Mercedes hedges alt-fuel bets with BlueZero electric, hydrogen, and hybrid models

When everyone was going hybrid, taking baby-steps toward an alternative-fueled future, Mercedes jumped into its prototype Hydrogen-powered machines and buzzed off toward the horizon. Now, perhaps realizing that it moved a bit too quickly for the distribution infrastructure to keep up, the company seems to be pulling back a bit, introducing the BlueZERO line of autos that all share the same shell -- pictured above looking good at its most flattering angle, but not so hot after the break. The series will encompass three cars: the fully-electric E-CELL (possibly featuring Tesla batteries), with a 120 mile range; the hydrogen-powered F-CELL, with a 248 mile range; and the hybrid E-CELL PLUS that, like the Volt, will carry a gasoline engine to recharge the batteries and provide up to 370 miles of non-stop motoring (10 more than Chevy's offering). The trio are set to release in 2010, which should be a historic year for the auto industry... assuming we still have an auto industry in 2010.

[Magallanes @ Dec 17th 2008 9:56AM]

price?

[Mobius_1 @ Dec 17th 2008 10:28AM]

5 cows. By the time these come to market cash will be worthless.

[M$FT @ Dec 17th 2008 10:33AM]

Yes, it's true, Micro$oft really sucks.....

[Magallanes @ Dec 17th 2008 10:35AM]

¿FTW

[Tinu @ Dec 17th 2008 10:41AM]

Will probably be expensive since it's "alt-fuel" and "Mercedes".

On a side-note, it looks really good from the back. But looks really terrible from the front. Yah....the back is "Wow" but the front is "No, not now". Hehe.

[wizzle @ Dec 17th 2008 1:28PM]

@Tinu:

a "butterface," if you will.

[superhobo @ Dec 17th 2008 2:24PM]

Looks like a big nose.

[MikeWard1701 @ Dec 19th 2008 6:39AM]

@Tinu

"it looks really good from the back. But looks really terrible from the front. Yah....the back is "Wow" but the front is "No, not now". Hehe."

LOL I know a few people like that.

[Nikos @ Dec 17th 2008 9:57AM]

2010..? Yeah, sure..! Try 2110 on Mars instead...

[crawdad689 @ Dec 17th 2008 10:02AM]

I disagree. I think the next 2 years will see a TON of great new innovation in the auto field.

That being said, I just paid $1.80/gallon to fill my tank up, and I paid up to $4.32/gallon over the summer. If gas stays this low, all those 'Mericans might claim back their Suburbans and F350s.... who knows.

Not me though. I'd love to have a fast, fun to drive, all-electric car. Something about silently zipping to 60 in under 5 seconds, seems pretty damn fun to me, idk.

[Maestro @ Dec 17th 2008 10:45AM]

Craw,

I disagree. I think everyone has been really spooked this time and I am hoping the incoming administration will be able to follow through on some of the alternative energy ideas.

[soop @ Dec 17th 2008 9:58AM]

I think it looks ok. Apart from the colour, obviously.

[Big Boy @ Dec 17th 2008 12:55PM]

I think it looks good apart from the grill, the head lights and ground effects are hot. Give it more of the new C-Class grill and you've got a winner. Price on the smaller non US MB are usually not really bad I would guess about 5k more then the Prius for a model like the one pictured above. Correct me if I'm wrong people in the European area's.

[wsnideman @ Dec 17th 2008 9:59AM]

Why did they hit it so hard with the ugly stick? THis thing reminds me of a Chevy Aztec.

[Tyler @ Dec 17th 2008 10:12AM]

pontiac?

[kjb434 @ Dec 17th 2008 10:18AM]

Same thing.

[anon @ Dec 17th 2008 10:00AM]

Another Alienware laptop, huh? Oh, wait ....

[Valicore @ Dec 17th 2008 10:03AM]

It's not that bad, but it is very European looking. This is a much more common body style, at least it was when it was when I lived in Italy. They could probably teach the design slightly and have a pretty popular care in the US.

[Boarderwoot @ Dec 17th 2008 10:03AM]

Looks like a modified version of my '08 rabbit, im not sure about that color though unless they were going for a "green" concept car

[Rob @ Dec 17th 2008 10:05AM]

It's THREE, THREE, THREE alternative fuel choices in one!

[who? @ Dec 17th 2008 10:07AM]

Hydrogen FTW!!!

[Marcus @ Dec 17th 2008 10:15AM]

Anybody knows what the MPG is on a hydrogen car like this one?

[crawdad689 @ Dec 17th 2008 10:07AM]

Well played, sir.

[CarFan @ Dec 17th 2008 10:11AM]

you guys should take a look at this

http://www.vimeo.com/2461992

[denom @ Dec 17th 2008 10:43AM]

Lets dont forget this one as well :
http://www.engadget.com/2008/10/03/pininfarina-designed-b0-electric-car-debuts-at-paris-motor-show/

[Sprash @ Dec 17th 2008 10:13AM]

The batteries won't be supplied by Tesla as stated in the article. Mercedes is going to produce its own batteries in cooperation with the German based company Evonik to get better reliability.

[Patriks7 @ Dec 17th 2008 10:18AM]

Well definitely looks better than the other offerings (like those that look waaaaaay too futuristic..)

[kjb434 @ Dec 17th 2008 12:38PM]

Haha,

As I thought. When you can't argue really facts, you resort to name calling.

[Matt_G @ Dec 18th 2008 1:05PM]

KJB has done nothing but state facts and information, it is possible he is wrong but I don't believe so. He is rated poorly for stating information, whereas phanbouy has done nothing to refute any information KJB has proposed and he isn't rated down? This is the level of groupthink that has allowed people like Al Gore to corrupt true science to further political agendas.

The governments of the world will not solve any technical or environmental dilemmas! Government cannot move at the speed of technology. Bill Clinton was pushing for mass numbers of electric cars in an unrealistic time frame. Truthfully all electric cars will likely never be a viable transportation alternative to fossil fuel cars. No matter how long the battery can hold charge it will always be limited in it's recharge rate by electron flow. The best long term solution is an efficient electric drivetrain with an efficient on-board generator. This is the direction that the Volt, the new Town&Country and Wrangler, and apparently this care are going. For now an ICE is a good on-board generator, primarily because of the abundance of gasoline for refueling. As hydrogen becomes easier and cheaper to produce and transport a hydrogen-fuel cell becomes the ideal replacement for the ICE. Remember, the cars are essentially the same, it's simply a matter of what produces the electricity.

The reason the current administration did not ratify the recent Kyoto protocol is because it realized that government directives in a democratic society cannot be the proponents of great change. Our society is capitalist, if something is not cheaper to produce or make more money we don't use it! As much as people would like to care about trees at the end of the day we care about dollars.

[kjb434 @ Dec 17th 2008 10:20AM]

If I'm going to pony up money for a Benz, the last thing I would want is some crap like this.

Put this technology in one of the regular models. Oh wait, no one will buy it!

[Wwhat @ Dec 17th 2008 10:33AM]

Are you per chance a CEO of GM?

[kjb434 @ Dec 17th 2008 10:45AM]

No, I'm someone who likes real an viable cars.

Also, I love the line that GM is evil because they killed the electric/hydrogen cars. Did you know the GM is currently the largest builder of Hydrogen Fuel Cell vehicles in the world? They manufacture buses with this technology because it provide more bang for the buck. Cars are a waste as fuel cell vehicles because they are impractical right now. A large SUV or Truck is better suited to the technology.

[Hackettman @ Dec 17th 2008 11:10AM]

Decent point...... But they are losing out.... They just dont make the cars people want/can afford to drive.....

[kjb434 @ Dec 17th 2008 11:17AM]

Another false point.

I don't own a GM (I own a Volvo), but GM does sell a lots of cars and is on par with Toyota and VW. Outside of the US, GM division are quite profitable. Within the US they aren't profitable, but are still selling lot of cars. The reason: It's called legacy Union Costs.

A recent stat (I'll have to dig it up) show how GM and Toyota both sold about 9 million vehicles in a year, but GM lost about 4 billion dollars and Toyota made 15 billion dollars in profit. How? They both sell lots of cars in the same price range and markets.

[phanbouy fan fan @ Dec 17th 2008 11:27AM]

How cute, the hardcore Oil Whore KBJB666's shillin' for dino-fuel some more.

[kjb434 @ Dec 17th 2008 11:33AM]

What's so bad about oil?

The carbon? That ship has sail. Evidence is building that carbon isn't a problem in the climate change. It's a little thing called the sun.

On top of that, we have more oil than we know what do with. On top of that bio-diesel is becoming easier to manufacture and the quality is on par with auto diesel. All bio-diesel is, is the manufacturing the same carbon chains for fuel that are present in a barrel of oil.

[phanbouy fan fan @ Dec 17th 2008 11:35AM]

Evidence is that you hate science and love fumes. Go back to Exxon. And I'm sure you're reeeeally pushing biodiesel out there. Haha, good job shill, at least you admit it.

[kjb434 @ Dec 17th 2008 11:40AM]

Actually,

I'm a man of science myself. That's why I can justify my position on this.

Have fun with this article.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=11383

Scientist almost daily are coming out again the Climate Change Hoax.

Open your damn eyes and actually think for yourself. You aren't doing so good up Al Gore's ass.

[phanbouy fan fan @ Dec 17th 2008 11:46AM]

"A man of science"

Do you wear a cape in that fantasy?

[kjb434 @ Dec 17th 2008 12:04PM]

If I do, I have to borrow it from you.

Two factors caused the recent rise in global temperatures in since the late 80's to early 2000: The sun and the fall of the USSR.

1.) The sun had an unusually active season very similar to warm period during the 30s. We are currently entire the Sun's inactive period. We should have lower than average global temperatures for next 10 years. I would be hard pressed to fight Solar research community on this one. On top of that, the solar community checks global temperature variations from satellites which give more scientifically reliable readings versus ground based stations.

2.) How the hell did the fall of the USSR cause global temperatures to rise? Well, global mean temperatures for UN IPCC studies were based on about 15,000 temperature readings across the globe. During the 80s, USSR and the eastern block countries they controlled fell into hard times (communism wasn't working so well) and neglected the approximately 5000 temperature stations. Much of the the USSR and eastern block countries represent cold regions of the earth (even in north hemisphere summer months). The lack of readings began to skew the results. They didn't all go at once either. Over time the temperature stations were neglected. The more that were reporting the more the numbers skewed warmer for the planet. The IPCC did try to adjust it's measurements to offset this to meet some statistical quality. The even went back through the 90's and re-adjusted previous record year global mean temperatures to lower levels.

You, these are just two examples. I can list many more other angles of how the climate change community is deceiving the masses. Climate change is a political issues handle by bureaucrats with a motive. Most of the scientist that agree with the hoax are paid by these bureaucrats. The link in my previous post contains several scientists that vocal changed there position once they left these jobs.

So, are you going to just call me a name now or actually throw some "scientific" evidence back?

There's a reason courts in the UK have required schools to present the 9 lies and/or misleading aspects to Al Gore's movie.

[phanbouy fan fan @ Dec 17th 2008 12:08PM]

Hahah, now you're raving about them thar communists. Watch out, they'll steal your precious bodily fluids.

[stormhit @ Dec 17th 2008 6:14PM]

kjb434's first two replies are entirely accurate, should be pointed out, and don't deserve their down ratings. Unfortunately everything after that became rather indefensible.

[jalapeno @ Dec 17th 2008 10:26AM]

Nice car but most likely very expensive.

[dosguy @ Dec 17th 2008 10:27AM]

With everyone losing their jobs, soon nobody will even NEED a car, let alone be able to afford to buy one. Hell, you won't even need to drive to Unemployment. They'll mail your check to you. Assuming, of course, that the Post Office remains in business, and that Unemployment funds don't run out.

[fistpittingnork @ Dec 17th 2008 10:29AM]

From the back it looks like a 4-door Yaris with 2008 Civic sedan taillights.

[kjb434 @ Dec 17th 2008 11:12AM]

Which is why I would never buy it!

[phanbouy fan fan @ Dec 17th 2008 12:06PM]

Wow ksbs9793423, are you going to reply to every single post in this thread? We get it, you hate hate hate anything that doesn't run on pure gasoline.

I'm sure if you just hate a little harder you'll win more converts to your cause of licking the shitty boots of Status Quo.

[denom @ Dec 17th 2008 10:30AM]

"... which should be a historic year for the auto industry... assuming we still have an auto industry in 2010."

That made me laugh really bad ! Thnx for cheering me up ! :D

[Dave @ Dec 17th 2008 10:56AM]

I always rent me an A-class whenever I pop over to Europe; love 'em - wish they sold 'm here:o)

[jayp0411 @ Dec 17th 2008 11:06AM]

DAMN... that is FUGLY!!