bills of over 500 dollar are not unusual. I still have 2 1/2 months left on my 1st year. Right now I am averageing 20 kwatt of excess production I could easily go over 4000 kwatt net for the year. (If we have fall storms that production will change) Right now I am just considering it as a reduction in my lease cost. I have absolutely no cost other my monthly lease payment. And I have a production guarantee for the full 20 year lease. At the end of the 20 years I have the option to keep the panels at the current price on a month to month bases. I will do this as long as it is meeting my full needs.
      Or I could get a new lease with new equipment
      Or I could have them take out the system and they would be responsible for returning my roof to the original condition.

      Tier 3 electricity here is about 35 or 40 cents per kwatt and it keeps going up.

      My brother bought his system in 2008. It was very expensive and he gets no qurranteed production his inverter went out this summer. They fixed it free. But it cost him 250 dollars for shipping and he was out of production for almost 3 weeks. With no production quarrantee.

      Also my panels produce about 350 kwatt per panel.

      His older ones are only 180 kwatt per panel.
      I have 24 panels. He has around 40 I think .
      And we have about the same production.

      For a few months last summer I had my son,his wife and daughter and their 3 foster girls here. In August we used over 1950 kwatt. And it was much hotter this year. By myself I used about 1650 kwatt in August and the rates are much higher this year.

      I purposely got the extra production in case i added something like a pool. A pool maybe the only excersize I can get if my back gets worse.

      Sun Solar qurranteed that if a person qualifies for the purchase of my house. They will also qualify to take over my lease.

      The high cost of utility electricity here. Seems to me to make battery cars impracticle for inland california.

    19. Spark,
      Don’t forget Toyota left Tesla because of their resistance to research on fuelcells.

      I am all for electric cars. I just don’t like were batteries are after thousands of years.
      Talk of changing out batteries instead of recharging them is foolish because of the physical size of the batteries. A refill station would have to be many acres. Of course they could be mechanized and stored on racks and use robots to gather refreshed batteries and install them in the car. But that is very inefficient and makes hydrogen production look cheap and easily profitable.

      Remember 3 cents of electricity will produce 2 dollars of gasoline. Thats a huge profit for the utility company. And it’s 3 cents they must pay. It’s a utility regulation.
      As more homes, businesses, and corporations install solar cell, wind mills ECT.
      Utility companies must search for a way to make a profit.

      From me, the only profit they get is 10 dollars for transportation.
      But my over production will pay for that. As I said that is another reason home batteries make no sense for me. Batteries would only be storeing electricity that I will only be using to eventually sell to the utility.

      Not seeing a 600+ dollar utility bill is exciting. Lol

    20. Remember there will be a huge supply of excess energy from green energy production at times.

      We will find ways to not waste it. It won’t be the current forms of batteries. If they improve batteries to provide a life style simular as today. I would be very happy.

      But hydrogen is the only way we have right now.

      Making hydrogen with electrcity that you would not otherwise be able to use. Is making money instead of wasting money.

      Being forced to pay others to get your excess energy is foolish but is what is happening today.

      Tesla would not exist without a billionaire investor.
      He is smart but he picked a the wrong product.

      Oh, I forgot to mention Amazon is using fuel cell fork lifts in its warehouses. Just think a indoor fork lift without smog or particulate emissions

      1. Buddy,
        Green energy never produces a huge excess. Green energy produces such a small portion of our overall power that it is incapable of doing so. Your article, while lacking in details, reflect a 5 minute period where temporary power fluctuations are handled, the time it takes to adjust your power output of base power producers (NG, coal, etc). This article goes into a little more detail: http://www.latimes.com/projects/la-fi-electricity-solar/.
        It is really a matter of politics. California is not producing more solar power than they need, they just don’t want to shut down their NG turbines to accommodate the temporary spike in production. This is not a net renewable over-production of our needs. You could not get a hydrogen generator fired up in 5 minutes of time much less produce any hydrogen. If you’re seeing resistance in starting up and shutting down a NG turbine, see what happens when you start doing this with an Electrolysis setup!
        If the need to sell excess production for renewable power persists people will stop installing it. It often struggles to pay for itself as it is (although at $0.40/kWh I’m sure it does) and increasing that cost is going to further drive down the incentive to use it. Keep in mind as well, a setup to produce hydrogen is also very expensive, requires a great deal of maintenance and like batteries, solar cells, inverters, etc-it has a finite life. You would easily double the cost of your solar investment to produce a little bit of hydrogen those few times you over producing. Keep in mind as well, unlike a battery; a hydrogen generator will need a fairly constant supply of power-which is really the problem in the first place, inconsistent output.
        My dad installed a PV setup a couple of years ago. The cost was about $7000. It should last about 25 years (hopefully). About $280/year, assuming no maintenance. He produces about 5,600kWh/year. At 100% efficiency, again-not at all realistic, he could produce 170 gallons of gasoline equivalent hydrogen. That works out to $1.65 a gallon. And that is at an unrealistic conversion efficiency of 100%. It also includes no hydrogen generating equipment-which could easily double that cost. Then there is the cost of the compressor, and the additional 20% power to run that compressor to get it into a transportable form. Very quickly you’re paying $6 a gallon for hydrogen-and that is fairly optimistic.
        If your utility company is paying you $0.03 per over-produced kWh and a gallon of gasoline has about 33 kWhs of power in it, then you get 1 gallon of gasoline equivalent @ $1.00 of electricity, assuming 100% hydrogen production efficiency, which is very far from reality. You might be able to get $0.06 of gasoline for $0.03 of electricity. Keep in mind, the utility company is turning around and selling the power they bought from you at $0.03 for $0.10 to $0.40-now that’s a profit margin!!
        I agree with you completely concerning the cost of batteries, their limited life span and the impracticability of swapping out batteries in car. Totally with you. However, they are still less expensive than fuel cells and thus far out perform them. There are not any mass produced fuel cells. Sure, they exist and are used in very limited, trail applications but they are remarkably expensive and an immature technology. Keep in mind as well, they have been around for a very long time. So far batteries are winning (and powering a lot of fork lifts).
        Why would a utility company replace natural gas with hydrogen when hydrogen, made from natural gas, costs 3 times as much? It would also mean replacing all the main transmission lines (read: the most costly portion of their system). Hydrogen produced using electrolysis costs 6 times as much. Keep in mind as well, most of our electricity is produced using natural gas. We would have to replace ALL of our electricity production with renewables, not to mention all the heating that is currently done with natural gas.
        Real world hydrogen is far too expensive to compete with petroleum or natural gas anytime soon. The prices will have to be much higher. As most electricity is currently produced using natural gas, electric prices are likely to rise at least as fast as that of natural gas. We are a long way off from using hydrogen, not until prices are at least 2 to 3 times what we are paying now.
        I hope to see fuel cells in widespread use. Right now however, the technology is a long ways off from being economical.

    21. Sparky
      There have been days in which California has produced in excess of 50% of their daily electric need from renewable sources. Those periods can be predicted and instead of paying to give it to Arizona. They could make hydrogen.

      The situation isn’t so bad for those living along the coast. Tier one prices are about 18 cents. And they Have cooler weather so staying below tier 3 usually isn’t too difficult. But inland electric prices will only get worse. Everyone will go into tier 3 there. That means in time more and more homes will have solar systems like mine. Producing electricity the Utilities don’t want.
      If all the homes in my neighborhood were to produce excess electricity. Power lines may be overloaded.
      Solar and wind are so cheap right now there is a big push to find cheap ways to store electricity. Southern Edison bought huge battery systems when they had that natural gas leak and were afraid they could not meet the needs of their gas turbine generators. (It took over a year to fix the leak from underground storage.) It was a very expensive deal. They were forced into it though, they didn’t do it because they wanted too.

      England has their plans on a timeline for around 2030/2040. Europe has a very high cost for their Natural Gas from Russia. So they have a much higher financial incentive, as does much of the world outside North America.
      Natural Gas contributes a lot to pollution. Because so much is being flared. There is a lot of natural gas with the shale oil production. There really isn’t a large pipe network to most of the shale fields and what they are building is mostly for the crude Now that the price of oil is down most petrol companies will try to harvest as much of the natural gas as they can. But it’s a vicious circle. As oil price goes down so does the price of natural gas. But the recovery cost has pretty much hit bottom, So they start flaring more. They will only stop the flaring if there are regulations making them. Then prices go up.
      It’s always a good idea to keep many options open. That’s my complaint about Tesla. They insist there is absolutely no hydrogen option. That is shutting down progress.
      As I said batteries have been around for over 2200 years. Fuel cells for about 175 years.
      And Fuel cell vehicles already surpass the capabilities of battery powered cars.

      I agree a hydrogen infrastructure is needed.
      But battery cars are being subsidized. And Tesla is giving away their charging stations and electricity to sell cars.
      That is not sustainable.
      And the Tesla Government subsidies start fazing out when they reach 200,000 cars. In fact most Model 3 buyers will not get the full subsidy. Many will get none.

      If Tesla fails. What will happen to the price of gasoline? We need options and we need to explore ways to take advantage of those options.

      Hybrids are not the answer.

      With out some sort of storage, renewables for the inland areas will have a difficult time producing 100% of our needs. Tidal and wave action generation could produce many times the worlds needs. But there are transportation problems and also costs.
      Dams produce electricity when it is not needed but the water is needed for irrigation etc. This excess electricity could be sued to pump water to higher elevations then released through generators when there is a need for the electricity.
      There are projects that basically are cogwheel trains. Excess Electricity from windmills is used to pull the trains up hill. the trains can then be released to produce electricity on the way down. All of these have the capability to produce near instant power.

      So Tesla keep trying. But don’t hinder other processes.

      1. I don’t believe the 50% for a second. They do not have anywhere near the installed capacity to do that. The problem is they continue generating power with NG and other resources while producing a lot of renewable. In 2016 they produced twice as much hydro power as the previous year due to record precipitation-that is not consistent enough to justify the high cost of a hydrogen infrastructure. Solar and Wind produced less than 17% of California’s electricity in 2016 (which is still quite impressive). That’s really the problem with hydrogen production, it cannot be incrementally “charged” like a battery, you can’t just shut it one and off. The infrastructure costs are far too high to not have it running at capacity all of the time, rather than the few minutes a day you over-produce.
        If prices where high enough it could all work but they would have to be many times higher than they are now-which may very well happen in the future.
        Tesla may not think highly of fuel cells but they certainly are not hindering their implementation. Just because the cool kid doesn’t like them doesn’t prevent them from existing and growing. You’ve mentioned Toyota as a champion of fuel cell technology. Certainly they have far more resources and finances available to them than Tesla does. Their reputation is such that were they to mass produce a hydrogen fuel cell vehicle (more than a couple thousand a year) that was as good and cost effective as you say they are, they could sell tens of thousands of them-like they do their battery powered/assisted vehicles. Yet Tesla sells more battery powered cars than Toyota does hydrogen fuel cell vehicles-many times over. Agree with your points on the subsidies. A failure of Tesla however will not impact fuel prices-there are so very few of them relative to all vehicles on the road.
        Fuel cell vehicles may surpass battery powered vehicles in weight, range and ease in refueling (agreed-these are pretty big), but they do not in cost and overall efficiency. Both types are subsidized.
        One indication of the current whole package superiority of battery powered vehicles over hydrogen fuel cells is the current production rate and availability. I cannot even buy a fuel cell vehicle (I don’t live in southern California, Japan or the EU) yet I can easily purchase a battery powered vehicle (made by Toyota even).
        I’m all for having multiple ways of powering our needs-and for that reason I have no trouble with the continued exploration of hydrogen economy-but it is so inefficient! There is no way that I can see it, at its current state, as being the answer to the future. If it is, it is certainly not clear cut.
        I am more optimistic that battery technology will improve faster than fuel cells. I think there is more drive to do so. Both battery powered and hydrogen fuel celled vehicles ultimately use electricity. Batteries store the energy with much greater efficiency. Hydrogen is very difficult to store and containers capable of storing it are very expensive-likely rivalling the cost of modern batteries. CNG tanks expire after about 10 years-hydrogen tanks would as well. Taking all things into consideration-hydrogen production cost (electrolysis), compressions of the gas, transportation of the gas, storage containers for the gas, fuel cell costs, fuel cell inefficiencies, etc-I think you many find that current battery technology rivals that of hydrogen as an energy storage medium in price. There is no question that batteries easily trump it in efficiency. If a lower cost, higher capacity battery could be developed; there will be very little advantage to using hydrogen.
        Pumped storage, as you mentioned, is currently used in a number of places, including here in Washington State on a large scale. It can have an overall efficiency of around 80%-rivalling that of batteries. Tidal power is produced on the coast-which typically have high population densities and thus power consumption. Wave power is not a thing yet, despite many years and millions of dollars in research. No one has really developed a good way to harvest tidal power.

        1. Sarky21 and Buddy – – –

          Yes! A very good discussion. I leaned a lot.

          Sp: “No one has really developed a good way to harvest tidal power.”

          Yes, they have. It does require a narrow channel that will force “tide rise” of 30-50 feet or more. You then dam it off, and create a lake whose water can outflow through turbines when the tide recedes.



          1. Yes, it has been done but requires damning of a large sea inlet-try pulling that off in today’s environmental mindset. Tides that high are not common. Generating a lot of power requires a great deal of water due to the relatively low head. Also, it PEAKS twice a day but varies between the peak to zero.

      2. Buddy – – –

        Bu: “Hybrids are not the answer.”

        This is a complex topic. Many forms of propulsion (or combined forms, as in a hybrid) can be a partial answer to mobility needs depending on (at least):
        1) How far along we are as a civilization;
        2) The technology available;
        3) The economics (profits) involved;
        4) The convenience (or lack of it) of the method;
        5) The availability of the energy source;
        6) The perceived pollution or climate damage;
        7) The inherent efficiency of the method;
        8) The perceived danger to vehicle occupants;
        9) The driving “fun”, sport or entertainment.

        (There may also be “artificial” influences such as government mandates, regulations, and controls.)

        You’ll notice that propulsion or production efficiency by itself is NOT a single determining factor. It gets swallowed up by other considerations.

        If we take these nine (9) factors and naively assign a value number (1 through 10) to them, to estimate how significant they are thought to be, — and then add all those together, we may be astonished to discover that an ordinary ICE’s stills rank well, whereas using a horse (on one extreme), and a nuclear-powered car (on the other), do not.

        But let’s go through that contentious little exercise with just two methods, knowing full well that everyone may have their own estimates on those values:

        1) Civilization……………5……………………5
        2) Technology…………..8……………………6
        3) Economics……………9……………………4
        4) Convenience…………9…………………..3
        5) Energy Source………8……………………6
        6) Free of Pollution…….3……………………9
        7) Efficiency………………3……………………8
        8) Free of Danger……….8……………………6
        9) Potential Fun………….8……………………4


        The point here is that even if my estimates are “off” by + or – a point in any one category, the overall score suggests that ICE’s will still exceed BEV’s by about 20% (not 5% or 10%) in preference as general use vehicles. The same calculation could, of course by done for H2FC’s as they grow, become more mature, and be more available. I should note that we could also assign a weighting factor for importance: for example, if “Freedom from Pollution” is seen as a huge concern, then it may be weighted higher than “Fun”. But all that may get a bit complicated just for this demonstration.

        Another point: many types of propulsion (like hybrids), even as seen by their own manufacturers, are considered “transitional”, even if that transition goes on for a 100 years or more.


        1. I would put a hydrogen ICE in the transitional catagory.

          Offering a low cost engine would cause more investment into the hydrogen infrastructure.

          My understanding is that the first heavy research using h2, ICE was hampered because proper h2 storage had not been developed.

          And now it’s hampered because advancements to design and costs for fuel cells have come at a furious pace.

          I still see the h2, ICE as a way to keep classic vehicles on the road.

    22. Most on here compare the two then some are running off topic.

      I have 3 vehicles that all 3 are manuals. I find it more awarding in driving a manual transmission vehicle than a automatic. My next new truck (when ever that time will come) most likely be a automatic transmission not by choice either. I’m hoping we will see a 10 spd automatic transmission in hd Ford’s. I’ll have two of my old t-birds for my driving pleasure when that time comes.

      1. Marc – – –

        M: “I have 3 vehicles that all 3 are manuals. I find it more awarding in driving a manual transmission vehicle than a automatic.”

        Fully agree. I have 4, and they all have manuals. I’d “Never Leave Home without One”! (In fact, I can’t (^_^)…)


        1. My Kia spectra is a speedy and comfortable 5 speed manual.

          My pickup is a lumbering demon that gives you the confidence of a 400m, t18 manual and a ford 9 inch transmission bundled in a f150 camper special.
          My riding mower is a 7 speed manual.

          I have 7 bikes, (all manuals), for myself and the grandkids. That’s not enough for all 8 of my grandkids, (3 foster grandkids. 8,10, and 13), the 2 oldest are boys, 15 and 19.. The rest are girls 1, 3,8,9,10, and 13.

          I have a 25 year old daughter. A 27 year old son. And a 47 year old daughter. They all learned to drive in a manual.
          And if I have anything to do with it all the grand kids will learn in a manual also. Lol

          Nobody wants to borrow or steal a manual. A great free option. ;>)

      1. Buddy – – –

        Yup. Saw that. Thanks.
        That’s now awfully close to the overall efficiency for BEV’s, max-rated at 80%.

        * new data on twin turbo-diesel ICE’s = ~ 40%.
        * projected estimates on gasoline ICE’s (after the 12 major innovations listed by Car And Driver**) = 30-35%.

        ** http://www.caranddriver.com/flipbook/12-propulsion-technologies-that-will-increase-future-cars-efficiency


        1. You have to consider the amount of energy use to generate the hydrogen in the first place, as well as the amount of energy used to compress it and then transport it-this is where batteries have a huge efficiency advantage, even with 70% efficient fuel cells (which are not common place; 40%-60% is typical).

      2. I notice that the article didn’t mention anything about how much any of this cost. So my guess there is long way to go before we would see this mass produced.

        1. Dollars I’ve seen certainly are not basic transportation costs. 55 grand or so. But there are rebates just like with the Tesla.
          People have to understand Tesla has been selling since 2008 with rebates and have not yet sold 200,000 cars even though one would think because of all the coverage they would have sold much more.

          The secret about that 200,000 number is that the rebates to Tesla begin to diminish and that many of the new model 3 buyers will not receive any rebate at all.

          That’s going to swing more attention to the fuel cell.

          The infrastrucure is being built slowly. But station are always under construction.

          Also, Amazon is running many of their forklifts with fuel cells. That means a infrastructure already exists that could be expanded to their semi trucks and other vehicles.
          If the Nokola semi truck gets out like planned in 2019/2020, they will build a Nation wide fueling infrastructure for their trucks. They will be like the Tesla with free fuel for the duration of the lease.
          They are taking 1500 dollar refundable down payment for a while now.

          Baby steps now. But they are going forward with out any big mis-steps so far.
          What’s amazing is, because fuel cells are so much lighter than battery per kwr. They can be used on train, plane, ships, cars and trucks.

    23. Battery has the same infrastructure problem as hydrogen.
      Except hydrogen can be easily stored. It can also be produced at the point of need.

      Hydrogen has batteries whooped in the range department.

      Hydrogen can continue the current transportation lifestyle Americans want.

      Neither are going to be the domanaint transportation for some time.

      Hybrid have not proven to live up to mpge that was expected mainly because they have been used for much longer trips than expected. Plus lazy American’s fail to plug hybrids in. Lol
      And at least my utility district you must pay to have a separate meter or you will be paying 40 cents per kwh which a very expensive Substitute for gasoline

    24. The Toyota Mirai has been produced for a number of years. With a good number in southern California and Japan.
      Hyundai, BMW and a few others are lending or selling them now also.
      We are most likely talking less than 10,000 around the world. So they are not one off vehicles.

      It sounds like Hyundai is really commuted to fuel cells and their new SUV has a range around 350 miles. Once the infrastructure is in. We would be just transferring out current gas/diesel transportation lifestyle to hydrogen.
      Camping, hauling, pulling, transporting much as we do right now.

      Fuel is cheap now. And if we could go nearly 100% hydrogen by 2040 I would suspect that may help the environment a lot.

        1. I feel that the green energy transportation that will eventually win.

          Is the one that forces the least amount of change to the current transportation lifestyle.

          Today, by a huge margin, that is H2.

    25. Your list is in correct as far as i can find. The tacoma only offers a 5 speed manual with the 2.7L, you cant (as far as i can find) get the 3.5L with a stick. Which is why Im not driving a tacoma right now lol

    26. I got a 6 speed MT 2017 Tacoma sport 4X4 but it was really hard to find. Most of the dealers shined me on. I finaly found one. I love it. My first truck was a Dodge Dakota 4 cylinder stick back in 1991. Then traded in for a Dodge RAM 1500 6 Cylinder short bed 1994 model when they first came out with that new body style. Had that for like 22 years and got a lot out of it but the mileage was low only 130K and the transmission went out(was slipping). Going back to MT. More fun to drive and possibly lasts longer. anyways to fix is cheaper then AT. was going to be 3K to replace the AT in the old Dodge.

    Leave a Reply