Honda starts making Civic GX in Indiana
Honda Civic GX - click above for high-res image gallery
We recently discussed the benefits and challenges of running a car on natural gas. If that inspired you to think about making the switch, you probably pretty quickly narrowed down your choices down to the Honda Civic GX and, well, that's it for fresh-from-the-factory major automakers. Converted vehicles are the other option. Honda has begun producing the GX at its plant in Greensburg, Indiana, where it also makes the 4-cylinder Civic sedan. Before the move, Honda made about 1,000 copies of the GX each year in Ohio.
The United States EPA rates the Civic GX as the cleanest car available in America. Last year, during the gas price spike, the GX was very hard to get.
Gallery: 2007 Honda Civic GX
[Source: Green Car Congress]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
jcwinnie 10:41AM (5/18/2009)
Invites speculation on whether Honda has tested or is testing an NG Insight, eh?
Reply
Tim 8:51AM (5/18/2009)
Natural gas would make a great (clean, plentiful & cheap) range-extender fuel and both the gas and the electricity are available from domestic sources in the US.
Now we get back to that damn expensive infrastructure problem for those who don't use natural gas to heat their homes...
Reply
Dave 11:17AM (5/18/2009)
And don't forget that the appliance for compressing natural gas, Phill, costs about $4000.
A silly expenditure if its only a range extender.
brn 11:59AM (5/18/2009)
"Natural gas would make a great (clean, plentiful & cheap)"
You haven't seen my heating bills. They were even worse when gas went up. Companies that had equipment that could run on either (gasoline or natural gas) switched to natural gas. As a result, we've had natural gas shortages.
While I'm at it, can someone explain to me how these EV companies get away with ridiculously low claims as to what it cost to run an electric car? Electricity costs me a lot more than natural gas (which costs similar to gasoline).
I'm not trying to be argumentative. It just doesn't add up.
GoodCheer 1:48PM (5/18/2009)
brn: I drive an ACPropulsion eBox (that belongs to the university, not me unfortunately). Despite being a flying brick we still manage about 250 Wh/mile, or about 4 miles/kWh. Here in Delaware a kWh costs about $0.13, so the energy costs for transport are about $0.03/mile. That and the fact that there's no oil to change, belts to tighten, or timing chain to adjust, and the brakes see hardly any use at all.
In contrast at $2.30/gal and 25 mpg, you're paying [2.30/25] $0.092/mile, or about three times more (not counting maintenance).
In many areas of the country (though not here) residential customers pay time-of-day rates, whereby electricity costs less, sometimes much less at night. Since putting your car on a timer is just as simple as putting a lamp on a timer, customers in many areas may be charging for $0.06/kWh, reducing operating costs by half.
brn 6:34PM (5/18/2009)
GoodCheer, I'd argue with some of your specific numbers, but I get your overall point. Through I did look up your ebox and that $55K conversion did make me pause a little.
The rates that I see on the popular media would have you believe it costs 1/10th to run an electric car than a gasoline one. Those are the things that drive me crazy.
One thing I do feel the need to mention. I have the option of a lower nighttime rate. To get that rate, I'd have to deal with a dramatically higher daytime rate. The daytime rate would more than offset any nighttime savings. I guess you could say that one's air conditioner is subsidizing one's EV. :)
Chris M 11:05PM (5/18/2009)
brn: The key difference is efficiency, and end use.
An internal combustion engine isn't very efficient even when running on natural gas, most of the energy winds up as heat. An electric motor is much more efficient, with very little heat loss. So, compare the "pump to wheel" efficiency of a typical gasser at about 15%, vs. "outlet to wheel" efficiency of 76% for plug-ins. It is that difference in efficiency that allows BEVs to be cheaper to run than gasoline or even natural gas.
The end use of home heating and travel are different as well, with the goal of heating is, of course, heat. There, natural gas is much more efficient, depending on furnace design efficiency can be from 65% to as much as 95%. While electric heaters are 100% efficient at producing heat, natural gas has a much lower cost per BTU, so the heating cost ends up lower in spite of the lower efficiency. BTW, electric heat pumps simply "pump" heat from another source, so their effective efficiency is well over 100%, and they can rival the low cost of natural gas - if it has a good source of heat to pump from.
Another thing - to take advantage of lower night-time utility rates, some businesses are running refrigeration units at night to freeze water, then use the ice for inexpensive air conditioning the next day. While the extra equipment adds to the initial purchase cost, the long term savings from ice storage A/C can be substantial.
Tim 8:27AM (5/19/2009)
Chris,
Perhaps instead of focusing on Natural Gas for explosive combustion, we should focus on it's heating properties and use a different type of engine.
http://www.cyclonepower.com/
brn 6:58PM (5/19/2009)
I think there's still a lot to debate, but those are some good talking points. Thanks folk!
Kumar 8:56AM (5/18/2009)
The last I heard of this car/fueling system from Honday was that the company that makes the in-garage fueling system went out of business.
Reply
Phil L. 10:19AM (5/18/2009)
They were bought by somebody else:
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2009/05/02/hondas-fuelmaker-finds-a-new-home/
But this still leaves this technology with some doubt for the future.
jharlan 11:39AM (5/18/2009)
If I were in an area that provided Natural Gas this would be a consideration, if it were reasonably priced. KBB is telling me they are asking $10K premium for this car as opposed the the DX sedan. It's outrageous. The additional cost of manufacture is likely much less than their hybrid, but since their key competitor, Toyota isn't offering a nat gas car, this car is several thousand dollars overpriced. It's only my opinion, but no one likes to get ripped off, and this is a rip off due to the scarcity of availability of Nat Gas vehicles. Shame on you Honda.
Since the US has abundant supplies of nat gas, it's cheap, it's clean, and you could have a refueling station at home, it's curious that Ford (or the other majors for that matter) aren't offering any competition in this market. Why do you suppose that is? If you tell me that the public isn't ready for nat gas, that is just not credible. The public is rejecting NG because of the 10K premium of the original investment.
Reply
Bill 10:28PM (5/18/2009)
The Civic GX (24 mpg-equivalent city) is more expensive than the Civic hybrid (40 mpg city), with relatively short range (under 200 miles/tank)
Phill never made sense - about $4,000 installed, with a service life of under 3 years before it needed rebuilding (that required shipping it back to the factory at your expense)
Reply
Car shopping 10:29AM (5/19/2009)
I would be terrified to drive a car fueled by natural gas.
Reply
Derk McRockgroin 3:16PM (5/19/2009)
Methane is actually safer to store than gasoline because it's a gas and is lighter than air. In an accident, CNG is likely to dissipate very rapidly into the surrounding air. (If the super tough carbon fiber tank can be punctured.) Gasoline, in contrast, spreads dangerously in liquid form, spewing from a ruptured tank and creating a serious fire risk.