In the second major case of a news organization delaying important information, The Detroit News reports today that GM inadvertently revealed prices for their new two-mode hybrid SUVs on October fifth. That's when a GM website listed the Chevy Tahoe two-wheel drive hybrid at $47,915; the four-wheel drive version at $50,720; and the GMC Yukon two-wheel drive hybrid at $48,370. That's big news. It's also wrong. "GM spokesman Terry Rhadigan said Monday the prices posted on the Web site 'were too low.' He declined to divulge what the pricing would be, saying only that it would be 'competitive.'" With what? Themselves! Rhadigan told the DTN that a loaded version of the same vehicle will cost more than its hybrid variant. Just in case potential consumers were planning on making an apples-to-apples comparison, GM won't be offering comparable hybrid and non-hybrid models. Sticking to the obfuscation theme, Marketing Maven Mark LaNeve told his hometown paper (last week) that hybrids will rack-up five to ten percent of total SUV sales. But "since we are in uncharted territory… we will adjust up or down to demand." The General may have to adjust DOWNWARDS from five percent of shrunken, sinking, full-size SUV sales? That doesn't sound good.
Find Reviews by Make:
Read all comments
Methinks you can get a stripper non-hybrid Tahoe and a Prius for that kind of money. Tax break had better be killer to move the metal. And they’re supposed to sell just 10k per year?
BTW, the 2-mode hybrid transmissions are just now rolling off the assembly lines:
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/bay_environment/bal-hybrid1029,0,7423183.story?coll=bal_tab01_layout
$48,000 is too low? That’s a whopping $13,000 over base! With a rapidly declining SUV market and stagnant wages and foreclosure rates and a gonna-crumble stock market, Chevy is way screwed on this one. And just watch as the geniuses determine hybrids to be unappealing to the American consumer by using this upcoming debacle as evidence.
They Hybrids should be priced, from my understanding, between the 1LT and the LTZ models. What the dealership charges for them, though, is another story.
Just more proof that these things are going to go off as well as a wet fart in church.
Trucks is supposed to be simple, rugged, and cost effective. Not complimicated, pricey, and technowizzy.
I don’t doubt that a hybrid SUV or truck could do well, but it would have to be designed as a hybrid from the start.
Who pays MSRP for a GM (kinda of a worthless number) product? The real number will be the invoice and the eventual incentives.
$50,720 is too low? Must be a lot of people out there doing a lot better than I am.
Mercedes-Benz GL320 CDI 4Matic
MPG: 18/24
Towing capacity: 7,500 lbs
Base MSRP: $53,773
Chevrolet Tahoe Two-Mode Hybrid 4×4
MPG: 20/20
Towing capacity: 6,000 lbs
Base MSRP: More than $50,720
How about that? A Mercedes and a Chevrolet now compete with each other.
If gas goes to $13.00 a gallon, then we’ll see who’s laughing…! ;-)
Hoping the “Hybrid” badge is very large and very green on these vehicles.
50 grand for a Tahoe? Ya gotta be kidding. It is nothing but a dressed up Silverado which starts in the real world at around $17k. Wow, no wonder these monster trucks are monster profit makers.
$47-50k for a non-Corvette, non-Duramax Chevy? It better have all the LTZ’s cosmetics for that price. But still…
Five grand more and I can have an Escalade! With incentives, I bet a lease on an Escalade will turn the same monthly payment. And if you really cared about fuel economy…
You know who’s going to be buying these: Govt. agencies. That might make about 5% of the total sales.
The coming 4.5 liter diesel will be a better choice for the way most of these vehicles are used (towing/highway).
They can price it however they want…the market is self adjusting though…
Quit bitching…..if you don’t want one, don’t buy one.
Expensive or not, it will be a slick package for those greenies that need to haul a bunch of kids & stuff around.
As for me, I’ll stick with spending $2-3K every 5 years on a quality used car (currently rock ’94 Roadmaster). And have plenty of $ left over for flourescent light bulbs, programmable thermostats, and things of that nature.
If the hybrid and non-hybrid were both pulling, say, a 5000 pound trailer, does the hybrid perform any better than the non-hybrid? I can see it right now… if you’re actually using the vehicle for rugged SUV stuff it’s no better to have the hybrid, but if you’re basically using it as a sports car or minivan you might as well just get that sports car or minivan, as either will easily out-MPG the hybrid!
SunnyvaleCA
The usefulness of the Tahoe hybrid is not that the MPG will be great while towing, no vehicle’s is. But 20 MPG for daily commutes AND the ability to tow a big trailer with the same vehicle on weekends is a great advantage. Doesn’t that take away the “I never see these trucks and suvs doing what they are designed for” argument? Who cares if it ever tows, but can haul 8 people and get 20 MPG? Way better MPG-per-person than most cars.
And the cat is out of the bag.
So much for everyone who were saying the Two-Modes would be a big success. On price alone, the Two-Modes will fall flat on their faces.
Also, GM won’t be able to afford offering big incentives on the hybrid trucks because the Two-Mode system is expensive and offering big incentives would just devour GM’s profits.
The usefulness of the Tahoe hybrid is not that the MPG will be great while towing, no vehicle’s is. But 20 MPG for daily commutes AND the ability to tow a big trailer with the same vehicle on weekends is a great advantage. Doesn’t that take away the “I never see these trucks and suvs doing what they are designed for” argument? Who cares if it ever tows, but can haul 8 people and get 20 MPG? Way better MPG-per-person than most cars.
This argument about MPG per person only works if you are using it as a shuttle bus. Most of these things are going to be used most of the time for one person commuting.
Another reason why I can care less about hybrids. The purpose of Hybrids were to offer another alternative for consumers. But look at the big picture, these hybrid cars cost so freaking much. I remember when the Toyota Pruis first came out it was around $15-18k. Now it’s like $25-28k, just as much as a top of the line V6 Camry. And now GM said that the prices were to low. And I always thought these hybrids were suppose to help and affordable.
David Holzman
But the truth remains that 20/20 mpg is not bad for a vehicle with these capabilities.
I suppose I could drive a Camry V6 auto rated 19/28, and never be able to tow anything more than a small utility trailer, let alone my boat. And have no room take my kid to college or my family of 5 on vacation with luggage without renting a van. Or maybe I could buy a V8 Toyota 4Runner, which is smaller in every way, and only gets 14/17.
Or you could get a G6 and never be able to tow anything more than a small utility trailer let alone your boat or a V8 Trailblazer which is smaller in every way and only gets 14/17. Or maybe those vehicles’ deficiencies have nothing to do with this.
At $50K you could buy a Tahoe and an Uplander for each purpose and I would bet average better MPG between them than just one of these hybrids. And you’ll get way less than 20/20 with 7 more passengers. The additional benefits are just out of line with the additional cost.
My point was made for people trashing the concept of a Tahoe hybrid. The Tahoe serves my needs well, and I might consider the Hybrid version. When the actual price comes out I’ll make the decision.
And good luck buying a new Tahoe AND a new Uplander for $50K. Maybe if you can find leftover 2007 2wd strippers at a desperate dealer. I doubt it though.
GM could probably sell all 10,000 target 2Mode SUVs right here in the Los Angeles/Orange County/San Diego metro. If fullsize SUV sales are slumping nationwide, it’s a difficult trend to discern here. New no-plate Navigators, Escalades, Suburbans and Tahoes keep pouring onto the roads every week. And I haven’t even mentioned Lexus, Toyo Land Cruisers, Audi and those knuckleheaded uranium-dense Porsches. With the exodus of boaters, campers, surfers, dirt-bikers, campers, and hikers rolling out of town every weekend in all directions, it’s not too surprising. But even the valet lines at restaurants on Saturday nights are still pretty thick with new big iron.
In our routinely congested traffic, now virtually an all-day condition, going from 12 to 20 mpg in the 405 tap-and-go is going to be attractive to a lot of people who can easily bite down on the $50+Large. And then there’s the Green guilt crowd on the West Side, wishing to reconcile its gluttony with its conscience.
The real issue is going to be making the right market aware of 2Mode Hybrid trucks. Can GM effectively communicate 2Mode for mass comprehension? Will they even try?
A lot of big SUVs are going to continue to be bought in the US. The vehicle type is just too convenient for an entrenched lifestyle and psyche. So we ought to be glad to see this technology come to market ASAP, and offered in a variety of products. I’ll consider it when it’s in a pickup. Forget about CO2. Burning less fuel at idle will improve local air quality.
In the late 1990s, GM and Ford took the position that improving fuel economy incrementally on the volume categories of SUVs and Pickups would have greater and more rapid environmental impact than selling a limited volume hybrid or electric car. They’re right, of course, but they didn’t factor in the marketing leverage to be had by an icon like Prius. But really, at a time when even the General’s 6.2L eight is nudging up in efficiency with more power to boot, increasing the mix of powertrain options in volume vehicles can make GM environmentally friendlier than Toyota in real world impact, even if the emotional cachet remains elusive.
Yup, make those 2Mode Hybrid logos big, bright and green.
Phil
This stillborn concept is dead on arrival.
GM, what were you thinking?