Hyundai's new hydrogen truck
Seen pictures of the new Hyundai hydrogen powered truck the Neptune. It looks like a old fashioned art deco steam train, very cool. Would make a neat RV with the matching tailer.
Forum Discussion
Yosemite Sam1 wrote:
If you want to get into cost of ownership keeping what you already have is by far the cheapest route. Just sales tax and personal property tax would pay my fuel bills for several years. Increased cost of full coverage on a late model over liability insurance would add to the savings. If I take 70k or whatever the cost of a new truck is and invest the money I can pay for all the maintenance on the profits and have money left over, (which I have done). In 5 years my old 1999 7.3 Diesel has required less then 2k in maintenance. Throttle position sensor and ball joints and a oil and filter change every year. Tag fees, taxes and insurance are at a minimum. My 2000 V-10 has required a clutch kit, heater core, plugs and coil packs, a set of tires, oil and filter changes once a year.mich800 wrote:
free radical wrote:
stsmark wrote:
So in the article,
Globally, it's a different story, since fossil-fuel Hyundai semi-tractors are sold in more than 100 countries, and the company's zero-emission truck future is starting outside the U.S. as well. Hyundai will also deliver the first of 1600 hydrogen-powered semi-tractors to companies in Switzerland later this year. While the powertrain in these trucks is zero emission, the look is a more standard cab-over design based on Hyundai's XCient truck.
Should be interesting when they hit Switzerland .
Zero emisions?
In your dreams.
Hydrogen is made mostly from fosil fuels.
Look up how much it costs to make hydrogen and what infrastructure it needs to fuel these things.
EV are cheaper and better
You just made the exact same arguments against EV's. This is why government should not be involved in picking winners and losers. Let the market find the lowest cost most energy efficient method. Alternative energy sources for vehicles is still in its infancy. I am not convinced EV is the technology that will win. We have at a minimum a decade or more for things to start to shake out.
Except that the total cost of ownership over a 5-year period, Tesla 3 is already less expensive than a Toyota Camry.
Plus time savings for not having a 5,000 mile check up and stopping for gas when you charge at home.
My sister purchases a new vehicle every three years and most have been in the shop more then my old trucks. The difference hers repairs are covered under warranty.
My cost of ownership per mile driven is far cheaper then hers despite the fuel consumption which is only one factor in the equation.
If a person wants a new vehicle with the latest technology I understand completely. Cost of ownership argument doesn't stand up unless you can prove it to me with actual numbers.mich800 wrote:
Extrapolation and wishful thinking. :)Yosemite Sam1 wrote:
mich800 wrote:
free radical wrote:
stsmark wrote:
So in the article,
Globally, it's a different story, since fossil-fuel Hyundai semi-tractors are sold in more than 100 countries, and the company's zero-emission truck future is starting outside the U.S. as well. Hyundai will also deliver the first of 1600 hydrogen-powered semi-tractors to companies in Switzerland later this year. While the powertrain in these trucks is zero emission, the look is a more standard cab-over design based on Hyundai's XCient truck.
Should be interesting when they hit Switzerland .
Zero emisions?
In your dreams.
Hydrogen is made mostly from fosil fuels.
Look up how much it costs to make hydrogen and what infrastructure it needs to fuel these things.
EV are cheaper and better
You just made the exact same arguments against EV's. This is why government should not be involved in picking winners and losers. Let the market find the lowest cost most energy efficient method. Alternative energy sources for vehicles is still in its infancy. I am not convinced EV is the technology that will win. We have at a minimum a decade or more for things to start to shake out.
Except that the total cost of ownership over a 5-year period, Tesla 3 is already less expensive than a Toyota Camry.
Plus time savings for not having a 5,000 mile check up and stopping for gas when you charge at home.
I didn't know the Model 3 has even been out for 5 years. Or are these estimates based on an unknown historical cost?- The first thing that I noticed was that there are no side mirrors. Would it use cameras? In the picture of the driver's seat, I don't see any screens for camera display.
colliehauler wrote:
Yosemite Sam1 wrote:
If you want to get into cost of ownership keeping what you already have is by far the cheapest route. Just sales tax and personal property tax would pay my fuel bills for several years. Increased cost of full coverage on a late model over liability insurance would add to the savings. If I take 70k or whatever the cost of a new truck is and invest the money I can pay for all the maintenance on the profits and have money left over, (which I have done). In 5 years my old 1999 7.3 Diesel has required less then 2k in maintenance. Throttle position sensor and ball joints and a oil and filter change every year. Tag fees, taxes and insurance are at a minimum. My 2000 V-10 has required a clutch kit, heater core, plugs and coil packs, a set of tires, oil and filter changes once a year.mich800 wrote:
free radical wrote:
stsmark wrote:
So in the article,
Globally, it's a different story, since fossil-fuel Hyundai semi-tractors are sold in more than 100 countries, and the company's zero-emission truck future is starting outside the U.S. as well. Hyundai will also deliver the first of 1600 hydrogen-powered semi-tractors to companies in Switzerland later this year. While the powertrain in these trucks is zero emission, the look is a more standard cab-over design based on Hyundai's XCient truck.
Should be interesting when they hit Switzerland .
Zero emisions?
In your dreams.
Hydrogen is made mostly from fosil fuels.
Look up how much it costs to make hydrogen and what infrastructure it needs to fuel these things.
EV are cheaper and better
You just made the exact same arguments against EV's. This is why government should not be involved in picking winners and losers. Let the market find the lowest cost most energy efficient method. Alternative energy sources for vehicles is still in its infancy. I am not convinced EV is the technology that will win. We have at a minimum a decade or more for things to start to shake out.
Except that the total cost of ownership over a 5-year period, Tesla 3 is already less expensive than a Toyota Camry.
Plus time savings for not having a 5,000 mile check up and stopping for gas when you charge at home.
My sister purchases a new vehicle every three years and most have been in the shop more then my old trucks. The difference hers repairs are covered under warranty.
My cost of ownership per mile driven is far cheaper then hers despite the fuel consumption which is only one factor in the equation.
If a person wants a new vehicle with the latest technology I understand completely. Cost of ownership argument doesn't stand up unless you can prove it to me with actual numbers.
You had to purchase the one you had, and pay taxes, etc. on it. Ignoring that cost kinda invalidates the comparison. Apples, oranges...drsteve wrote:
You don't already own your existing truck? I beleive my point is very valid. First sentence in post (keeping what you already have). You have already taken the loss regardless if you purchase another vehicle. You have already made the initial outlay. The exception being if you have a company where you can use it as a deductible.colliehauler wrote:
Yosemite Sam1 wrote:
If you want to get into cost of ownership keeping what you already have is by far the cheapest route. Just sales tax and personal property tax would pay my fuel bills for several years. Increased cost of full coverage on a late model over liability insurance would add to the savings. If I take 70k or whatever the cost of a new truck is and invest the money I can pay for all the maintenance on the profits and have money left over, (which I have done). In 5 years my old 1999 7.3 Diesel has required less then 2k in maintenance. Throttle position sensor and ball joints and a oil and filter change every year. Tag fees, taxes and insurance are at a minimum. My 2000 V-10 has required a clutch kit, heater core, plugs and coil packs, a set of tires, oil and filter changes once a year.mich800 wrote:
free radical wrote:
stsmark wrote:
So in the article,
Globally, it's a different story, since fossil-fuel Hyundai semi-tractors are sold in more than 100 countries, and the company's zero-emission truck future is starting outside the U.S. as well. Hyundai will also deliver the first of 1600 hydrogen-powered semi-tractors to companies in Switzerland later this year. While the powertrain in these trucks is zero emission, the look is a more standard cab-over design based on Hyundai's XCient truck.
Should be interesting when they hit Switzerland .
Zero emisions?
In your dreams.
Hydrogen is made mostly from fosil fuels.
Look up how much it costs to make hydrogen and what infrastructure it needs to fuel these things.
EV are cheaper and better
You just made the exact same arguments against EV's. This is why government should not be involved in picking winners and losers. Let the market find the lowest cost most energy efficient method. Alternative energy sources for vehicles is still in its infancy. I am not convinced EV is the technology that will win. We have at a minimum a decade or more for things to start to shake out.
Except that the total cost of ownership over a 5-year period, Tesla 3 is already less expensive than a Toyota Camry.
Plus time savings for not having a 5,000 mile check up and stopping for gas when you charge at home.
My sister purchases a new vehicle every three years and most have been in the shop more then my old trucks. The difference hers repairs are covered under warranty.
My cost of ownership per mile driven is far cheaper then hers despite the fuel consumption which is only one factor in the equation.
If a person wants a new vehicle with the latest technology I understand completely. Cost of ownership argument doesn't stand up unless you can prove it to me with actual numbers.
You had to purchase the one you had, and pay taxes, etc. on it. Ignoring that cost kinda invalidates the comparison. Apples, oranges...mich800 wrote:
Yosemite Sam1 wrote:
mich800 wrote:
free radical wrote:
stsmark wrote:
So in the article,
Globally, it's a different story, since fossil-fuel Hyundai semi-tractors are sold in more than 100 countries, and the company's zero-emission truck future is starting outside the U.S. as well. Hyundai will also deliver the first of 1600 hydrogen-powered semi-tractors to companies in Switzerland later this year. While the powertrain in these trucks is zero emission, the look is a more standard cab-over design based on Hyundai's XCient truck.
Should be interesting when they hit Switzerland .
Zero emisions?
In your dreams.
Hydrogen is made mostly from fosil fuels.
Look up how much it costs to make hydrogen and what infrastructure it needs to fuel these things.
EV are cheaper and better
You just made the exact same arguments against EV's. This is why government should not be involved in picking winners and losers. Let the market find the lowest cost most energy efficient method. Alternative energy sources for vehicles is still in its infancy. I am not convinced EV is the technology that will win. We have at a minimum a decade or more for things to start to shake out.
Except that the total cost of ownership over a 5-year period, Tesla 3 is already less expensive than a Toyota Camry.
Plus time savings for not having a 5,000 mile check up and stopping for gas when you charge at home.
I didn't know the Model 3 has even been out for 5 years. Or are these estimates based on an unknown historical cost?
Are you not familiar with extrapolation in math and finance? If you have 3 years of actuals, two years more is not difficult to calculate into projections.- "Are you not familiar with extrapolation in math and finance? If you have 3 years of actuals, two years more is not difficult to calculate into projections."
Of course to do that you need hard data, not hopeful wishes. fj12ryder wrote:
"Are you not familiar with extrapolation in math and finance? If you have 3 years of actuals, two years more is not difficult to calculate into projections."
Of course to do that you need hard data, not hopeful wishes.
What do you think of the 3 years actuals? Still wishful thinking? That's 60% of hard data that if my analyst can't still make an accurate projections could get him and me fired.- Lots of people have gone bust relying on what happened three years ago to keep happening for the next two years. That's where the wishing and hoping come in.
fj12ryder wrote:
Lots of people have gone bust relying on what happened three years ago to keep happening for the next two years. That's where the wishing and hoping come in.
Where is this, in the land of idiots with no foresight?
