The hybrid hype has finally reached Detroit. This fall, the gi-normous GMT900-based GMC Yukon (a.k.a. the Chevrolet Tahoe) will offer optional dual-mode hybrid engine technology. Next year, Chrysler will follow suit with a hybrid Durango/Aspen. Both automakers promise 25 percent better mileage on the highway. Chrysler is claiming a 40 percent increase in the city. GM promises a 25 percent urban gain. Happy days are here again! You’ll soon be able to have your SUV and afford to drive it too! And cool the planet! Or, you know, not.
While the idea of a full-size hybrid SUV may send California’s Governator into a muscle flexing frenzy, one doesn’t have to read too carefully between the lines to see the abject futility of this venture. Let’s crunch a few numbers.
According to our friends over at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Yukon/Tahoe twins burn gas at the non-PC pace of one gallon every 16 miles in town, and once every 21 miles on the open road. Chrysler’s most efficient V8 uses gas at a buttock-clenching 14/19 mpg.
To fix this sales sucking situation, GMC and Chrysler have equipped their big rigs with Prius-like (though proprietary) dual-mode hybrid technology. At low speeds and light loads, the hi-tech SUV’s can move forwards (or backwards) via electric power, internal combstion or some combination thereof. At high speeds or heavy loads (i.e. drag racing with a bass boat behind), the hybrid's batteries assist the engine. Add regenerative brakes and displacement-on-demand cylinder deactivation and away you go.
Surely all this ground-breaking technology will provide significant efficiency improvements and fuel cost savings. I don’t know about you but I’m thinking, what, mid to high 20’s? That kind of improvement might even give the SUV genre a new lease (five year loan?) on life. No sir.
For those of you who haven't done the math yet, the hybridified GM and DCX SUV’s are set to eke out a paltry 19-20mpg. And that’s city driving, where hybrids typically shine.
The enemy, of course, is weight. Just as you can’t make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear, you can’t turn a gas hog into silk pajamas (or something like that). Although GM is retrofitting the hybrid Yukahoe with aluminum components to compensate for 300 lbs. of batteries, it’s more or less a wash. The SUV’s will still weigh in at nearasdammit 5000 lbs. (or more depending on drivetrain).
Bottom line: a 25 percent improvement on not much ain’t a whole lot. But it is something, right?
“We have to think hard about the consumer who buys vehicles like the Dodge Durango and the Chrysler Aspen,” prevaricates Mark Chernoby, who’s just one letter away from having the world’s worst name for a VP of Advanced Vehicle Engineering. “These are people who want to have hauling capability.”
OK, but how many people who really need 8900 lbs. of towing capacity are gonna fork out a bunch more money for a vehicle offering few more mpg’s– especially when there's a lot full of heavily discounted non-hybrids lazing around?
Yes, here we go again: the “hybrid premium.” Forking out a couple of thousand bucks extra for hybrid tech has got to be pretty low on your average SUV buyer’s “to do” list. Buyers who previously owned full-sized SUV’s as status symbols (and got religion down at their local pump ‘n pay) have either left the genre already or can’t wait to do so. And any Chevy, GMC, Dodge or Chrysler dealer who thinks he’s going to see Prius drivers wheeling into his lot to trade-up to a hybrid SUV is plumb crazy.
It’s no surprise that the domestic automaker’s first serious hybrid offerings have arrived in SUV form. SUV’s are cheap to build, the factories and suppliers are already in place and they’re the automakers’ highest profit product. Besides, genuine clean sheet designs are extremely expensive and risky propositions. Better to stick with what you know.
But American consumers will quickly see that boosting SUV gas mileage by 25 percent is nothing more than porcine lipstick application. If gas prices crest four bucks a gallon this summer, this insight will only require of femtosecond of consumer decision making. The odds that gas prices will trend downwards enough to lure large numbers of SUV buyers by the fall, when GMC unleashes their hybrids, are smaller than the Honda Fits, Nissan Versas, Toyota Yari and Chevrolet Aveos many of SUV refugees are now driving (no, really).
By the same token, Chrysler will enjoy the privilege of watching GMC fail to sell their hybrid Yukahoes before they open the gates on gas – electric Aspangos. Perhaps DCX (or whomever) will learn by example and not spend precious advertising and marketing resources on this ill-advised makeover. Maybe they’ll build a hybrid-powered 300C instead, to help revive that line’s flagging sales. Who knows? Maybe gas pigs can fly.
A femtosecond is one billionth of one millionth of a second.
(Just thought I’d help out any other scientific illiterates.)
Good article, Megan.
Don’t forget that miles per gallon is an inverse unit so comparing changes at different levels can be misleading; the ‘same’ change makes more difference at the low end. For a fixed amount of driving, going from 16mpg to 19mpg (19% improvement) saves more gas than going from 35mpg to 50mpg (43% improvement).
Let’s say a driver averages 10,000 miles per year at 16mpg city is 625 gallons per year. At 19mpg its 526 gallons. 99 times $3 equals a 6yr 9 mo. payback for a $2000 initial outlay. Gas at $4 changes payback to 5 yrs. And that is worst case city driving. Highway would be 140%x21mpg=29.4mpg. 10,000/29.4=340gal 10,000/21=476gal 476-340=136 136×3=$408 $2000/408=4yrs 11mos payback. At $4 it would be 3yrs 8mos. Of course the payback will vary depending upon city/hwy driving, miles per year, and hybrid upgrade cost ( I am taking “a couple of thousand” as $2000.) Running the numbers it sure looks like at higher ($3 and above) it will be well worth it. So why the hostility? I would like to remind everyone who writes and/or reads this blog that there are MILLIONS of people who CANNOT sit in anything shorter than a FULL SIZE truck-based vehicle. PERIOD! Cars have had all of their headroom surgically removed so trucks are all that is left to choose from. Take your snark and apply it to all of the CARS that are supposedly so ROOMY and yet require tall drivers to recline to the horizontal to attempt to sit in the darn things. And by the way-6’0″ ain’t tall. 6’3″ and up is tall. Take your “full size” Avalons and Panther platform crap and the like and get real. They’re “mid-sized” because taller drivers need not apply. Don’t “fix” what ain’t broke! Full-size SUV’s are the only “cars” some of us have left to choose from.
kps – That’s true. Actually, parallel SUV hybrids, or better yet, pickup trucks, make sense, at least because of the wide powerband. Better than nothing.
Like with diesels, it makes more sense on big cars than it does on small ones. Not that making small hybrids is bad, it’s just not as big of a change.
Let’s say you own a 2005 Tahoe, and are enjoying around 14 mpg.
Let’s also say you financed $35K for 72 months at 7.95%. You’d owe about $25K, with a trade-in value of about $22K. You’re $3k upside down right now, and that doesn’t factor in what happens to values if gas goes to $4/gal.
If that new hybrid Tahoe costs an extra $2K, now you’re $5K down on the deal. Assuming a jump from 14 to 18 mpg, it would take about 6 years at $3.50/gal to cover that $5K.
Since most people don’t keep cars that long, it’s a loser’s bet.
Your mileage may vary.
rjsasko-For anybody who says they can’t fit into a small car because they are too tall-I have two words for them:
Scion xB.
Don’t forget, a hybrid will hold its value WAY better. Look at those diesel Jettas, they turned out to be a better investment because 5 years after the purchase, they’ll still return you the original difference between gas and TDI model, and then some. Or look at the 350SDL, those things still cost 10-12K, 17 years after being made :)
I just looked up the head room for the Chevy Tahoe and the Scion xB.
Scion xB: 46.1 inches
Chevy Tahoe: 41.1 inches
Zarba, I’m sure manufacturers are relying on big SUV buyers to look at this from an environmental perspective, not an economic one.
O.k., maybe not.
I’m betting on this horse too, considering I only got 22-23 mpg (mixed driving with the A/C on) in the Lexus GS Hybrid. The best I managed was 25mpg…not impressed at all.
A hybrid, full-framed SUV is almost as nuts as marketing Crossovers as being the best of car and truck in one package.
Seems like these things are the truck hybrid equivalent of the Accord hybrid. Instead of using the technology to really improve mileage, they’re using it as 1) Halo technology and 2) to gain bragging rights on maxmimum torque or towing capacity.
In other words, why couldn’t they have put a V6 in these things (with cylinder deactivation) and put a bigger battery/electric motor to give equivalent-to-a-V8 acceleration. The electric system could help out with towing on hills, but not long mountain grades.
I’m guessing the cost to do a truly unique hybrid system was too much to spend (as was mentioned in the article) and they simply couldn’t lower themselves to selling a V6 full size ute.
These trucks (non-hybrid version) are meant to be open highway cruisers, off roaders, and towing machines. They are not good urban stop-go-runners where a full dual mode hybrid shines. Buy a Prius for that.
Another waste of resources by Detroit.
rjsasko
My dad is 6’3″. He has no trouble fitting into a Ford Focus. My Integra was a bit of a stretch, but he would manage it just for the fun of it. Oh, and he’s had 2 vertebra in his back fused. A friend of mine is 6’4″, he drives a 300M now, and previously has driven a Sable and a Bonneville w/ no problems. Check out a Vibe/Matrix, an xB, an Outback, or most modern hatches… they’re designed to have more head room. And a lot of them sit higher up (like the focus) so you don’t have to sit ‘down’ into them. So why the hostility towards cars? Even Shaq had his Lambo stretched to accomodate his substantial frame.
Most of the people that ‘need’ trucks don’t really ‘need’ them at all. And many of them are realizing that need != want, and finding alternatives. My mom’s side of the family consists of about 90% farmers. They *need* trucks. And they use them. And they won’t get a hybrid truck, because they understand that the cheapest truck is the one you already own. You forgot to figure new vehicle payments on top of skyrocketing gas prices into your equation.
rjsasko:
I find it highly doubtful that the hybrid will get 29.4 mpg anywhere except parked with the engine off.
While I tend to agree that anything that helps mpg is a good thing for these behemoths, you can bet that the hybrid premium will mostly drive consumers to more fuel efficient vehicles. After all, why buy a hybrid Tahoe when you can have an Acadia that gets better mileage?
GM should be selling hybrids across the board and challenging Toyota to keep up. As it stands, they’re a few years late to the party and trying top sell green tech to people who don’t care about it. If you really use your Tahoe for towing, mpg is not the issue.
Obviously, as gas prices rise the hybrid’s payback time shortens. The question is how much consumers are willing to bet on that when they buy a vehicle.
Lastly, I’ll just throw in the question of relaibility. How many consumers want to be the first to buy a complex technology from GM? The diesels of the 70’s and the Cadillac V-8-6-4 debacle are still on some people’s minds.
@rjsasko – My friend is 6’9″ tall, and drives a Taurus. Back in the day, I even managed to squeeze him into my ’79 Corolla. Comfortable? Oh, hell no. But, anyway, perhaps you should tone down the snark detector and take some deep, calming breaths – tall people tend to have more strokes and such, don’t they? YMMV
Most of the people I see driving giant SUVs are tiny women… or maybe it is just the perspective…
Sid Vicious
GM is using the dual hybrid technology already in city buses, where it *is* being put to good use and saving money/pollution. City buses put on enough miles, and use enough gas that the numbers makes sense. But SUVs? Get real. I wonder what the R&D premium was for the hybrid tech. It costs a lot more to put a hybrid engine in a vehicle than the $3k they’ll be tacking onto the Yukon, and I’m sure they think that they’ll recoup those dollars faster through SUV sales than car sales.
“I just looked up the headroom for the Chevy Tahoe and the Scion xB”: 41.1 vs. 46.1 for the xB. GET REAL! Tall people have these things called “legs” and this thing called a “spine” as well as “height”. This “spine” thingy will not fold in half (more than once) to get into and out of a vehicle. Those things called “legs” do not retract when driving vehicles sans leg room. They have to go somewhere. Of course removing the front seat and sitting in the back seat might provide that extra little bit of room to prevent knee/nose contact. It is absurdities like suggesting a Scion xB as a better alternative than a Tahoe for roominess that may explain how the average Joe on the street seems to be getting dumber by the minute.
Megan, would you rather have GM and DCX stick their heads in the sand about the cause/effect relationship between oil/war/Al Gore and the decline in large vehicle sales? I don’t see how any other conclusion is possible from your argument.
And no mention of Ford? How is it worse to offer a vehicle that gets better fuel economy?
Even with high gas prices, there will still be a large market for large SUVs and, more importantly, pickup trucks. Developing a hybrid system that can work with a large truck apparently isn’t the easiest thing in the world to do – otherwise you can guarantee that Toyota would have beat them to it. So, yes, we should wonder why anyone would want to own an Aspen, hybrid powered or not, but don’t knock the companies for creating the most fuel efficient vehicles in their price range.
“But how many people who need 8900 lbs of towing capacity are hankering for a few more mpg’s?” – I’m pretty sure the answer is every single one.
14/19 is the 4wd Durango/Aspen. The 2wd is 15/20. Add 40%/25% to those numbers and you have 21/25mpg. If I were Chrysler, I would put that 25mpg figure on every bit of advertising they have. It is going to be nothing but a positive for them.
And since when do you have to “recoup your investment” when it comes to buying a hybrid? I thought the goal was to reduce energy consumption and greenhouse gases. Prius owners paid a pretty steep premium to drive a jelly bean on wheels that would cost 15K if it were gas powered.
If Toyota had announced the exact same thing, what a difference the response would be….
Scion xB front leg room: 40.7 in.
Chevy Tahoe front leg room: 41.3 in.
Enjoy that extra half-inch with your $3/gal gas. One of my old co-workers was about 6’4″ and he drove an xB quite comfortably. You want knee to nose contact? Try driving a Miata.
Here’s why it is a good move by GM. I need a full sized big truck to put my big old fat ass in. (And bithc stop telling me that I need to lose 150lb before Thanksgiving when you need to do the same) So the extra cash I save on gas can go to maintaining my physique. And then next time round I will still need a big full sized pick up for my continuing big old fat ass. And you thought GM didn’t know anything about its customers!
Not IF but WHEN gas hits $4 per gallon.
I’m very doubtful of any hybrid holding it’s value any better than it’s standard version twin. At the rate of what’s going on in hybrid technology, each model will be outdated just as quickly as any new phone/pc/gizmo that hits the market today.
What would you pay for one of the first 2001 Prius models that came out? Maybe a better question is why you even buy one when the current crop has made considerable improvements.
FYI I was 6’3″ in elementary school…your dad is a piker height wise. Try being 6’7″ and sitting in those suggested alternative vehicles. Get real! You shorties have no d@mned idea how much havoc and problems you have created for taller drivers. Not only is the choice of vehicle to drive darn near zero but try excluding “catching a ride” with darn near anyone and forget taking a cab unless lying down in the back seat is your forte’. As for whomever has the friend who is 6’9″ and drives a Taurus God help his back when he gets older. I was just like him years ago. Folded myself into all kinds of autos. It will catch up with him sure as God made little green apples.
When someone, somewhere makes a car that has legroom, headroom, ease of entry/exit, and affordability and dagnabbit STYLE you all can attack the full size suv/trucks. Until someone provides an actual REALISTIC alternative save the snark. Full size suv’s are all that is left that fit the bill.
P.S. My hybrid payback numbers in a previous post are based upon numbers stated in the editorial. Your mileage may vary.
Good writeup, Megan – DC and GM are trying to make more money from the same old paradigm, milk the body-on-frame product line for all it’s worth.
Tahoe does have more @$$-width vs. xB, 64.4in wide vs. 50.6 (subtract center console and divide by 2 for the real #). Sadly, that’s the dimension that many people need, not headroom and legroom where xB has it completely spanked.
BTW, if you take CR’s pessimistic Durango 5.7 4WD test loop 12mpg (mixed) x 1.25 = a whopping 15mpg. Party on!
I think hybrid DOES make sense for large vehicles, such as pickup trucks, to help improve mileage when they’re not towing, which is most of the time.
However, what counts is good execution. Here GM seems to be dropping the ball again. Toyota gets 40% real world mileage improvement out of their hybrids. So if GM gets only 25% they’re not going to be competitive. That’s assuming that all the manufacturers, with hard work, will be able to make the hybrid feature financially viable.
Choosing between a Chevy Tahoe hybrid and a Toyota Highlander hybrid, which would you prefer?
(the Chevy has 6,000 lbs towing capacity and the Toyota has 5,000 lbs towing capacity).
Chew on this — as long as you’re still burning gas, you’re still creating greenhouse gases. If you want to reduce your emissions and reduce your dependence on fossil fuels *and* get good gas mileage, get a turbo diesel. The newest diesels will even meet California’s emission requirements (Bluetec FTW).
I’m not saying to not put hybrid tech in vehicles, I’m saying DO IT RIGHT. This hybrid V-8 nonsense is another nail in GM’s coffin. If they really were serious about saving the environment, they’d scrap all but a handful of their biggest gas-guzzlers, and put out their Trax concept as a real production car w/ a dual mode hybrid engine. If they really want to survive in today’s market, a hybrid Hemi is not the way to do it.
Brick aeroplanes? Good idea … :-)
SuperAROD: If Toyota had announced the exact same thing, what a difference the response would be….
Not on here. Go back and look at the reviews here for the Toyota Highlander and Lexus hybrids. None of them found rationale for the hybrid system in any of these vehicles – and in fact found them to be lacking in comparison with their gas-powered equivalents. (And many reviewers elsewhere questioned the logic of the hybrid implementation in these vehicles as well.)
Rjsako
You’re the one that said, “6′3″ and up is tall.” We were merely providing data that 6’3″ can fit happily into most cars. Perhaps that’s another equation — lifetime fuel cost savings vs. lifetime chiropractor expenses.
EJ
Toyota uses different, better tech. And so does Ford. I wouldn’t mind getting an Escape hybrid myself, if I wasn’t addicted to fast cars. Maybe when I get old and fat…
starlightmica
Amen to that. Most of the people I know that drive trucks in the city do so to accommodate their girth more than their height. Bench seats and seatbelt extenders for everyone!
Thank you, Frank. Toyota is having an even harder time selling Highlanders than Priuses right now. I don’t know a single person that considered the hybrid Highlander/RX to be practical in any way, much the way people roundly dismissed the hybrid Accord. What’s the point of paying the premium for the hybrid tech when other vehicles in the same class, with the same power, get the same or better gas mileage?
Is it just me or does most of the Hybrid phenomenon seem like the triumph of marketing hype over facts? I’ve heard people use the term “hybrid” as though it was some sort of holy blessing, endowing a vehicle with an aura of Immaculate Combustion. Yet, the only thing good about hybrids is that they raise MPG – so if you can get the raised MPG without the hybrid technology, wouldn’t that be a solution as good as – or even better than – a hybrid?
As hybrid-mania takes off, I expect we’ll see brisk sales of fake “hybrid” badges for people to slap on their cars the way tuners slap on fake “Type R” badges (“Wow! I didn’t know Dodge made a ‘type R’ Neon!”)
Not everyone likes the shape of a Scion xB, therefore it is not an options. I have a tall family and I do alot of work around the house so I need room. Hatchbacks and the xB doesn’t accomidate 4×8 sheet of plywood. A Tahoe/Yukon supports all these options. Having a shut off engine at stop would be great for going back and forth to work in, since because of not “needings” but wanting the size of an SUV is nice. I could borrow a truck yes, but why?!
@SuperAROD:
I thought the goal was to reduce energy consumption and greenhouse gases.
I think if you want to reduce energy consumption and greenhouse gases, chosing a hybrid vehicle or any vehicle is probably the wrong way to go about it. You can reduce your impact by working close to where you live, by living in a smaller house, riding a bike or walking for errands and commuting, riding the bus instead of driving, walking, etc.
Choosing a car which gets an additional 3MPG makes such a small carbon difference on your 80 mile round trip commute to your mc mansion than getting a flexcar for your once a week driving errands and using human powered transportation for the rest of it.
I”m not saying that people should stop driving cars; There are many places, jobs, and lifestyles whih require individual vehicles for transportation. However, if you are that concerned about being environmentally friendly there are lifestyle choices you can make whch will have a drastic and immediate effect on your carbon output. My car is pretty inefficient, but I own it outright, pay little for insurance, and the relative inefficiency is balanced out by the fact I drive it 20 miles a week or so, compared to people I know who drive their cars 40 miles a day.
A hybrid makes sense if you have to drive, are concerned about appearances, and want to save a little at the pump, but it does not make any more sense than a smaller, lighter car.
The problem here is the deceiving “have your cake and eat it too” ethics of these offerings. “Save the environment (or fuel) while driving as fast (or heavy) as you want” doesn’t parse.
I have a lot more respect for the light-weight, truly fuel efficient vehicle that has performance characteristics, than for bricks on wheels fitted out with “hybrid” engines. It’s just lousy engineering.
Here’s a bit of interesting engineering, conventional and efficient:
Alfa Romeo 159 Sportwagon, 2,4l, 20 valve diesel engine.
200bhp@4000 rpm
295 lb ft@2000 rpm
Top speed 140 mph
Fuel efficiency: Town: 30.1 mpg/Out of town: 50.4 mpg
C02: 184g/km
I’m 6’4″ – the seats in the back fold down – and it’s fun to drive … :-)
BTW – GM paid good money to Fiat to avoid having to transfer the Alfa technology to any GM product.
I used to buy Jeeps with solid towing capacity (three of them in a row). Must be a slow learner, as it took me years to realize that out of a full year’s driving I would use that hook maybe six-seven times.
For work professionals the situation is a different one – but the solution suggested here isn’t even worthy of being called a stopgap.
Martin Albright:
Here you go, official GM Hybrid decals:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Official-GM-Hybrid-Decal-and-Stickers_W0QQcmdZViewItemQQcategoryZ50446QQihZ003QQitemZ130092577804QQrdZ1QQsspagenameZWD1V
Toyota has not done a good job of marketing the Highlander. Supposedly 31MPG should be a big selling point, even though we are talking a smaller class of vehicle with only a 5000 lb towing capacity.
But you underestimate the impact the GM/DCX 2 mode is going to have.
An Aspen/Durango with 335 HP, 9000 lb towing capacity, seating for 8 AND 21/25 MPG to boot? I would say good enough to increase sales of the Durango platform by 25%, minimum. The 6600 sold last month turns into 8500 with the hybrid. Easily.
another interesting xB fact, there is more rear leg room then in a BMW 7.
# SuperAROD:
May 2nd, 2007 at 3:35 pm
An Aspen/Durango with 335 HP, 9000 lb towing capacity, seating for 8 AND 21/25 MPG to boot? I would say good enough to increase sales of the Durango platform by 25%, minimum. The 6600 sold last month turns into 8500 with the hybrid. Easily.
I’m going to go out on a limb here and claim that towing capacity is utterly irrelevant to the vast majority of SUV buyers. Furthermore, I’m going to claim that the average car, which can tow in the vicinity of 1000-1500 lbs, has a tow capability that’ll cover the vast majority of American towing needs.
So, increasing tow capacity on the Aspen isn’t going to cause a huge increase in sales. SUV’s appeal lies in three things: the ability to see under the car to look for attackers, the ability to see over traffic, and the envy induced in one’s neighbors who also want an SUV. Reason #3 is fading – the market perception of SUVs is changing and smaller (i.e. CUV’s) are coming into vogue. Reasons #1 and #2 are the biggest reasons why women, who drive most car purchase descisions, want SUVs (look it up, this is a well-established fact).
$4 gas and 20 mpg city when your neighbor is happy in their Fit getting 33 mpg city and waving their extra cash in your face makes a hybrid Aspen/Tahoe/other tank irrelevant.
Sure they’ll sell some, sure it’s good to increase mileage, but this is wasted effoprt on the part of DCX and GM. They need to put these drivetrains in Malibus, Sebrings, and Astras instead.
leighzbohns,
In a perfect world, absent of other outside factors, moving closer to where you live and getting a smaller house would be a nifty idea. Unfortunately, in most major metropolitan areas, the closer your house is to the city, the more expensive it is, and unlike cars where the price is generally determined by the vehicle’s size, the size of a house bears no impact on what it will cost. In most cases, moving to the city to save a few dollars in your morning commute, while shelling out much more in mortgage and property taxes, while subjecting your children to overcrowded schools and a substandard education that plagues many public school districts of urban areas, and putting up with lower air quality, higher crime, and other things that make suburban life attractive while living in a tiny house simply makes no sense.
McMansion or not, it’s just cheaper to move away from the city. A longer commute in many people’s mind is a reasonable sacrifice for a higher quality of living.
A more realistic solution would be to make your home more energy effieicent and look for commuting alternatives like commuter railways and vanpools.
For changes as small as 25%, it’s not worth the added complexity. Here’s my rationale: My daily driver is a jacked up ‘89 Toyota 4Runner on oversized tires (not the smartest choice for a daily driver, but I’ll pay more for fuel to be happy). On my daily commute (60% city under 25MPH and 40% Highway above 50MPH) I average around 23MPG (corrected for the large tires). For an 18 year old truck with 260,000 miles, I think that’s pretty darn good. Now, if I drive like a jackass I’ll get about 16MPG which is a ~30% drop in milage! As gas prices have risen my jackass level has dropped and I’m much more conservative on my accelerations and lane changes and all of that. So, if I can save ~30% in milage just by being smarter when I drive, why can’t anyone else. Why pay extra for a complex hybrid when you can just be smarter? (And driving like a jackass doesn’t save you much time – for me it saves less than 5 minutes on a 17 mile commute). Just yesterday on my drive home, there was someone in a Jeep Grand Cherokee weaving in and out of traffic and jumping on the throttle and brake all the time, and she pulled into my neighborhood about 2 car lengths ahead of me. Just calm down, lower your blood pressure, and save some money!
@Miked
For changes as small as 25%, it’s not worth the added complexity.
Precisely!
A technologically advanced hybrid from a company known for reliability and good service is one thing.
The same from the 2.5 famouos mostly for their dismal dealer service.
Right sucka !!!!
In 30 years of working with the auto industry the one thing that always amazed me was watching dealer techs diagnosing the most simple electrical problems by tearing cars apart.
It took them 20 years to get up to speed diagnosing modern engine management and working with aluminum parts.
And people expect to get these things fixed at a time where the techs coming into the industry at dealer level are semi illiterate because the pay is so low.
People need to realize that when it comes to repairing things cultures have a huge inertia, some of the better euro and japanese companies have used advanced technology for much longer, being more profitable they can have the pick of the litter when it comes to techs and don’t need to squeeze the last drop of blood out of a customer because they know they will be there tomorrow.
And yet a few people will go for it, with 7 year loans. LOL.
SUV’s appeal lies in three things: the ability to see under the car to look for attackers
Oh my God, that kills me. Absolutely slays me. Because if an attacker can cram themselves under my 5.6″ ground clearance GTI, then well, I’ll have to concede. “But honey, I *have* to get the lowering kit for my car! Otherwise an anorexic midget attacker might get me!” I would wager that most attackers can only even fit under SUVs and other large vehicles.
As for point 2, that is a good point, but the expanded view advantage is quickly offset by the tiny parking spaces disadvantage. And given how most women park (and drive)… well, maybe there should be a test before women are allowed to get SUVs…
Point 3 is the most rapidly diminishing of all now that the Prius (or RX-400, for those with the dosh) is the new status symbol. Hybrids are politically correct, no matter how impractical.
To give my .02 on the tall drivers debate:
I’m 6’3 and a big guy. I can drive Foci (we have these little toys as company cars), Scion xBs (nice little cars), and New Beetles for around town commuting okay. But if I’m going to spend any degree of time in a car or carry passengers–like say my wife and 3 kids they just ain’t a realistic option. Too cramped and too uncomfortable. I’ve owned Sentras and Escorts as well, even a Fiero briefly (shudder). Again the discomfort is too much to pay for the fuel savings. I’ll eat the increased gas cost for not feeling like I need a chiropractor after a one hour car ride. Personally I’m most comfortable in a large car or a full sized truck. I can’t imagine getting rid of my Crown Vic and cramming myself in a Focus for a savings of $30-40 a month.
Look- if any of the people who bought Tahoe’s and Durango’s bothered to do the math they wouldn’t have purchased it in the first place.
That means that all the arguments about payback time and maximized interior space and towing capacity mean absolutely zero.
That also means that GM/DCX will probably sell more of these things next year than they did this year.
The people driving these things and walking onto the sales lot aren’t going to hear about a Yaris would really fit their lifestyle better.
They’re going to hear about how they can get the same vehicle they had last year, but now it get’s 25% better mileage.
Rationality doesn’t enter into it.
If it did, they’d all be driving Sienna’s.
I haven’t seen mention of this yet, but if someone already covered it, I apologize up front.
Even the EPA acknowledges that their mileage numbers are overly optimistic; deduct somewhere between 10-30% to get a more “real world” estimate.
So, if I deduct 20% from the current GM/EPA estimate and then add 25% back on for the hybrid “advantage”, I’m back pretty much were I started, give or take.
At the same time, I have the cost of a new truck that carries the additional hybrid premium of $2000-$3000 without any real hybrid advantage.
(Note that I am arithmetically challenged, so feel free to argue over my math.)
PS, I tell you right now what is going to kill these hybrids.
They are better then the flex fuel vehicles that 99% of people just use on gas, but not all that much.
The big deal with them is that solo drivers can use the HOV lanes, and getting ahead quicker makes them feel superior.
As soon as they sell enough hybrids and other politically enhanced alternative power train vehicles to slow down the HOV lanes to the same speed as the general traffic there are going to be a bunch of suckers stuck with these things out of warranty and upside down.
I’m all for economy and conservation, but the way to do it is like in Europe and Japan. Image over substance will only take you so far, even in the US.
Amen.
For all the super-tall, extra-wide people who NEED an SUV to lug your own self around…
Minivan is the answer.
Hell, in a straight line, those things are even faster than most sporty cars these days.
And why not? It’s the same thing, only without the lift kit and 1000 pounds’ worth of frame. More spacious, too.
I always thought that Prius looked like a mini-Sienna. Maybe they should connect the dots and make Sienna a hybrid, too.
@quasimondo
Yes, I agree with you that there is a rational argument for living in the ‘burbs and driving to work somewhere else, and driving somewhere else for recreation. If your options are limited by where you are and what you value, then things like hybrid cars and solar powered roof tiles begin to make sense.
It’s possible that with higher energy costs there will be an impetus for more affordable housing in city, that with less flight to the suburbs there will be more pressure and more tax dollars for schools to become better, but I’m not holding my breath that this will happen any time soon.
Yes, in a perfect world everyone could live close to work, and walk, and visit their local farmers for fresh produce and yet have a big house and good schools, but in this world most people get to choose among those.
It’s like the engineers dilemma: Fast, Cheap, or good. Pick any two.
I don’t understand the attraction to hybrid cars – it seems like an overly complex engineering effort for only modest gain. While any gain is good, if you are going to all the trouble of having both an electric and combustion engine you could probably do much better by adopting the model used by diesel-electric locomotives where the combustion engine is only used to charge batteries which in turn are used to propel the train via electric motors.
Combustion engines are only anywhere near efficient when running at constant RPM and the hybrid technology does not solve that problem. How about a diesel turbo engine running at a constant speed charging a capacitor/battery that then are used to drive the vehicle via electric motors?
It would be a cheap design as the engine only has to be designed to run at one speed and no gearbox is required. It would also allow the car to produce significant power and torque over short periods of time (for those like the traffic light Grand Prix). It also makes all-wheel drive very easy and allows for all sorts of new car designs as the combustion engine can be placed anywhere in the vehicle.
Instead we get hybrids which do little but make some people feel less guilty (or smugly superior) about driving their car. Lets get a real solution please.
I have nothing to add to the argument over xB head and legroom, except to note that the xB is being replaced by a shorter model, with less headroom. Also, I seriously doubt that people considering a Tahoe are also looking at a Scion.
As far as the hybrid goes, I don’t get the opposition. At $3 per gallon and 12,000 miles per annum, you would save $600 annually by moving from 14 mpg to 18 mpg. So if the hybid premium is less than $5,000, it looks like a good move for consumers and for GM/DCX.
What’s the problem?
Alex Rashev
Bucket seats < Bench seats, especially according to the Law of Expanding Waistlines. But aside from that, you are right that most people would be better off with a minivan, save those who need the extra towing capacity for their presumably oversized testicles…
SherbornSean
Middling steps are useless. Why foot the money for all the hybrid tech if the consumer can see just as much cost savings by buying a similar vehicle or by filling their tires properly, changing their air filter, laying off the gas pedal, etc? Are they really doing anything to help the environment? Or are they just trudging down another dead end? Show me some significant fuel savings or emissions reduction and then we’ll talk progress. GM can’t afford to screw this up.
Living in Seattle, where even the City of Seattle, uses Prius hybrids as city vehicles, it seems to me that making SUVs into hybrids is a matter of trying to change the public’s perception of General Motors and the Chrysler division of DaimlerChrysler. As Megan Benoit’s article points out, the fuel savings aren’t enough with a weighty SUV to sell these machines based on economy.
It hasn’t gotten to the point where people are throwing eggs at SUV drivers in Seattle, but Mayor Nickels is the only mayor to be featured in Rolling Stonemagazine for his leading-the-charge on having mayors, across America, to put together their own plans to decrease global warming. (So far, other than the aforementioned hybrids, that has taken the form of getting cruise ships to burn cleaner-burning fuel, when moored at the Port of Seattle.) But if someone could buy an SUV with the politically-correct “Hybrid” word or symbol (in the case of Ford Escapes and Mercury Mariners) it might make their time parked at the local espresso stand less stressful.
The real market for hybrids is with work trucks, most especially those that will spend a lot of time in stationary mode and can use the electric motor(s) on aboard for power takeoff generators. Kenworth, Freightliner and Mack Truck all have prototypes that are being tested – Mack’s by the United States Air Force.
Stein – Big thumbs up on the Alfa Romeo 159 Sportwagon. Handsome vehicle and I love the concept.
And save me from the people pushing xB’s! Good for you but I wouldn’t be caught dead in one. To each his own.
Hybrids have shown their efficiency, driven carefully. They’ve also shown that what people really want is to be seen driving hybrids (consumers cross-shop the prius with 5-series and e-classes, for crying out loud). Actually saving the planet ranks much lower. So, unless those SUVs will LOOK like hybrids, they are likely to tank.
I don’t know, just add stuff like fake solar panels and tesla pylons to those (already ungainly) vehicles.
As someone who is almost 6’3″ I have to say that I fit into lots of cars, but I am most comfortable in an SUV. I have owned an ’80 civic, and it worked fine because I am long legged, and it had great seat travel. The thing about cars is that SUV’s seem to last longer (even though they are cheaper to make?). Comfort is about ergonomics, and you have to try a car for fit. It’s not about what fits others, and it’s certainly not about simple measurements.
Stein –
Did you ever calculate the entire cost of renting a truck to do the tow work every other month vs. the lost fuel mileage. In the US, the break even would be right about that usage level. That doesn’t count the hassle factor, or other costs of the transaction either. Simpler to just have the truck.
Fictional quote by Bob Lutz, summer of 2006: “Why foot the money for all the hybrid tech if the consumer can see just as much cost savings by buying a similar vehicle or by filling their tires properly, changing their air filter, laying off the gas pedal, etc? Are they really doing anything to help the environment? Or are they just trudging down another dead end? Show me some significant fuel savings or emissions reduction and then we’ll talk progress.”
Let the crucifixion begin.
It seems there’s a lot of the old “I know what you need, so please allow me to tell you what to buy” going on here. Lots of people just simply want to buy big-ass trucks, and if they can get what they want and see 25% better FE, then they win. Period.
I wish Lutz had said that in 2006. Then maybe the new Tahoe would be sporting a diesel-electric hybrid that got 50mpg while producing just as much horsepower and torque.
So you’re suggestion is for GM to scrap their full-size SUV’s (which still pull in over 35,000 high profit sales/month–4/07) and develop a dual-mode diesel hybrid Chevy Traxx that will have to be sold for at least $30,000 and be the best selling car in America in order to generate the same amount of profit as GM’s SUV’s??? As out of style as they may seem to many of you, people still buy them in droves. We are moving to smaller cars, yes, but not anywhere near as fast as many of you seem to think.
sdwinfla:
Even the EPA acknowledges that their mileage numbers are overly optimistic; deduct somewhere between 10-30% to get a more “real world” estimate.
I’ve heard this before regarding EPA MPG figures, but with every vehicle I’ve owned since 1985 I’ve been able to beat the EPA estimates by a fair amount, both city and highway. And that was two 4×4 trucks, an SUV, an AWD station wagon and 2 2wd trucks.
There’s no mystery to it: Go the speed limit, ease out of every start instead of mashing the gas pedal to the ground, set the cruise control at 65 on the freeway, and anyone can beat the EPA estimates by 10-20% easily.
IOW if you can’t get the EPA estimated MPG on your car, don’t blame the EPA, blame your right foot.
I like carguy’s idea. If GM/DCX wanted to make a big investment into new technology, why copy whats already out there and stick it where it makes dubious financial sense for the consumer? Why not do something “new” and push the envelope? If it was 25% improvement they were targeting why not just go diesel?
rjsasko, My brother is 6'6" and fits well in a Mazda6. According to him, it has the best driver legroom of any car (not truck) that he has driven, and he once owned a big Bonneville. Coincidentally, he currently owns a '97 Tahoe that averages 8-9 mpg and no mechanic he's taken it to can figure out why. Luckily, he works for the government and rarely drives it.
One thing I have noticed as a Yank living in Australia is how the Aussies don’t buy pickups/utes for commuting. The do equip their cars with a hitch and use utlity trailers for their weekend-warrior needs.
To me, it makes a lot more sense. Use the trailer for the occasional (what, 2x a month?) need to move an object that won’t fit in the car. You can rent a utility trailer at most fuel stations cheap. They are also not very expensive to buy.
For the even rarer heavy load, rent a truck.
Switching back to the US. I find that people justify the purchase of a pickup or SUV based on the ability to move large loads when needed. But they pay for that capability with lower mileage for their normal commute and driving patterns.
Economically, it makes more sense to buy a family utility trailer that will last 20 years for the trips to Home Depot.
For long road trips with the family, perhaps it might be cheaper to rent a mini-van or full size van for the trip?
Here’s an expansion on the numbers shown by rjsasko in his early post:
10,000 miles in a 16 mpg truck = 625 gallons
10,000 miles in a 19 mpg hybrid truck = 526 gallons
— 19% improvement in FE on truck saves 99 gallons
10,000 miles in a 35 mpg small car = 286 gallons
10,000 miles in a 50 mpg hybrid small car = 200 gallons
— 43% improvement in FE on a small car saves 86 gallons
It’s called ‘the law of diminishing returns’. You are typically better off making a small improvement on a really bad problem than making a large improvement on a not-so-bad problem. We’d improve air quality much, much more by scrapping all the old smoke-spewing hoopties than by forcing all the LEVs to meet ULEV, for example.
Last time I checked, large trucks were by far the largest selling vehicle in the US. And they get the worst gas mileage. So doing anything to make these even a bit more efficient can have a huge impact on overall fuel savings.
However, making even a substantial improvement in the economy of a low volume, already-high-mileage econobox is really nothing more than a feel-good marketing ploy.
And I’ll also build on another earlier post . . . if Toyota had made a similar announcement for their Tundra before it launched, they’d be getting kudos til the cows came home, including from many (or most) of the editorialists and posters on this site. “How environmentally conscious! It’s about time someone had the moxie to do something about the terrible FE of trucks! Why didn’t Detroit do this? (snicker, snicker . . . we know why, because they’re idiots . . . snicker, snicker).”
They’re damned if they do, and damned if they don’t.
Megan, I totally do not understand your comment. How would that quote from BL imply a 50mpg diesel hybrid? Re-read your own words . . . they brush off the benefits of hybrid tech, and basically lay the blame for poor fuel economy on the customer. That sounds like the kind of quote a GM exec would make and then be whipped for around here . . .
Hey Ejacobs: I am curious to find out how old your brother is. If he is let's say…under 30…I am sure he can pretzel his way into and out of quite a few vehicles. Wait until he needs the Jaws of Life a few years down the road to get into and out of that Mazda6. He will regret treating his spine like a rubber band.
yankinwaoz – as an Aussie living in the US, I couldn’t agree with you more. A car with a hitch and a trailer can do anything from hauling garbage to the dump to picking up 8x4s from Home Depot. If you’re a farmer or contractor then a truck is a good idea but almost everybody else uses the towing excuse for trying to justify their truck purchase. I understand that a lot of guys are attracted to trucks because it fits their image they are trying to project (just as some sports car fans and hybrid drivers do) but that does not make it a ‘need’ but much more of a ‘want’. (In particular the highly ironic automotive category of ‘sport trucks’ – let’s face it, any truck that can do 0-60 in less than 7 seconds is not a need but 100% toy).
Now just repost this story with the work "Prius" substituted for "Yukon". The Prius doesn't do much better than a conventional Corolla – but costs thousands more. So why is everyone in love with the Prius? Wait until the bills to replace those batteries start coming in a couple years.
I applaud Detroit for trying to fix the mpg on their gas-guzzlers, but I reckon that boat sailed when GM decided to rush through a GMT900 refresh, rather than starting with a clean sheet design. [By then, the writing had been on the wall for SUV's for at least three years.] If GM had put their best and brightest on a brand new SUV– attacking every aspect of its fuel economy (aerodynamics, powertrain, gearbox, tires, materials, etc.)– they could have breathed some new life into the old dogs. The fastest solution was not the best. And while we're throwing GM Car Czar Maximum Bob Lutz' words back in his face, what about this Automotive News summary of a speech Lutz made last Tuesday at the Global Automotive Conference in Louisville, KY: "The complexity and cost of squeezing another 30% of efficiency from internal combustion engines is a task those outside the auto industry do not fully comprehend, he says, suggesting lawmakers meet directly with auto makers to learn what is commercially feasible instead of relying on estimates by commissions or groups with no automotive experience." So Lutz is saying it can't be done (you ignorant sluts) and condemning an "incrementalist" approach to improving fuel economy– while trying to sell a hybrid Yukaho that gets 25% better mileage than the gas-only model. Go figure.
RF – do you not think GM had it best and brightest on the new GMT900s? Where do they fall down? The only thing that jumps to my mind is the lack of independent rear suspension. Other than that, everything seems pretty well engineered.
And by the way-6′0″ ain’t tall. 6′3″ and up is tall
I’m 6′ 4″ and 300 lbs and I can sit in my wife’s Sonata with no problems. And yes about the Scion XB, I can sit in that also.
I think it depends upon what you mean, sit in it, or sit in it with tons of room.
John
jp3209:
mpg
Immaculate combustion: Gotta remember that one!
The horsepower race continues. If the technology for increasing horsepower were turned around, most engines could be made to produce another 25% fuel economy.
Maximum Bob is just joshing, the technology is there right now to achieve this.
In the meantime, the “green superchargers” are being used just to increase and advertise performance.
Does anybody really care that a non hybrid Tundra can pull 7500 pounds faster to 60 mph by a phenomenal 0.2 seconds than anyone else in the pick-up truck business?
This is insane!
“Mark Chernoby, who’s just one letter away from having the world’s worst name for a VP of Advanced Vehicle Engineering.”
That’s funny! I hope this isn’t the guy working on my Mr. Fusion.
I wonder what will happen when the enviroment-worshipers/life-haters/profoundly-joyless/envy-n-guilt-ridden/physics-and-chemistry-challenged realize that driving a Hummer H1 at a 100 MPH is better for the environment than putting in a Prius… “Hybrid” will become blasphemous. In my estimation, SUVs are not big and 15 MPG is not “guzzling”. My world is just not that small I guess.
I’m sure GM and GM Dealers will start offering hard-to-resist cash back incentives on hybrid SUVs in no time. I can see those huge light-up flashing billboards already: “HYBRID TRUCK SAVE MONEY SAVE GAS $10,000 OFF MSRP”
Luther: regarding the comment about the Hummer costing (environmentally) less than a Prius, go over to thecarconnection.com and search “prius hummer” (ha, sounds bad, doesn’t it?) and read the article explaining the myth. It puts a better perspective on the myth than one thinks.
spt87a: The Prius has features beyond the hybrid drivetrain that make it more expensive. Like the CVT, synthetic gas tank “bladder” lining that reduces evaporative emissions and the coolant “thermos” that reduces warmup times, all of which could be implemented in future non-hybrid toyotas. Technologically, at it’s current price point, they’re practically giving the car away.
A Prius is also available with navi, HID, auto climate, etc. None of which the Corolla has. I’m sure some people rationalize the Prius’s price as a “premium small car” rather than “Save me some gas.” Most prius owners wouldn’t be caught dead in a Corolla or Yaris anyway.
OK, Megan, so your point is that unless GM introduces a 50 mpg Suburban that seats 9 and can tow a large boat, they are wasting their time with middling steps? Improving mileage by 25% isn’t significant?
I don’t really know how to respond to that.
Methinks sun energy fluctuation was not to blame for climate change and it was SUV-driving/Hydrocarbon oxidation that killed off the Martians.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1720024.ece
hybrid+diesel=rightway
I’m going to go against the grain of the article and most of the comments. While I wouldn’t buy it personally, I love the idea of the hybrid GMT900’s. This project was clearly undertaken because GM is already scared of the government’s 30 mpg average mandate. GM did a decent job on the fuel mileage in the first place–16/21 is as good as a lot of midsize trucks (although real world observations are terrible)–and that 25% improvement is a GREAT addition. What other vehicle as large and capable a Yukon XL can get 20/25 fuel mileage, the same as some midsize sedans?!
The way I see it, people who want these fullsize SUV’s, no matter how practical or impractical the reasons, will continue to buy them for those reasons. They complain about fuel prices, but right now they’re still affordable enough to justify the purchase. A hybrid comes with little sacrafice–quicker around-town responses and overall acceleration, better fuel mileage, and low emissions are only qualified by increased price and weight. The price, here, seems to be the major factor…but even still, the owner should be able to break even if he/she keeps the truck long enough. Point is, the hybrid versions have PROVEN, SIGNIFICANT (if incremental)advantages over regular engines, with little downfall. SUV drivers will not suddenly flock to superminis…props to GM for trying to make another category of car more efficient. Unfortunately for GM, the GMT900s are, IMO, already by far and away the best in their class. I think the hybrids will most likely cannibalize their own sales. But there is no reason to hate on GM for undertaking this project.
Oh and to those who say “ease off the right foot” and “make sure the tires have the proper air pressure”, just remember that you can do those things increase the fuel economy of ANY car, hybrid or not. A lot of the comments I’ve seen here are shortsighted and just looking to bash hybrids for the hell of it.
along this same line, it appears lexus has made perhaps its first major screwup with the 600h (or whatever they call it). i’ve seen two early writeups, both indicated the thing is 1- barely faster, or 2- not any faster than the LS 460, and get this, the highway mileage of the hybrid is way worse than the conventionally powered LS. major contributing cause = OBESITY. why why why would anyone by the fat pig when the mileage promise is a scam and the audi or merc V-12s can run circles around the thing. bmw still making their V12? not sure. nice write up, thanks.
One step back and a (quite unpopular to think about) concept: total cost of ownership.
You are better off with: bigger downpayment, shorter financing contract (both bring down the interest rate) and then once the car/truck/whatever is paid off, keep driving it.
I’m looking at my current gas cost per month, around $240 in my not-so-good 23 mpg average car (paid for) and any way I look at it, a new car with much better mileage still is going to cost alot more than the “savings” in gas I could in theory make (I’m not a fuel efficient driver)
So the argument about how much you save by switching to a 16 mpg monster truck to a 19 mpg monster truck is pretty moot. Unless you ditch it for a $800 beater cavalier you will never see any difference in the money you spend.
But what do I know? Cars are status symbols, because we can only measure our worth by what we own, not what we do. Please ignoe what I just typed :)
Weight aside, I can’t see highway mileage increasing too much when you’ve still got the aerodynamic profile of a Wal-Mart on wheels.
Well, in Europe BMW is using some of the technologies this hybrids presumably will include, like regenerative braking or others even more advanced like “active aerodinamics” and a intelligent alternator, in a car like the Series 1 that is it’s most basic. The point is that they get a great increase in mileage (they have increased the horsepower as well) without the need of heavy batteries and electric drivetrains, and this is in a small car!, with rear wheel drive, GM people!, I can imagine the results of this technologies in cars like this SUV’s, not that I have facts, I just can see it.
The GM 4.5 light duty V8 diesel is on the way. That combined with the dual mode hybrid drivetrain will make for a stellar package.
This is an interim step, IMHO.
I have done quite a bit of research on national fuel use and where gas mileage improvements would be best placed. Though I cannot disclose the particulars, I can say that this IS part of the answer. We are more efficient to spend our resources improving low-mileage vehicles by 25% than doing likewise for high-mileage vehicles. The impact on the bottom line (the number of gallons used nationally) is far greater for improving low-mileage vehicles by a fixed percentage than for applying that same percentage improvement to already-relatively-high mileage vehicles.
As noted, many people have to use those trucks. Many others depend upon people who use those trucks. Almost no one is spared at least that secondary distinction.
Good article–thanks for helping us converse about these issues.
leighzbohns wrote: A hybrid makes sense if you have to drive, are concerned about appearances, and want to save a little at the pump, but it does not make any more sense than a smaller, lighter car.
I have to respectfully disagree. Here is why. We just took a vacation to the Upper Peninsula of Michigan (yeah, I know it’s early in the season, thanks… no mosquitoes, though…)
There were three adults, luggage, two large boxes of food, two guitars, several cases of soda and just HOW does anyone think that all of that was going to fit into a subcompact car?!
The Prius (mine is a 2005) is classified, quite properly, as a midsized car – as in interior and trunk room combined. My brother is 6’4″ and can sit in the front seat with no leg room to spare – but in cars, it is possible to remove seats from their tracks and move them back for extra tall drivers with long legs. We’ve done it on virtually all the cars my brother has had.
My point is – on the trip back from the U.P. to the lower peninsula, with all the luggage and weight, we managed 56.8 miles per gallon (US, not Imperial, just so you know I’m not fudging).
Yeah, I did drive the speed limit. Other than that, I used virtually no “tricks” to improve my mileage. Just sensible, legal and sane driving. While I was away, gas went up 20 cents a gallon (last week) and two days ago, it went up another 25 cents. Anybody else out there paying attention? By Memorial day, at this rate, it is going to be $4.50 a frickin’ gallon!
This 56.8 mpg, by the way, on a car with an EPA “combined” rating of 55 mpg and highway rating of 50 mpg, right? On a car that “everyone” says “can’t get close to EPA numbers.”
Yeah, I DID ask that my front seat passenger take a photo of the computer read-out (first time for everything – I’m not obsessive about gas mileage, I’m not a “hypermiler”).
May I make another point? People “think” they need a huge SUV. In fact, a Prius is probably capable of doing what 95% of the human race “needs” in a car 95% of the time. “Wants” and “needs” are different things. The interior of a colleague’s Tahoe (12 mpg) is virtually no larger than my Prius, though she has more luggage area (hers is a station wagon of sorts, against my hatchback). But 12 mpg vs 48 mpg (being conservative on both) is a 400% difference, isn’t it?!
And let’s be TOTALLY HONEST – most of the drivers of SUVs don’t haul bass boats nor do they off-road, nor do they tow ANYTHING, and 90% of the time or more, never have more than one person in their vehicle.
So GM and Chrysler-Magna whatever it will be are p*ssing into the wind – again – with their “improved hybrid SUVs”. Idiots.
@neilberg
We are more efficient to spend our resources improving low-mileage vehicles by 25% than doing likewise for high-mileage vehicles. The impact on the bottom line (the number of gallons used nationally) is far greater for improving low-mileage vehicles by a fixed percentage than for applying that same percentage improvement to already-relatively-high mileage vehicles.
Definitely a valid point – every saving counts, and some count more than others. Looking forward to the next generation of aerodynamically efficient and structurally ingenious trucks that achieve a better weight/CE/fuel efficiency result. Still, I’m with the above poster who pointed to the mechanical complexity of hybrid solutions in trucks – the technology is still in development.
At any rate – this will be decided at the gas pump.
Whoa, kids. I don’t know where a bunch of you got the idea that Bob Lutz said *anything* other than what Farago quoted him as saying — it was a hypothetical situation where presumably, he would have been vilified.
SUV and truck sales have been dropping, not growing. Yes, they still constitute a fair number of vehicles in the US, but you can get them for a song right now thanks to their rapid depreciation and current undesirability. Even in the midwest, where such behemoths are popular. Yes, these trucks will sell, and do a tiny bit to help out the environment, but I doubt it will do anything to actually boost sales.
FWIW, I’m happy to criticize any automaker that puts a hybrid engine in any vehicle and claims they’re helping save the environment. And here is why I don’t think that a little is better than nothing — hybrids are an intermediary step, and in my opinion are slowing the industry down from developing real alternative fuel options. It doesn’t help that congress is pressing them to make significant changes now, when putting out hybrid engines means that alt. fuel options will be put on the back burner.
Just because you’re using less gas than before doesn’t mean you aren’t still using gas, and all that plastic in your car had to come from somewhere. Which saves the environment more, a hybrid Tahoe, or a standard Civic? How about a TDI Jetta? I oppose middling steps because in this case, they are dead ends, and draw funding and distract people from real, long-term solutions. In 10 years, hybrids will be novelties, and environmentalists will be sobbing about how all of those batteries are now polluting landfills. But they’ll make people feel better about themselves while they last.
@ SwatLax:
Developing a hybrid system that can work with a large truck apparently isn’t the easiest thing in the world to do – otherwise you can guarantee that Toyota would have beat them to it. So, yes, we should wonder why anyone would want to own an Aspen, hybrid powered or not, but don’t knock the companies for creating the most fuel efficient vehicles in their price range.
That seems like a logical flaw. The fact that Toyota hasn’t built a full-sized hybrid truck doesn’t prove that they’re hard to build. It might only prove that, in Toyota’s estimation, there’s no market for such a beast.
@ leighzbohns:
Choosing a car which gets an additional 3MPG makes such a small carbon difference on your 80 mile round trip commute to your mc mansion than getting a flexcar for your once a week driving errands and using human powered transportation for the rest of it.
As a lot of people have pointed out, the law of diminishing returns means that a small improvement in fuel economy in the most gas-guzzling class is more effective than a larger improvement in an already efficient class. But there’s one more factor to consider too. Sure, for an individual, 3-5 additional MPG in a Tahoe isn’t a huge improvement, in terms of cost savings or carbon footprint. But the scale of the US car market is such that if every vehicle on the road could realize a 3-5 MPG gain, the country as a whole would DRASTICALLY cut demand for gas and carbon emissions. Environmentally speaking, these hybrid SUVs aren’t the stupidest thing ever, if they sell well enough to displace a significant number of non-hybrid SUVs from the road.
@ carguy:
I don’t understand the attraction to hybrid cars – it seems like an overly complex engineering effort for only modest gain. While any gain is good, if you are going to all the trouble of having both an electric and combustion engine you could probably do much better by adopting the model used by diesel-electric locomotives where the combustion engine is only used to charge batteries which in turn are used to propel the train via electric motors.
My understanding is that just such a “serial” hybrid system is what GM is proposing in the Chevy Volt, exactly like in a diesel-electic train. The problem, as I understand it, is that battery technology isn’t good enough yet to support such a system in an automotive application. The discharge/recharge demands on the battery in such a system are much harsher than in a dual-mode hybrid like the Prius, and the batteries we have now can’t keep up. Trains can get away with it because they accelerate and decelerate much less often, and encounter many fewer and less steep grades. Since the demand on the battery is much more constant, the battery tech that we have now can keep up. I suspect that if hybrid technology has a long-term future (rather than fuel cells or another alternative system) they’ll migrate to series hybrid technology as batteries get more advanced since such a system does make way more sense from a fuel economy perspective.
There are a number of “neat” things of about GM 2-mode hybrid. One is that it is similar to the Toyota Hybrid Synergy drive in that it replaces the torque converter and gears of an automatic with a motor-generator pair and planetary gears, but the GM-Chrysler fits pretty much inside the package of a rear-drive truck chassis automatic transmission housing.
The second neat thing is that it uses two sets of planetary gears (called a 2-mode hybrid) so it gets away with a smaller set of motor and generator than the Toyota system per equivalent output, saving cost and weight.
The third thing is that these GM Hybrids are things you can tow a boat with — try doing that with a Prius. The 2-mode system figures into this because it delivers more torque over a wider range of speeds owing to the second planetary gear set. For better or ill, towing boats and campers and all kinds of other stuff is a big deal here in the outdoor culture of Wisconsin, and if we can maintain our outdoor-tourist economy and have people save gas at the same time, this is a good thing.
I have always felt that it was the largest veicles that could benefit most from hybrid technology. This is a good go, not the best, but good.
Since most of the people that i see driving the largest suv’s are women anyway, it should make for a quick sell. If you are going to buy a large truck anyway, you might as well have the advantage of the latest fuel saving technology.
As for the cost, 2 grand over the cost of a gas model is probably less than the leather option, or the upgraded entertainment center – this should not pose a problem. Especally if you can feel better about yoursely doing it. These vehicles can blow past 50 large anyway. a few thousand, who cares?
Having said that, these vehicles are still stupid, most people would do better with a minivan. God forbid.
Glenn A. wrote: “The Prius (mine is a 2005) is classified, quite properly, as a midsized car – as in interior and trunk room combined. My brother is 6′4″ and can sit in the front seat with no leg room to spare – but in cars, it is possible to remove seats from their tracks and move them back for extra tall drivers with long legs. We’ve done it on virtually all the cars my brother has had.”
God love ya for getting 56.8mpg but you just turned your Prius into a 3 seater so a tall person could ride in it. Moving the seat tracks for two tall people would turn the back seat into a package shelf. Now the rest of the family that can no longer sit in that car can drive along in an identical Pruis right behind you getting 56.8mpg also. For twice the price (2 Prius) your getting half the mileage (56.8/2 Prius) at 28.4mpg for the entire family to travel. The hybrid Tahoe gets almost 30mpg highway and fully loaded with two of every option under the sun costs less than the two Prius you would need to move the same or more people and carry more stuff to boot. How ’bout them apples! :-)
rjsasko wrote, “The hybrid Tahoe gets almost 30mpg highway…” and what I believe he really intended to write was “The hybrid Tahoe, if and when it ever is available for sale, might or might not get almost 30mpg highway, maybe…”
Glenn A.’s brother must have freakishly long legs; I’m 6’4″ and my legs are reasonably comfortable in the front seat of just about any car (except those with benches where the driver is short… Gaaa!).
Headroom is usually the critical issue. I don’t need a Tahoe for that; I have plenty of head and legroom in my ’00 Rav4 and in my ’00 Sienna minivan. Maybe for someone who’s 6’7″ the picture is a little different (I doubt it, I have PLENTY of headroom in the minivan) but most people are just plain wide, rather than tall and the two-up seating that’s common in most vehicles will accomodate all but the widest of us comfortably. Comfort isn’t a function of the total size of the vehicle, it’s a function of how much room you get at your seat. A commercial jet is a lot bigger than a Tahoe but, somehow, I never seem to be comfortable in those. Of course, perspective is important there, too. I’d rather be a little uncomfortable for 3 hours than fairly comfortable in the car for 24 hours.
Megan wrote: “And here is why I don’t think that a little is better than nothing — hybrids are an intermediary step, and in my opinion are slowing the industry down from developing real alternative fuel options.”
I see a problem with this line of thinking — that we should demand all or nothing. Our country lacks the infrastructure to support a rapid shift to any alternative fuel. GM could start minting hydrogen fuel-cell minicars tomorrow and no one would be able to find anywhere to fill them up.
We should encourage every step, however minor, towards reducing oil consumption on a large scale. The solution isn’t to take away personal choice (take away people’s new car options and they’ll just keep buying used until someone else returns them) but to offer enough economical choices that driving “green” becomes a viable option on both a financial and a personal level.
Quite frankly, I enjoy driving my (much maligned, especially here at TTAC) Malibu, even though I could use public transportation. I’m willing to make the financial investment necessary to guarantee that I have the personal freedom that I desire (doing nearly all of my grocery shopping once a month, for example, would be impossible on a bus).
We didn’t get into this energy mess instantaneously, nor will we be extricated from it instantaneously. If a Tahoe hybrid can improve 25% this year, maybe it will improve 35% the next year. Maybe that will turn into 45% in two or three years. And during that time, other people will (hopefully) be working on the batteries necessary to make products like the Volt a reality. If we criticize every intermediary step as being insufficient, we’ll never get anywhere.
(Long time reader, first time poster, by the way. I’ve really learned a lot from this site, keep up the great work!)
rjsasko-For anybody who says they can’t fit into a small car because they are too tall-I have two words for them:
Scion xB.
Geotpf:Most people can’t fit into small cars because eating and inactivity are hallmarks of their lifestyle.
@omnivore
Trains can get away with it because they accelerate and decelerate much less often, and encounter many fewer and less steep grades. Since the demand on the battery is much more constant, the battery tech that we have now can keep up.
There ain’t no batteries in a diesel-electric locomotive. The diesel engines turn generators which pump the electricity directly to the traction motors on the wheels. During braking the motors act as generators and the energy is dissipated into huge resistor banks in the roof. No regenerative braking here (except in GE’s newest evolution series locomotives – but they use capacitor banks). IIRC diesel-electric locomotives are about 4000HP, that’s about 3MW of power, I don’t know of any battery technology that can handle charge/discharge cycles of 3MW.
But the real point, is that we really don’t need batteries. Just design the hybrids like the locomotive, the gains from the constant RPM diesel and the lack of weight by getting rid of the transmission driveshafts will more than make up for the added weight of the electric motors at each wheel. The only real downside is the increased unsprung weight at the wheels if you have motors on each wheel.
I don’t think this article is quite fair.. Its a step forward. I’m not defending trucks by any means (I think the vast majority of us would do just fine driving station wagons and minivans), but there’s a certain segment of people who want these monsters… So, if a 25% gain from 16mpg to 20mpg is all it gets, at least its _something_.
We’re witnessing automakers in a transitional phase, as we try to get away from the traditional vehicles to something more efficent from diesel to HEV to PEV.
Every little step counts for something.
“Don’t forget that miles per gallon is an inverse unit so comparing changes at different levels can be misleading; the ’same’ change makes more difference at the low end. For a fixed amount of driving, going from 16mpg to 19mpg (19% improvement) saves more gas than going from 35mpg to 50mpg (43% improvement).”
So for a given amount of driving, and a given number of vehicles, we’d see more improvement uping the mileage on big SUVs by a few MPGs than we would uping the mileage on little econo-boxes by 15.
Of course, it would also help if all the people who drive large SUVs, but have no real need for a vehicle that size would get into something smaller and more efficient.