Which would you drive?

I’m sorry Aaron, is this for real?

CTS-V – no question…

The Caddy without a doubt……the Honda would be hidden in the garage out of sight out of mind..

Bob G

Neither…..sorry, BMW guy here…

I like the idea of a cruise in the Honda. However hydrogen makes me nervous….remember the Hindenburg? I’ll take the Caddy

I would pick the Caddy but I do love Hondas.

The FCX. Why? So you can get your review of it done and out of the way and have more time to enjoy the Caddy.

I would drive the Cadillac because this could be one of the last gas-guzzling, high-performance sedans ever built. The future will be filled with hydrogen powered cars, or cars with some alternative fuel.

Are you kidding…. The CTS all day everyday…. Honda makes a good car but all the model lack style…

To me, it’s like choosing between a dinosaur(mind you, a vert cool one) and getting a ride on a proto-type Mars voyager…guess I’m into the the things that are yet to come. If I want dinosaurs, there’s plenty of relics all around me,or at museums(car shows).

Jon – Hydrogen is less explosive than gasoline. Gas doesn’t make you nervous? I’ve driven plenty of gas-powered cars, but never a hydrogen -powered car. It’s a no brainer: the Honda.

I agree with Jason (6). Drive the Honda first. Get your calm and unbiased test of the Honda written and get it over with. Then take the Caddy for an adventurous ride.

Great, ask people who have never driven either car which one they prefer.

There is is only one choice. General Motors and Cadillac are gone. Why even mention them. They will out of business in 6 months.

Buck has a point…it makes me look at the direction in which these two companies are headed. Cadillac is into the short term instant gratification(Behr/Stearns or Merrill Lynch come to mind?). Honda has it sights on the realities that are inevitably in our future. Honda is spending its R&D money like it plans on being around for a long time. GM is spending their R&D money like gas engines will be in demand forever. GM’s money should be spent on bringing the overpriced Volt(35k)down to mass marketibility.
Corporate strategies always indicate the long term survival of a company. I get the feeling Buck’s timetable might be accurate.

Um…well I’m Mike, and…uh…I’m into instant gratification. Intellectually I might prefer the Honda. But if it was MY driveway, the Honda would spend significantly more time there…as I was gratifying myself in the Caddy.

On a side note: Aaron, since I assume that isn’t your driveway in the picture, is it a section of the Super-Top-Secret-Curvy-Test-Track?

Definately the cts-V…it makes me wonder why any vehicle manufacturer would invest on bio fuels or hydrogen when the technology for electric vehicles are avalible.Every one who reads these comments,pls check out the dodge circuit EV,100% electric!!

Answer a question for me. Where, besides La-La-Land, can you fuel up that FCX? Yes, it is a car of the future. Note I didn’t say THE car of the future, but A car of the future. It would likely be entertaining to drive in its own way, and for stop and go commuting in LA it would be the logical choice. But there’s no infrastructure for it yet outside of So-Cal. Plus, even the Honda web-site says it has a range of only 280 miles. 280 miles? That’s Seattle to Spokane. I expect a lot more range than that. That will probably increase in the future, but this is now. The CTS-V should get you 400 miles or more per tank on the open road. When you drive long distances, range counts.

For a car to really DRIVE, on a two-lane through the mountains where you have to accelerate quickly to pass the line of motorhomes, boat-towing pickups, and 4-bangers that can’t cope with a 7% grade uphill, give me the CTS-V. I’ll grant you it wouldn’t exactly be a good winter car up here by the 49th parallel, but if you can afford the CTS-V you can afford another couple grand for an old beat up 4×4 for snow days.

I’m all for saving the environment and whatnot but come on… Sometimes I drive for the pleasure of driving. And nothing is more pleasurable than 500+ HP. But some people dissagree with me and would rather be building a computer or something. I think you can’t compare the two, but if it were my driveway, there is no way I could pass up on the CTS-V. And by the way, GM is going to be just fine.

Mike in Minn: No, that is not the Top Secret Curvy Test Road. If I took pictures of it, it wouldn’t be a secret, would it? That’s the road that leads to Franklin Canyon Park here in LA.

Brent: Not many places. There is one station in LA proper, and a few others in the general area (Burbank, Irvine, Diamond Bar). A couple to the east. One in Las Vegas. And from there, there’s no fuel until Washington, DC. The Honda uses a 5,000 psi fill system, while other cars use 10,000 psi, so that limits things to.

That said, the station I’ve been using in LA uses electrolysis to produce hydrogen on-site — so basically, it takes water and electricity and makes hydrogen. That was a real eye-opener for me.

Range is nowhere near 280 miles. I’ve filled the car a few times, and it reports between 215 and 235 miles remaining. Real-world range seems closer to 220. The car is averaging 55 to 57 miles per kg of hydrogen, and the tank holds 4.1 kg. The fact that I have to drive up and over the hill into the valley to get home from the fueling station doesn’t help my range much. — Aaron

Aaron, if your filling station uses electricity to produce hydrogen, suddenly the “greenness” of your car of the future becomes suspect.

How is your electricity produced in California? Coal? Nuclear? Hydro? Fess up.

I’ll drive the Caddy and be honest about my hydrocarbons.

Honda in town.

Caddi on the road.

>How is your electricity produced in California? Coal? Nuclear? Hydro? Fess up.

Well, IGB, that’s the interesting part. The Shell Hydrogen station I am using, as far as I know, gets its power from the LA Department of Water and Power. Currently, LA DWP’s power sources are 47% coal, 29% natural gas, 7% “large” hydro, 9% nuclear, and 8% renewable (defined as “small” hydro, wind, solar, geothermal, biomass and waste). Now, LA DWP has a “green” power program that allows you to pay 3 cents/kWh more for “green” power, and the Shell Hydrogen station is, I am told, on this green power program. I don’t see how they can ensure that the power that comes to any once source is green, so I imagine the way it works is that if customers who check the green box consume 5% of their power, they make sure that at least 5% of their power comes from clean, renewable sources.

It’s a good question and a big concern about hydrogen, i.e. how much pollution are we *really* preventing. OTOH, using water and electricity solves the infrastructure problem that concerns me about hydrogen. That said, we do have an ongoing drought in the West. (Ask anyone who’s been to the Hoover Dam in the past couple of years.) If hydrogen becomes a reality, natural gas is expected to be the major source. Not as clean as wind and solar, but I’m told it’s cleaner in the “well-to-wheel” calculation than gasoline. It’s available in large amounts domestically. And if we run out, we can make hydrogen from other sources. Like water and electricity. — Aaron

Personally I would prefer the Caddy, but I am a true car guy, I raced professionally for six years, my career shifted early on and I went into stunt driving and film/video producing and directing, mostly for network TV commercials. Well over 100 car commercials for most manufacturers, shooting all over the planet. Thus, cars are a passion and I have owned some of the best, from 9 Corvettes to a Rolls and several other exotics.
Having said all that to say this, people that make negative remarks about a corporation like GM, right as they are finally headed in the right direction, those remarks are not good for this Country’s economy. People unfortunately are mostly followers and believe way too much what the National Media feeds them. This factor is one of the major contributors to why our economy is faultering. Newspapers and TV news primarily reflect what their owners want you to believe. Well that and the person with the perfect hair on camera trying to interject his own view-point that he/she believes will achieve recognition, at almost any cost. A motto in the news world is, “if it bleeds it leads”. Meaning, that negative information is what they enforce, and they embelish upon that negative as much as possible because they want to draw your attention! Stop believing everything you hear reported, and even that overly negative person on your block.
So let’s use our heads and stop letting the media influence us. The Cadillac CTS is an innovative, stylish great vehicle and we need to support industries that employ our U.S. work force.

I happen to agree with Ron. I was never a big GM fan (I worked for rental car companies in the Bad Old Days of the 1980s, and saw firsthand just how crappy their products could get), but over the last few years GM has really won me over based solely on product. It’s sad to see them facing the troubles now ahead of them. And even if someone is seriously considering a General Motors product, who would buy one when the news is saying they have one foot in the grave? And that buyer hesitation only compounds their problems. — Aaron

The Honda to go to work and when you get home get rid of all the day’s frustrations with some fun behind the wheel of the Caddy.

The CTS-V. Normally I preffer cars that are more economical, but this one goes to the Caddy. They are great cars, I can fill it up anywhere in the country, I can buy it and am not forced to lease, and oh yeah…500hp!

This discussion could be deja vu from a hundred years ago. On one hand, the horse and buggy were everywhere, employed tens of thosands of stable workers and blacksmiths. They were safe, with no chance of gas tanks blowing up. There was always a stable,on every corner with fresh hay, as opposed to the uncertainty of finding a “filler station”. Change will always come with a certain degree of opposition. But sooner or later realities will put the old ways by the wayside and make way for the new. Sooner than later gas shall return permanently to prices that will be unrealistic for the 500 hp cars with their unfashionable polluting emmissions and this whole discussion will loose its urgency and remain nothing but a faint memory of days gone by.

The Caddy for certain. For all the “alternative fuels are the future” guys (and gals) GM is a leader in ethanol vehicles, and every car they currently build is either available or easily transformed into an alky burner. Clean, reliable and AVAILABLE.

who cares what the future of the company is the question is what would you rather drive. Hmm.. let me think a 180 hp family car or a bada** 0-60 in under 5 seconds cadillac. when would most people have a chance to drive anything over 500 horses. Its a no brainer.

The CTS is my first choice but would like to see how the Honda drives. I do like the comment of the Honda for the city and the CTS for the highway. So torn..primal or cerebral??!!??

Of the two, the caddy……..Now throw in the VW diesel, I’d take the VW

While 553 hp is ridiculous, I would prefer the Cad’s luxury (sorry I’m an old fart). Besides, where could go with Honda?

By the by Aaron, I bought a Road Mice Corvette mouse and just it.

I love the new CTS-V (and I have actually driven it on a track)… but we will see them on local roads soon enough.

I would (and this hurts to say it) drive the FCX because it is one of a handful of cars on the road (and probably worth about a $1MM if it is one of the pre-pro handbuilt versions) and I like driving vehicles that are far from common… but I would also drive it first to get it out of the way… haha

Lucky for me I know Aaron personally and I had the pleasure of riding in both of these vehicles this pass weekend.

Now a little background on me so you understand my motivations before I speak of my opinions; I’m a techy guy who likes forward thinking and technology but I’m also a two time Infiniti G owner who loves the extra power and performance. My ultimate dream car is an Aston Martin DBS but I doubt I’ll ever make enough money to be able to buy one.

That being said I would definitely choose the FCX and here’s why.
1. Water! That’s all that’s needed to go in and that’s all that comes out! This is the same technology that launches with space shuttle, people!!! And that is just too freakin’ cool to pass up.

2. The CTS-V’s power is great but with all the speed laws and deteriorating road conditions we have here in the US, you can’t really use it for what it was made to do. And why own a car that you get enjoyment out of only once in a rare while?

On the future of hydrogen, keep this in mind:
1. More filling stations will come and as Aaron said every existing gasoline station can be easily converted.

2. On the Green part: even though electrolysis is the process used, there is no burning of massive amounts of diesel to run the boat to carry the crude to the refinery or run the tanker truck to deliver the fuel to the station itself. (Not to mention the pollutants that the holding tanks of fuel stations eek into the ground requiring the land gas stations sit on to become toxic over time). Consider every single factor when you are asking ‘Is this green?’ and keep in mind that it doesn’t have to be 100% it just has to be better than what we are doing now.

3. The technology will improve with higher capacity tanks allowing more range; higher capacity batteries allowing more power assist; and more efficient super conductors allowing increased horsepower. In the end it is theoretically possible that 10 or 20 years from now we could see 550 horsepower hydrogen cars as well.

Ok, my long winded opinion is complete. Hope you took the time to finish it

Much as I’d love the Caddy, probably the Honda. It is the future. The first gasoline powered cars had little range, little power, abhorrent emissions and got horribly bad mileage. Remember the old diesel trucks that were smokey and slow? I now have a 3/4 ton 4 x 4 with 450 hp and 900 ft/lbs of torque running on biodiesel getting 20+ mpg without any smoke or bad smells. Point is, advances will be made in hydrogen. Engineers will figure out how to get Hydrogen cars to go fast…probably absurdly fast, and get better mileage.

Also, I love the idea of a home fueling station. To have my own fuel station in my garage would be ridiculously convenient. Ultimately, the cost of hydrogen fuel should be extremely low because it is a locally sourced fuel. No refining, geopolitical or transport costs, assuming our country can get its proverbial head out of the proverbial place where the sun don’t shine and switch to 100% Nuclear/Wind/Hydro/Solar, saving us trillions of dollars a year. I see hydrogen and electric being the future. A good example of that rapid development is the electric car. Remember when electric cars were a joke when it came to performance? Now look at the 700 Horsepower Lightning which has a zero to 60 of 4 seconds and looks cool as hell.

[COMMENT EDITED - no name-calling, please, even you are talking about BMW owners.] Caddy for sure!

The Honda I can drive 550HP cars all day long but Hydrogen powered that’s interesting

@Tony: because he wouldn’t be a real BMW owner if he didn’t say something like that…

(techincally I guess I am a BMW owner too, as the Threatmobile is in my name! … damn …)

Very nicely written piece, DFI. And great stuff there Kevin. After reading all these comments, I guess the perfect scenario for me, would be to rent that hot rod Caddy from time to time and keep the Honda in the driveway all the time!

Neither. I’m not a Cadillac guy, and couldn’t afford one if I wanted one. I also don’t care for the Honda. It’s a copy of the Toyota Prius. They’re both “green” geek mobiles neither of which any significant number of people would have given much notice to had the price of gasoline not skyrocketed last year. They’re both ugly cars.

Give me a hybrid that is a normal looking car in an affordable price range WITHOUT all the unnecessary and ridiculous “green” crap that only serves to add unnecessary cost to the car, and tries to make all the green freaks feel good about driving a car.

For some odd reason, I started to think of the two cars as job applicants for the last position in my company. How would they present themselves? Who would I go with? Tough call.

FCX hands down. Drove it on the track at Consumer Reports. Love the technology. Plus, as an earlier poster noted, it’s worth more than $1 million. It would be great to have a $1 million car parked in the driveway (of course, I’d rather it was the Veyron).

@Used Cars Guide:
I mentioned that above… I remember seeing one brought down to cars and coffee and I thought it was funny that someone brought a new Honda that was worth more than most of the other cars there (except the Enzo parked in the back)

Nick says, “hyrogen is less explosive than gasoline?”
Nick needs to head back to “Chemistry 101″ and get an education.

Actually, Mark, Nick does have a point. “Explosive” may not be the best word, because hydrogen is pretty volatile stuff. But hydrogen rises and disperses rapidly. Compare that to gasoline (or, more specifically, gasoline fumes) which pool near the ground. There’s a great article on EVWorld.com showing an experiment where two similar cars, one hydrogen-fueled and one gasoline-fueled, were set up with fuel leaks and set on fire. Short version: The gasoline car was destroyed, the hydrogen car nearly undamaged. Full article here (you may have to click a “skip survey” link). Bottom line: Gasoline is the more dangerous fuel. — Aaron

in these times, certainly th Honda….

I’m an older guy! V-8 engines are my choice for as long as I can afford to run them, so my choice is the Cadillac. However, in all fairness to choice, you should be comparing apples to apples, not apples to oranges.

Really, were was your mind-set on this? In my opinion, considering the poor economics of the world today, your question was not a good topic.

@Mark

Most people when discussing hydrogen as a fuel source often think of the Hindenburg and shriek at the thought of that happening to their vehicle. While there may be some debate on the subject it is a well documented argument that the Hindenburg burned so quickly because the exterior paint used contained elements of thermite, one of the most combustible and hottest burning substances around. Just FYI.