There’s something deliciously ironic about slogging through one of LA’s infamous rush hours to attend a “green” cars award ceremony. The multi-lane Harbor Freeway plays host to a long slow dance of cars and semis, tailpipes steadily churning out brownish plumes into a blue sky. The dominant hue is not green but red: the omnipresent brake lights mocking California’s long-abandoned promises of fast, efficient personal travel. It’s almost enough to persuade a driver to ride the bus. Like me, most just crank on caffeine and escape boredom via the stereo, instead.
Safely ensconced within the confines of the Convention Center, road rage gives way to the journalistic trough [fair disclosure] and a wander amongst enough exotic metal to give a 49er a heart attack. In my dreams, I can grab a fast steed from the floor and point it at a winding road and go. In reality, manufacturers employ Swiffer-wielding minions to dust the untouchables.
Anyway, back to this business of saving the planet. This year’s auto show has been transformed into an overhead cam version of Earth Day. Even our press room sponsor proclaims that it’s now “dedicated to a green future.” In past years, such unbridled vehicular earth worship from a tire manufacturer would be about as credible as Vogue promoting a positive body image to a bulimic support group. Today, auto industry types don’t as much play the green card as staple it to their forehead.
The third annual Green Car of the Year award comes courtesy of the Green Car Journal™; which is also the Green Car Journal Online™, GreenCar.com™, GreenCars.com™ and Green Car Online.com™. Whether or not Ron Cogan practices the TM that he preaches, the editor and publisher behind these ventures has fully grasped the marketing possibilities of cleaning-up the image of the [once and future] planet destroyer. Clearly.
If you were expecting a sneering panel of hippy judges drenched in patchouli and incense, think again. In addition to such green luminaries as Jean-Michel Cousteau (eldest son of Jacques, the original Fish Whisperer) and Sierra Club executive director Carl Pope, both Jay Leno and Carroll Shelby voted in this year’s eco-electoral college. Not that the (former) champions of unbridled horsepower bothered showing up. Still, had they attended, the erstwhile eco-converts would have been flattered (not to say intoxicated) by the substantial media presence.
Mr. Cogan’s buff book has yet to find an alternative fuel that it doesn’t like. This year’s five nominees amped-up the hybrid hype, but good. GM dominated the entries, with its hybrid versions of the Aura, Malibu and Tahoe. Hybrid variants of the Mazda Tribute and Nissan Altima completed the list of contenders.
The esteemed panel awarded the coveted prize to the Chevrolet Tahoe. Mr. Cogan burnished its halo with all the enthusiasm you’d expect from a man who jets around the world on someone else’s nickel to test “green” cars without disclosing the manufacturers’ contribution to his reports or carbon footprint.
The cynicism is warranted. The powerplant installed in this belle of the enviro-ball Tahoe hybrid begins with a 6.0-liter V8. GM opted to graft its hybrid system onto a motor that’s substantially larger (e.g. thirstier) than either the 4.8 or 5.3-liter conventional motors used in other Tahoes. Attach 400 pounds of batteries to this mammoth mill, and the resulting ecotank offers no improvement in highway fuel economy and slightly less towing capacity over the old-fashioned dino burner.
Employing a gasser 25 percent larger than the norm– instead of deploying a lighter motor of smaller displacement– only to weigh it down with nickel metal hydride, seems a lot more mean than green. Yet with battery acid on tap, apparently all is forgiven.
To be fair, not all of the runners-up deserve a slam. Both the Nissan Altima Hybrid and the Mazda Tribute Hybrid accomplish their missions: delivering relatively low emissions and strong fuel economy relative to their respective classes. If you want four-wheeled fodder for a general rant against gasoline-battery marriages, you won’t find it here.
Still, there’s no getting around it: this award is meant to be about “moving the bar forward” in the noble pursuit of slicing America’s overall fuel consumption through consumer choice. Unfortunately, the prize has delivered a less laudable lesson: how ecology-as-pop-culture can produce sub-optimal results.
The recurring theme of the awards presentation: sacrifice is wholly unnecessary. But the belief that one can pilot a big block V8 for a grocery run while doing the planet a favor is just as absurd as it sounds. Irrespective of where you shake out on matters environmental, the message of burn-it-big-but-with-batteries is overtly hypocritical, an idea worthy of a spin-crazed carmaker, not an [alleged] environmental crusader.
For the majority of those with a desire to save fuel, swapping your ride for a smaller car remains the obvious and most effective solution.
That’s the nature of the beast. Hybrids (outside of the Prius and Insight) have been advertised in a way that car buyers are allowed to have their cake and eat it too.
You’ve said it all, sir. It’s simply disgusting that GM “solves” the issue by pushing “green cred” with this oversized, fuel gulping beast. Just further proof that short-term profits drive GM; the people will speak, however…
Real GCoTY’s? We would have just the usual suspects – Prius, Civic Hybrid, Civic GX (natural gas), PHEV Ford Focus, VW diesels, stripper Yaris & Fits, and when it arrives next year, the Smart. Not exactly big news, sadly.
Of course, there’s always next year: Honda FCV Clarity. Lookit, a lithium-ion battery!
Where were the diesel entries? Surely the VW Polo Bluemotion deserved a nomination? OK, granted, it’s not as efficient as a hybrid (at least, not a Toyota Prius or Honda Civic) but it is pretty good.
All of the final nominationswere hybrids. Curious…..
KatiePuckrik:
Polo and VW Bluemotion are not available in the US. VW diesel cars were temporarily discontinued in 2007 to due tighter emissions regulations.
BTW, the Rabbit (renamed Golf) is our bottom-feeder VW here.
Mr Starlightmica,
Ok, thanks for the information. :O)
Don’t forget Honda will have some diesels as early as fall 2008 – ones that won’t require the urea tank in order to pass emissions.
I think I caught the TV ad for this Tahoe. I got a warm fuzzy feeling from it. Like GM was doing its bit to save the planet for future generations. Now you guys have burst my bubble. The green Tahoe is just more GM idiocy. Is the US new car buyer really that dumb? Judging from the numbers of SUVs and 4wd pickups I see being used as grocery getters and commuter transport, I guess so, sigh
KatiePuckrik:
No problem, we’re just a bit behind the curve on this side of the pond :(
Andy D:
If you want to get really pissed off at the automakers, read High and Mighty. Available for $5 or less at a book outlet.
Er… obviously, what the “Green Car Journal” really attempted to do here is permanently exclude themselves from the ranks of magazines to be taken seriously. In George W.’s words, mission accomplished.
Handing out a “Green Car” award to a gargantuan fuel burner that will spend most of its 9-mpg and three-ton life shuttling fat mothers to the mall and back is simply an affront to human intelligence and hands down the most screamingly absurd decision I’ve witnessed for years. Throwing a few batteries in the trunk of this monster will not help real-life fuel economy one bit – to wit: the heavier, more powerful, all-wheel-drive Lexus LS600h is actually less economical than the conventional LS 460.
If that’s anyone’s idea of a green future, it is safe to assume that we won’t have any.
KatiePuckrik :
November 16th, 2007 at 9:44 am
Where were the diesel entries? Surely the VW Polo Bluemotion deserved a nomination? OK, granted, it’s not as efficient as a hybrid (at least, not a Toyota Prius or Honda Civic) but it is pretty good.
Why do you say the VW Bluemotion is not as ‘efficient’ as a hybrid? It is more fuel efficient, weighs less, puts out less CO2, costs less and doesn’t damage the earth’s resources. Unlike the oh-so-smug Prius, which, as a result of its battery technology, is damaging the worlds resources, weighs about the same as Pluto, and costs the GDP of a France to dispose of at the end of its life. Any way you cut it, the Prius is a waste of space, and the future in all this discussion is about weight reduction. That is why the Tahoe is such a monumental monstrosity.
For the majority of those with a desire to save fuel, swapping your ride for a smaller car remains the obvious and most effective solution.
Well said.
I’ve never quite understood the attitude that most Americans have that they must get the largest vehicle for the upper bounds of their possible needs. For the 5 times a year they haul a boat; the 4 times a year they actually carry 7 passengers, the 2 times a year they carry a sheet of plywood, etc.
Instead of thinking of the thousands of times they carry only themselves and find alternate means for the very small number of times a smaller vehicles won’t do (e.g., rent a truck).
Mr Jamie1,
Firstly, I never said that VW Bluemotion wasn’t as efficient as hybrid. I said the VW Polo Bluemotion wasn’t as efficient as a hybrid.
Also, even if you compare a VW Polo Bluemotion against a Toyota Prius (say), then the Prius still comes off best.
The Prius weighs more, but that’s because it’s a family sized car, whereas the VW Polo Bluemotion is a small city (i.e Toyota Yaris) and the basic VW Polo Bluemotion doesn’t have A/C. Yet, the VW Polo Bluemotion emits 99gm/km but the Toyota Prius, which is twice the size and has climate control, emits 104gm/km, 5gm/km more than the VW Polo Bluemotion. Pound for pound, the Prius wins, in my humble opinion.
Not to mention, that when the VW idles in traffic (and let’s face it, that what city cars are designed to do) it is still burning fossil fuels and emitting, CO2, CO, NOx, etc, Whereas, in traffic with a Prius, it is using the electric motor which emits nothing.
Now, the battery can (and will) be bought back by Toyota because they are too damn valuble, but they do have a very long life, I’ve heard of Priuses being used as taxis and 150K+, they’re still going strong. Also, the Prius uses a brake by wire system, which means it uses less steel for a traditional brake system, plus it saves weight on the car. Again, pound for pound, the Prius is looking good.
Don’t get me wrong, I like diesels, I really do. But, when you add everything together, the Toyota Prius (and Honda Civic) is pretty good. I admit some people do drive the Prius with a smug attitude, but I can’t fault the car for that! :O)
@ CeeDragon: I have this problem as I have a 2500HD truck (it’s a work truck but I need it for towing my racecar to the track). However, unlike my neighbors who own mainly trucks and SUVs and drive them normally to / from work or toting only 1 or 2 kids, I feel bad when I run errands in the truck or don’t use it for heavy duty hauling / towing. This is when my daiy driver (944S2) is getting something fixed on it. The truck gets 15mpg when I’m doing my best and driving it like a truck (meaning slow acceleration and coasting to lights to catch them and not stop). My S2 gets mid 20’s depending on my lead foot but is so much fun to drive and since I do most of the work and maintenance on it it is very reliable (though expensive to fix). Perfect trade off for me. Something small and fun to drive that gets decent mileage considering it’s a real sports car.
CeeDragon: Because this is Uh-murrica, dammit, and if I want to burn 10 gallons of gas hauling my (one) child 2 miles roundtrip to the market to buy a loaf of bread and a dozen eggs, then by God, we will just have to keep plunging oil wells into the wilderness until I can do so for $0.10 a day.
I think maybe the “Power” to be at this Auto show just wanted to make a USA Maker feel good, so they awarded it to the Chev.Tahoe, after all dont GM need some “cheering up”
Bigger is not always the answer either, I know in my breed of Dogs(Labrador Retriever) the “fancy” in the USA wanted a larger frame of dog, so they got together with the AKC and changed the Standard to a larger size dog as at most Championship shows the smaller (FCI) dog was always winning the points, not nice when you have the larger dogs and so it goes imho.
This makes me seriously want to puke. I am currently working on a Green Building and then this kind of crap comes out, more reason for me to hate GM as if I needed more reasons.
I’ve never quite understood the attitude that most Americans have that they must get the largest vehicle for the upper bounds of their possible needs. For the 5 times a year they haul a boat; the 4 times a year they actually carry 7 passengers, the 2 times a year they carry a sheet of plywood, etc.
Instead of thinking of the thousands of times they carry only themselves and find alternate means for the very small number of times a smaller vehicles won’t do (e.g., rent a truck).
I had an idea a few days ago. Why doesn’t one of the Greener(as in real green, like Honda) start a marketing campain to solve this stupidity. Sell the smaller efficient cars with the need for the larger models factored in like renting from Budget.
You buy said Civic or Accord with say 2 weeks a year access to the lager family haulers and trucks for those oft times you NEED it. The rental fleet they would need over summer is my only snag with this but I’m sure these big brain auto exects could work out the logistics or making this very profitable and green. Sucks for the dealer who only wants to see the giant bahmoth so he can make a bigger profit.
Redbarchetta :
I had an idea a few days ago. Why doesn’t one of the Greener(as in real green, like Honda) start a marketing campain to solve this stupidity. Sell the smaller efficient cars with the need for the larger models factored in like renting from Budget.
Honda has a HUGE supply of the slow-selling Ridegline pickup. Maybe they should run a rental fleet…
I had an idea a few days ago. Why doesn’t one of the Greener(as in real green, like Honda) start a marketing campain to solve this stupidity. Sell the smaller efficient cars with the need for the larger models factored in like renting from Budget.
Honda has a HUGE supply of the slow-selling Ridegline pickup. Maybe they should run a rental fleet…
Damn, now I have coffee all over my keyboard from laughing…
You raise some valid points here. However, as another correspondent has noted, we are all in danger of driving cars that are far too big for our needs. The Prius vs. Bluemotion confirms this fact. Both can carry 4 in comfort (I am well over 6ft and have travelled in the back of a Polo). As a result of the battery, the Prius has a rubbish boot – much the same as the Polo. OK, so sitting in the gridlock of London, the Prius emits nothing, but on the motorways of England and in the real world of keeping up with the traffic, the Polo completely blows the Prius out of the water. I am also concerned that the real world environmental costs of these cars are never taken in to account. The Prius performs extremely badly when compared to almost any other car on the road in terms of the environmental damage it does through its lifetime. Factor in the huge environmental cost of shipping the cars from Japan to the rest of the world, and pretty soon, the Prius doesn't stack up very well at all. Far better to drive a small, locally-sourced, lightweight (preferably diesel) car and really do your bit for the broader environment. Not that anyone will (the Americans don't even have such a car to choose from, poor dears). The reality is, who wants to drive such a car? That is where the car-makers take over. The future will be lightweight materials, GTDI engines, imaginative aero-packages and sundry other items.
I think it comes down to what you choose to do with the resources you have. The hybrid vs. diesel vs. conventional debate is a worthwhile one. But a lot of it is based on specific scnarios and perception.
I usually have about 20 vehicles in my personal fleet that i buy and resell. Since I do mostly non-highway commuting, I use a 5-speed Ford Escort Wagon. I get 40 mpg, no price premium at the pump, and parts are very cheap.
Then again… I also have an older 77 Mercedes that has a 350 V8 that I drive once a month so I’m not completely innocent when it comes to gas consumption.
Just to play devil’s advocate for a second…
Think about it like this:
1) American’s are going to buy huge SUVs regardless
2) Increasing the mileage of something like a Tahoe from 15mpg city to 20mpg city is a 33% improvement in mileage
3) Over the lifetime of the car, the Tahoe hybrid will actually cause less gas to be consumed compared with a regular Tahoe than a compact hybrid that gets maybe 20% better mileage compared to a regular compact
Not that I think SUVs or hybrids are very useful, but just some food for thought
discoholic,
gargantuan fuel burner that will spend most of its 9-mpg and three-ton life shuttling fat mothers to the mall and back
Whenever I go near the mall for lunch I, in fact, see thin trophy wives driving large luxury SUVs. Most overweight women I’ve known drive compact cars.
If the demand grows, then I’m sure the Japanese makers will start to make hybrids near big markets. They make the hybrid Camry in Kentucky and they build Priuses in China now.
The size of a Prius isn’t bad. It’s the size of a Family hatchback (i.e Volkswagen Passat or Honda Accord). It’s not stupidly big like a Toyota Landcruiser, but sufficient.
The overall impact of a hybrid may be slightly higher, but what you get in return more than makes up for it!
Now the Lexus RX400h, now THAT’S a pointless car!
Perhaps TTAC should choose their own green car of the year.
I’d nominate the Twike.
http://www.twike.com/
http://www.twike.us/
It’s awfully expensive, but it can keep up with all city traffic and you extend the range by pedaling.
Robert I hope this doesn’t come accross wrong but any chance you might start giving motorcycle coverage in the future. I’m sure a lot of us car obsessed also ride and I would love to see this site branch out to “The Truth About Motorcycles.” At least all the new “green” bikes they have been prototyping recently.
Not to change the subject, continue with the Tahoe SUV bashing.
melllvar I have noticed the same thing, at least for the newest and biggest of the SUV’s, almost always a tiny little thing that can barely see over the wheel, and parking, not a chance.
Think about it like this:
1) American’s are going to buy huge SUVs regardless
2) Increasing the mileage of something like a Tahoe from 15mpg city to 20mpg city is a 33% improvement in mileage
3) Over the lifetime of the car, the Tahoe hybrid will actually cause less gas to be consumed compared with a regular Tahoe than a compact hybrid that gets maybe 20% better mileage compared to a regular compactThank you.
I have five kids and live in a snowy city with haphazard plowing.
I need at least 7 seats every other day and the ability to climb over 5″-8″ snow banks at the end of my driveway regularly.
I regularly fill all 8 seats in my Suburban with friends sitting on the floor.
A Prius, much less a Polo, is not in the cards for my family.
I know you guys are enjoying this heaven sent opportunity to bash a vehicle you hate deep in your bones, but this vehicle will probably do more to cut fuel consumption than the Prius.
If you replaced every Tahoe/Suburban with a hybrid, how much gas would that save in this country compared to replacing every Camry with a Prius?
Maybe we should leave the fairy land where every american buys what you self-appointed guardians of the environment deem worthy and deal with the real world, hmmm?
Mj0lnir : I’m a free market kinda guy. I love SUVs (the latest Ford Explorer is a dream to drive). You want a big honking truck? Unless I woke up in a communist country this morning, you’re free to buy the vehicle that best suits your desires. And you don’t have to justify yoru decision to anyone– unless they happen to confront you in the school parking lot, an internet forum or suchlike. But the idea that there’s a significant crossover (’scuse the pun) between people who need/enjoy a big ass SUVs and people who want to save the planet or a shed a bit less green at the pump– by spending a lot more of money at the dealer– is, how do I put this, cockamamie. Yes, there may be SOME people who willingly perhaps even eagerly opt for a V8-powered hybrid SUV, but common sense suggest that those who like this kind of vehicle would MORE readily opt for something with a smaller engine . Or maybe they'd prefer something like Toyota’s new 5.7-liter V8, which gets 12% better mileage then their previous eight and delivers even MORE performance. Remember: GM spent BILLIONS on this two-mode SUV hybrid deal. The question isn’t whether you want one, but if enough people want one to justify the investment. I mean, provided we set all that planet saving business to one side.
Mj0lnir The difference is you actually need the size and utility of it and are utilizing it to it’s best potential, packing in as many people as you can. Most people who drive these things aren’t. They take up so much space on the road and lower visibility for the rest of us. I have no problem with SUV’s just the ‘image’ SUV’s of the last decade.
Mj0lnir: But you are in the minority. The whole reason SUV’s exist in the first place is that there has always been a small market of people with large hauling needs and bad roads. One need only consider the explosion of SUV sales over the past 20 years to realize that the vast majority have simply supplanted station wagons or minivans.
I, for one, have no problem with gas guzzlers. I have no problem with people who buy and drive gas guzzlers. I myself own and drive a gas guzzler, though it is a high-performance gas guzzler, not an offroad/cargo-hauler gas guzzler. My prior post was a joke; people are free to buy whatever the hell they want, I just wish they would buy smaller vehicles unless they absolutely need a larger one (as you do). Higher gas prices will solve the “problem” of fuel economy far better than government mandates or environmental hand-wringing.
My big issue with SUV’s is safety, not fuel economy. SUV’s are, on average, more dangerous to other drivers than smaller vehicles. This is a negative externality whose cost is borne by society, not the driver, whereas the driver bears the cost of gas consumption (though we probably need a major gas tax to capture the environmental externalities of that behavior). Slap a safety tax on large SUV’s, and a large gas tax, and the market will appropriately determine who really needs an SUV (as you do) and who does not.
This award is almost as disingenuous and cynical as Al Gore’s jet-mansion carbon credits.
I was all set to provide a rebuttal to the response directed at me, but I chose not to.
Only time will tell if my belief that people want both the SUV image and better fuel economy is true.
Mj0lnir:
I have five kids and live in a snowy city with haphazard plowing. I need at least 7 seats every other day and the ability to climb over 5″-8″ snow banks at the end of my driveway regularly. I regularly fill all 8 seats in my Suburban with friends sitting on the floor.
Hmmm. If you were in the market now, would 8 passenger minivan with snow tires, 7 passenger AWD minivan, or 8 passenger Lambda w/AWD be viable alternatives?
Otherwise, average solutions for us average (or wannabe) people.
Thanks to everyone so far (including Mj0lnir, believe it or not.) We always appreciate the feedback here, even the unhappy parts.
I’ll just make one general point here, and you’ll have to forgive me for making it about as long as the original article. The subject of the piece isn’t specifically about the Tahoe, General Motors as a company, the environment or even about SUV’s in general. It’s about the award and the utterly cynical result that was produced at yesterday’s press conference.
Mr. Cogan claims to be concerned about the environment. He described at length how the award was intended to award meaningful breakthroughs that produce real world benefit.
Naming the Tahoe makes you wonder how seriously he takes his mission. It is purportedly the goal of the judges to determine whether these vehicles match the bar that Mr. Cogan’s journal has set. So it’s fair to ask whether it was a meaningful breakthrough to mate a heavy hybrid system to one of the largest V-8’s in GM’s stable, when it is possible to begin with a smaller engine that could do largely the same thing.
Let’s face it, most SUV’s in this class are used for hauling kids and groceries, not for towing. They don’t need a 6.0 liter Vortech, the one used in its sport versions of its trucks, to do the job. Most drivers could accomplish the same thing with less. GM already offers smaller engines to serve this class of vehicle. As a company, I expect that GM is capable of building a smaller but useful hybrid motor for people haulers if need be.
Furthermore, it’s fair for the panel to consider whether hybrid-gas technology is optimal for towing, being that there is a need for torque when pulling heavy loads. I am guessing that torque requirements may have been one of the reasons that GM used its mega-motor for its hybrid trucks. But that doesn’t make that choice good for the environment.
Now, some of you may not care about any of that. If GM or any other automaker wants to market itself as a “green” company and can make money doing it, you can’t blame them for trying. But Mr. Cogan and his sage panel of luminaries are supposed to care, and are supposed to be able to see through that sort of smoke screen. Their self-appointed mission is to see through the hype, not create it. It looks as if this time, they had their eyes wide shut.
If Mr. Cogan was a true believer, he’d be trying to get as many people out of their SUV’s as possible, instead of pretending that SUV’s are good for the environment. They may be great for a trip to Costco, but not for Mother Earth, and he should know that. To the extent that SUV’s are required, then he should be trying to get those to be as efficient as possible.
Mr. Cogan’s magazine advocates alt fuels of all types. As his journal is already predisposed to advocating diesel, it’s surprising that Cogan doesn’t hold back on awarding a towing-oriented SUV until it is based upon a clean turbodiesel or turbodiesel hybrid so that he doesn’t send a message to the auto industry that he doesn’t want to send. I doubt that he suggested any such thing to the award winner.
A big part of TTAC’s mission is to drop the pretense and to get past the smoke and mirrors to the heart of the matter. In the press room, I heard journalists whom I won’t name privately chuckling over the result, but most of them won’t publish anything to show you how ridiculous this really was. With something as blatant as this, it’s hard not to laugh; the difference is that you’ll hear us laughing here.
I agree that the 4.8L V8 would be a more sensible choice to pair with the hybrid drivetrain. I assume the upcoming Gen V small block V8s with direct injection will make the smaller motor pretty close power-wise to the current “indirect” injected cars.
Better yet….a small displacement turbodiesel, which would be more appealing than the hybrid…but since the hybrid investment has already been made, I’d love to see a diesel hybrid in a full size SUV, getting, say 28 mpg city and highway, maybe?
The 6.0L is the same size and weight as the 4.8 and 5.3L. The excellent torque characteristics of large pushrod engines allow very tall gearing for good highway mileage. The 6.0L was even tuned less for power and more for efficiency. Pushrod engines also have less frictional losses than OHC motors.
I’m not sure what you’re really bitching about here. Americans say that want environmental friendliness but still buy large trucks. If they aren’t going to buy something different then why not making what they want to buy different? The largest in improvements in fleet economy would also be realized because it’s one of the highest volume vehicles and least efficient. I don’t prefer the hybrid to a turbo diesel, but the idea is sound and it obviously works.
Just ran across this:
http://www.thehybriddebate.com/
I find it interesting that some people compare absolute Hybrid fuel economy gains of one class of cars to another class of cars and come to the conclusion that over a lifetime the one with worse overall mileage will save more gasoline. The math just doesn’t add up. If you get hybrid suv that gets 21 mpg combined, you will use more gas than if you get non hybrid car with 25 mpg combined, or a hybrid car with 30+ mpg combined. I understand that certain situations dictate that an SUV is the right choice, but I would submit that those situations are not nearly as common as US buying habits tend to suggest. Everyone is free to make their own choice of course, I just have a hard time understanding how if saving fuel is your number 1 concern that an SUV would make a good vehicle choice.
I don’t understand why the Tahoe hybrid needs the 6-liter engine. Shouldn’t the electric motor be able to supply enough torque on demand to make up the difference lost in using a smaller ICE?
Of course, if GM’s smaller ICE’s weigh the same, there’s less incentive to use the smaller engine… but that begs the question of why a 4.something or 5.something should weigh as much as a 6.0. Shouldn’t a smaller engine be smaller?
KixStart I have a feeling this engine choice has more to do with GM’s profit margin than anything else. The 6.0 is more expensive to build so they can charge more and if they don’t give you the choice of a smaller engine you are just SOL, take it or leave it.
I also thought the same thing about the electric motor making up for the lack of torque for towing? Can anyone else explain why the bigger motor is needed for the towing in this case, like it drains the batteries faster or something.
The impact/credability of all of these awards J.D.Power,Harbor and now the greens is losing something.I’m a huge domestic fan and a G.M. booster.But a Tahoe winning a green award?
First Toyota paints themselves green, and
now G.M.Personaly I believe its a different sort of green floating around.I think we are all aware of the green stuff,that makes you say or do just about anything.Remember people, its second “T” in TTAC {as painfull as it is sometimes} that makes this site interesting
korvetkeith :
Americans say that want environmental friendliness but still buy large trucks.
Because no-one alive today has to live with the consequences. Global warming (even if you do believe it) giving a couple of degrees of warming a decade will just mean milder weather in our lifetime. Melting icecaps will take centuries to affect sea levels, and not many people live on the icecaps that are melting. Oil reserves, whether decades, centuries or millennia will certainly outlast everybody currently alive. The only visible signs are the smogs around the mega-metropolises, but only a relative minority of the population live there.
In a few hundred years time when the consequences have shown up, the people will look back at us and say “how could they be so stupid”, just like we say the same thing about the early industrial societies belching black smoke into the atmosphere and dumping all waste straight into the rivers.
Forgetting all the green car award BS, there are valid reasons why GM teamed up the 6.0 engine for the hybrid. First, bigger engines are not necessarily less efficient per se; there are many other variables. The biggest reason is the displacement on demand (cylinder de-activation): the 6.0 liter will run in 4 cylinder mode more often at highway cruise than the smaller V8’s. This undoubtedly allows the Tahoe to achieve a lower highway EPA rating, which takes place in fairly low-speed highway cruising. Whether real-world (highway) mileage is better than a 4.8 or 5.3 non-hybrid Tahoe will have to be tested, and will depend on driving style.
A brief glance at GM’s press release explains the choice of the 6.0 even further: it’s not at all the same 6.0 Vortec used in the non-hybrid vehicles. It has late-closing intake valves (Atkinson cycle), uses modified heads from the 5.3, and only produces 332 horsepower. Atkinson cycle engines produce less power, but run more efficiently. The Prius gas engine is also relatively large for its very modest horsepower rating. There’s no doubt GM developed this engine for its ability to run most efficiently.
I just can’t quite see how these vehicles can ever be a sales success? I’m drawing a Venn diagram on the whiteboard in my head and the two circles “all the folks that want to buy a GM full-size SUV” and “all the folks that want to buy a hybrid” hardly intersect at all.
Here’s my thinking logic….
Four nominal reasons I can think of why someone would consider buying a hybrid –
1. The possible saving in fuel cost. I think that in reality this is a bit of a flawed point because the for most people the equation just won’t work out saving them much at all – but it is a theoretical reason to buy. But the typical full-size SUV buyer is unlikely to have fuel economy as a high priority on their list otherwise they would probably be buying some other class of vehicle anyway – wouldn’t they? Surely just buying some other choice of conventional vehicle that gets 20+ mpg highway mileage would be a better option than buying a special hybrid version of the Tahoe that gets 18 mpg highway instead of 19 mpg.
2. A desire to help the environment for the benefit of everyone. OK, that argument may have some minor flaws too but is largely credible reason to buy a hybrid. So how does that sentiment sit with the typical full-size SUV buyer? Er,…. not a great match really. See point 1. Someone who genuinely wants to improve their impact on the environment is unlikely ever to have considered buying a full-size SUV which is almost certainly much larger than what they really NEED for their driving needs and much less economical than other options. Many full-size SUV buyers will state that they bought the vehicle to feel safe in the context of surviving a collision with other (less robust maybe) road users. The fact that this may also mean that they pose a greater risk to other vehicles, especially smaller lower ones, is just not their problem. This may be an understandable self-preservation instinct – but hardly in line with the sentiment of wanting to make the world a better place of everyone.
3. A desire to be SEEN to be helping the environment. See example of mega-rich Hollywood stars who could afford a garage full of Bentleys but prefer to be seen driving a Prius to make a statement. Is this a trait of the average full-size SUV buyer? Again, I think not. Choosing a full size SUV says, at best, that you don’t’ really give environmental issues much thought – or at worst that you bought the biggest baddest gas-guzzler you could on purpose because you want to say “Hey, it’s a free country, I can afford the gas, so sc**w you tree-hugging hippies!”.
4. ( and this is probably the least of the reasons…) the desire to embrace cutting edge forward-looking high technology. I can understand this. I don’t think that I would personally buy a Prius or similar right now because I don’t feel that the overall value proposition is strong enough, but I applaud Toyota for doing what they’ve done and making it a practical reality. I think that this current generation of hybrids is an important stepping stone to whatever the better solution may be in the future. In contrast I would say that the average full-size SUV is if anything gloriously low tech, with it’s push-rod motor, old-style frame, etc. It’s big, it’s comfortable, it’s got a big-ass V-8 – it ain’t really meant to be “sophisticated” or “hi-tech”.
I’m not over-looking the fact that there are some buyers for whom a full-size SUV is the type of vehicle that best meets their needs. Let’s see – if you have a large family, have a regular need to tow something substantial like a boat or camper, and often need be able to traverse poor or off-road surfaces –then maybe no other vehicle will really do? It is hard to estimate the percentage of full-size SUV buyers who fit this profile because it is such a subjective issue of where real “need” slips into “wants” or “desires” – but my instinctive guess is that the percentage of buyers who really “need” this type of vehicle is in the minority – possibly a very small one?
So I just don’t see it. I see lots of reasons why people might want to buy a full-size SUV and I can see lots of reasons why someone might want to buy a hybrid. I fail to see many people who would combine all those reasons to want a hybrid full-size SUV.
For what it’s worth, I feel that the Lexus LS600hL is even more pointless than the hybrid Tahoe (in case anyone felt that was some kind of domestic-bashing comment).
All GM V8s are the same physical size from 4.8L to the 7.0L LS7. You could make the smaller motor physically smaller but then you’d be engineering and tooling for multiple block and engine architecture designs for every discplacement. The 6.0L doesn’t necesarily cost more than a 4.8L either as the components are all essentially the same save for a few dimensions. The only reason the smaller versions are made is to either A: reduce fleet economy, or B: charge a premium for the higher performance version or both.
The possible saving in fuel cost.
It is hard to predict how important this will be. Should fuel prices continue to creep up as they have been, these vehicles could gain ground among those who can afford them in the first place. Should fuel prices spike up in the wake of a disaster or conflict, even the well-heeled might look to the smaller vehicle.
If I may go back to the issue of the award, I’ll address this comment.
Paul Niedermeyer: There’s no doubt GM developed this engine for its ability to run most efficiently.
GM could have used the same technology to develop a smaller displacement motor and achieved even greater benefits.
Nonetheless, the point of the article is not to discuss GM’s or any other auto producer’s product decisions. The point being raised here is that a group supposedly concerned with ecology would choose a vehicle like this as a “Green Car of the Year.”
Selecting a passenger vehicle with a mammoth engine for an environmental tribute was about as logical as it would be to nominate Diet Coke as Health Food of the Year just because it has fewer calories, when no self-respecting health nut would advocate drinking soda in the first place.
An improvement to a product of dubious environmental merit does not deserve an environmental award. If Motor Trend names it Truck of the Year, then we could discuss driving dynamics, towing capacity, and so forth. We expect environmental advocates to encourage us to drive smaller cars and to drive less often, not to buy trucks with excess displacement and towing capacity that most drivers will never need.
Only time will tell if my belief that people want both the SUV image and better fuel economy is true.
Of course it’s true – for some reason, people love driving SUV’s, and of course they want better fuel economy while doing so.
In the spirit of constructive dialog, perhaps someone can explain to me what is “fun” about driving an SUV? I’m not talking about the utility – I understand they fit a lot of people (though so do minivans), and I understand they can be good in snow (though so is a Subaru). I’m talking about the “image” factor. What is so great about it? Everyone in the world believes these are driven exclusively by soccer moms nowadays, and no one still buys into this myth that an SUV might actually be used for some kind of offroad, extreme activity. Do SUV buyers want to be equated with suburban moms?
I’m serious – I just don’t understand at all. They don’t handle well, they aren’t safe (yes, they fare better than cars in car-on-SUV accidents, but that’s kind of like saying it’s safer to ride a motorcycle than walk because motorcyclists fare better in cycle-on-pedestrian accidents), they don’t go fast – what is the appeal???
what is the appeal???
I don’t know – I borrowed a big ol’ Chevy truck last weekend to move some furniture. It had a back seat w/ two little doors, lots of bells and whistles, and a fair-sized bed.
Driving it made me feel like a fat man on the sidewalk. Change lanes? Yeah, wait for everyone to go by first.
Red,
You have one great idea. If someone wants to get more people to not drive trucks when they only occasionally need the capacity, they should start a truck and van coop.
Personally, I find the anti-suv movement especially suspect when mini vans which are only slightly more efficient get a free pass for running around with only a driver. I understand it, but really think that people who get so upset about others choices are closed minded.
I can find how any avocation is bad for the planet and/or society. Name whatever you like to do, and will put up a discourse on how rotten it is, and should be banned or curtailed. It will likely make more sense than the anti-suv rants.
Jamie1 said “The Prius performs extremely badly when compared to almost any other car on the road in terms of the environmental damage it does through its lifetime.”
Prove it. (I’m sure that you can’t). You’re repeating rubbish already discredited time after time after time. Like the idiots who “figured” that a Hummer was more efficient overall through it’s lifetime than a Prius. Except when you read their “figurin’ ” it came out that they “figured” on a far longer lifespan for the Hummer than the Prius, and other fudged and diddled statistics/lies.
As for the Polo Bluemotion vs. Prius – that’s not much of a contents for people outside of Europe. The Polo is not sold here.
As Katie mentions, the size difference is also substantial. I am constantly having people “shocked” about the huge interior of my Prius, Jamie. In fact, I’ve been in the back of a massive Chevy Tahoe SUV and aside from trunk (boot) space, the interior room of the Prius is every bit as good. I’m pretty certain you can’t say that for the Polo…. I’ve lived in the UK over a span of 9 years and the Polo is a B-class car, while the Prius is D-class. In American terms, the Polo is a sub-compact, while the Prius is considered a mid-sized.
Therefore I’m with Katie – 99 gm/km CO2 for a diesel (which pollutes way more CO and HC and particulates than a Prius) vs 104 gm/km CO2 for the Prius – no contest. Prius wins that one.
Plus the fact that at least in the states, diesel fuel is about 15% higher in cost than gasoline (petrol). And of course, nobody who ever goes on about diesels ever remembers to mention that diesel cars, just as hybrid cars, do cost more to buy than “conventional” gasoline cars…
As for Green Car Journal picking this vehicle – I have a subscription to their quarterly magazine and they try very hard to be “open minded” about every means of (supposedly) saving fuel, even are pro-E85 and pro-E10 (which I am decidedly NOT).
So while I also disagree that the GM junque should have been a green car of the year, especially since it is so wasteful and so very few people truly really do “need” such a size of vehicle – I “think” their point was to say – kudos to GM for finally doing “something” substantial with hybrids.
Personally I think GM is screwing up again – and that once gas gets to the $4 to $5 per gallon price in the US, people might start finally waking up and realizing they really CAN “make do” with vehicles “only” 2 or 3 sizes larger than the rest of the world – instead of 4 or 5 sizes larger…. (sigh). And of course, I must mention that virtually ALL the SUV’s I see – carry the driver – along. Talking on his/her cell phone and therefore driving erratically, but that’s a rant for another day.
How many years of gasoline (in any viable quanties to propel people movers) is left? My understanding its about 40 years?
If yes, the price will continue to go up as the supply goes down, right? These price increases will affect what people will buy to the point where the real SUV needers will be the only purchasers.
So to me this is a worthy first try by GM for application in pick-ups, etc in the future. (But perhaps not worthy of a “green” award)
You can tell the European comments on this
site because they can’t get their heads around the need/want for pick-up in the first place. The USA is a BIG country and we need/want bigger vehicles. We pay for this at the pump everyday and this will continue to increase in price and change behaviors. We are free to choose.
This market effect and eventual gasoline demise will “save” the planet not all this silly contentiousness about what a person drives today.
s mike,
Whilst I respect your opinion, I disagree with the comment about “you can tell the European comments on this”.
I don’t think you have to be American, European or Martian (OK, maybe not Martian!) to weigh off a country’s driving habits against common sense.
I can’t speak for anyone else, but when I rant on about SUV’s I take it as a given that some people buy SUV’s and pick ups because they need them (i.e live in the sticks, carry heavy equipment around etc). But what I can’t get my head around are the (to use an American idiom) “Soccer moms”* who drive a huge SUV (think Range Rover or Toyota Land Cruiser) to carry one child to the shops and back. There are people who only do town driving and rarely venture outside of the suburbs. You don’t need an SUV for that! It’s just wasteful. And before anyone starts on me, yes, I know we live in a free country, blah blah blah!
And don’t think the phenomenon exists only in the United States. I was driving home from work today and saw a typical mum driving a Porsche Cayenne and there were only 2 toddlers in the back! Does she really need a car that size to carry 2 children?! Oh and she was talking on her mobile phone! Bloody women drivers! ;O)
Oh, one more thing about the Chevy Tahoe. It’s ugly! It’s as hideous as a Pontiac Aztek a Chrysler Sebring a Cadillac Ecalade a BMW 3 series a Ford Fusion a Toyota Camry’s front grille Dieter Zetsche’s moustache Mark Fields’ Mullet look it’s just really ugly, OK?!
* = it made me sick saying that phrase! It’s not “soccer”, it’s “Football”!
Landcrusher That isn’t exactly what my idea was, but that might work on a smaller scale. I just think people swapping cars/trucks for a weekend is going to be hard for people to swallow with the added risk they might not come back with it.
I was thinking of an expanded loaner car program handled right from the dealer you bought your car from. Just drop off your Civic and leave for your camping trip in Pilot, or move that bigscreen in a Ridgeline. If convenient and easy like a Hertz rental people will become used to it fast and probably really like the service.
No one has mentioned the governement purchasing these stupid utility vehicle. I think they were the ones this thing was designed for, all those stupid pols that need to grab on to something Green fast.
tiger260 you forgot the dumb elected who don’t seem to have the same rational as the rest of the country. They want a big honken SUV that make no environmental sense. What about goverment fleets, will Bush be carted around in one of these very soon. It wont be ale to tow anything with 5000 lbs of armor thou.
I don’t understand the criticism directed at 2Mode drivetrains in trucks. Green Car of the Year? The Honda hydro fuel cell car can’t be bought (only leased in limited numbers) vs. a fuel-saving drivetrain in a vehicle type that still sells in the millions? Let’s go with the latter.
All the ranting whether or not someone’s desire for a truck is justified isn’t going to change the fact that for a large plurality of the market, a truck is first preference for personal transportation. So if people are going to buy them, how does it hurt to offer 2Mode? Forget the highway mileage. In a congested urban area the city mileage improvement from real 12mpg to 21mpg is vast and immediately beneficial. I don’t care about CO2. The car you drive isn’t going to have any effect on the temperature of earth’s climate in 2050, 2100 or beyond. CO2 isn’t pollution. But much of the other output of an internal combustion engine is, so clean as gasoline cars are today in the US local air quality improves still further with 2Mode and lower particulates than even “clean” diesels. Demand for gasoline goes down.
It’s not like this is GM’s only green car initiative. They have offered mild hybrids at small premiums; 2Mode is rolling out in trucks and will be migrated to cars; they have a hydrogen initiative; and are developing a series hybrid car targeted for 2010/11. They’re also rolling out relatively few of these 2Mode Tahoes to test receptivity. What they don’t have is a Prius equivalent — a small car with a parallel hybrid powertrain. So what? That’s a bridge technology at best and not placing 2Mode into SUVs and pickups is no assurance that you’d have that Prius equivalent now.
How many years of gasoline (in any viable quanties to propel people movers) is left? My understanding it’s about 40 years?
If there’s no gasoline in 40 years, it will be because we elected to move on and developed alternatives. You’re not going to run out of gasoline in this century for lack of supply. But what we pay for it may escalate in real dollars. Gasoline in terms of what it delivers, is still relatively cheap. Those who wish or need to pay for less of it will migrate to appropriate vehicles accordingly.
I don’t think you have to be American, European or Martian (OK, maybe not Martian!) to weight off a country’s driving habits against common sense.
I’ve worked in an industry where American companies aggressively opened European operations and brought EU workers to the US. It’s been consistently interesting to hear the criticisms of American life by Europeans when they are living in Europe, only to see same folks move here and then say, “Wow, the US is so BIG, you really have to live here to understand what that means and how it affects you.” And so it is.
It also amuses me to hear people piss and moan about SUVs and pickup trucks, from the seat of a dreadnought Euro performance car or Range Rover that’s getting less than 16mpg (sometimes much less) around town.
Given the variety of vehicles actually bought in our market, I’d rather this 2Mode truck option exist than not.
Phil
Red,
I changed your idea on purpose. It was a sort of put your money where your mouth is thing. Don’t ask Honda to loan trucks. Don’t ask me to stop driving an SUV. If you want to save the world, and reduce trucks then do something about it. It’s a good idea. Much better than demanding others stop doing what you think they ought not.
The dealer idea is actually going to save much less fuel. If I have to drive the 20 plus miles to my nearest Honda store, get the truck, drive back to my part of town, do my work, and take it back, I have used a lot fuel. OTOH, if you have a local coop that services your area, it will be much more convenient. And, greenies will love it because it’s a coop rather than evil capitalist business.
Landcrusher:
Personally, I find the anti-suv movement especially suspect when mini vans which are only slightly more efficient get a free pass for running around with only a driver. I understand it, but really think that people who get so upset about others choices are closed minded.
Over at fueleconomy.gov, a Sequoia 4WD (13/18) uses 27% more gas than a Sienna FWD (17/23). The improvement is about the same territory as, uh, driving a hybrid Tahoe.
There are other differences between minivans and older body-on-frame SUV’s – crash compatibility omes to mind, and the personality differences between their respective buyers that turned up in the marketing surveys back in the 1990’s.
I was under the impression that 2 mode hybrids for the GMT900 trucks is an 09 model year option, not an 08. So the Green Car is for something not in production yet?
# jolo :
I was under the impression that 2 mode hybrids for the GMT900 trucks is an 09 model year option, not an 08. So the Green Car is for something not in production yet?
The hybrid will be an option on the 2008 Tahoe. http://www.chevrolet.com/hybrid/
How abut we compare more like vehicles.
Same source, combined mileage, BMW X5 vs. 5 series wagon with same engine and awd. Combined mileage difference is 2 mpg.
One guy is ruining the planet, the other is responsible? BTW: you don’t know how much they drive, how much they stomp the pedal, etc. Yet the greenies want to crucify the guy with the better view? Seriously?
Re: BMW X5 vs. 5 series wagon. I don’t want to crucify anyone, but yeah, 2 mpg is a lot when you’re talking 25mpg or less – 8% reduction in gas consumption across the entire US population would be MASSIVE. Mindbogglingy huge.
Not to mention the safety issues I brought up earlier (X5 is heavier and higher and therefore more dangerous to me as the driver of a “normal” car, more likely to roll over in an accident thereby increasing my healthcare and public service costs, etc.).
To be clear, I have no objection to people owning SUV’s. I just think this a classic case where the cost of ownership does not capture the true societal cost of the vehicles, and the net result is that individuals rationally respond to the lack of disincentives and buy too many of them collectively:
-> Body-on-frame SUV’s are cheaper than they would be if they were required to meet all of the same safety standards as conventional cars. This is an implicit subsidy to SUV buyers; it could be corrected by imposing a tax equal to the approximate R&D cost savings manufacturers enjoy per SUV.
-> There are negative costs to society associated with excessive gas consumption (present and future energy insecurity, military effort to secure and protect foreign energy assets, possible environmental impacts, crowded roads, etc.). The cleanest way to address this would be a sizeable gas tax, a la Europe. This is exactly the kind of tax that makes theoretical economic sense: one that directly influences consumer behavior in a desirable way and corrects for externalities.
Landcrusher,
The guy with the better view is also ruining the view from a car. I’ve always countered this argument with, “What happens when everyone has SUVs and minivans?” For reference, my car’s roof is lower than the bottom of the window of a RAV4, let alone a taller vehicle. Granted, it’s a lowered sports car, but that doesn’t change the fact that the difference between a car’s roof and an SUV roof is best measured in feet.
Now typically, I like smaller cars. I have no way to explain that. It’s just my preference, but I have had SUVs, a Bronco II, and a 2 door Explorer. At one point I had three vehicles, the Explorer, a 97 neon, and a 240SX. The Explorer was only bigger than the cars in a couple exterior physical categories. Those being height, weight, and ground clearance. The neon was longer overall and wider, and both cars had a longer wheelbase. I will give Ford some credit though. The bigger heavier Explorer with a bigger motor and taller gearing got better real world mileage city and highway than the Bronco II. Both 4×4 and 5 speed manual trannies, and yes, Explorers come with a manual. I will admit that the SUVs had a better view, but I know that comes at the expense of cars and taking a maneuverability handicap as well.
My vote for Green Car of the year: Nissan Altima hybrid.
There are negative costs to society associated with excessive gas consumption (present and future energy insecurity, military effort to secure and protect foreign energy assets, possible environmental impacts, crowded roads, etc.). The cleanest way to address this would be a sizeable gas tax, a la Europe. This is exactly the kind of tax that makes theoretical economic sense: one that directly influences consumer behavior in a desirable way and corrects for externalities.
And yet, Europe’s high fuel taxes are barely allocated to “present and future energy insecurity, miliary efforts to secure and protect foreign energy assets…” Guess who pays.
The problem with taxing fuel is responsible allocation of the resulting proceeds on a sustained basis. I’d gladly pay another buck or two per gallon as an explicit tax to defray the costs of wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, for example, and to boost equipment levels for troops. But as a mindless subsidy for mass transit, or a torrent of money into the general fund with no accounting for use, no.
Phil
A fuel tax will have the desired effect of reducing consumption regardless of how ineffectively it is allocated. That being said, perhaps a tax on gasoline to reflect the cost of this current war to the consumer would bring about an end to this war. A tax of >$1 per gallon for the next 10 years would be needed to fully pay for the war in Iraq as it stands right now. People need to be made to realize the costs of their actions.
Brownie,
We agree on the tax, but Phil’s comments are applicable to that. If a reasonable argument is made on societies costs not reflected by the market, then go for it. However, then can you stop whining about the SUV because we ARE paying the correct cost?
As for crashworthiness, we get what we pay for. You can’t tax the manufacturer, you are taxing the end user. It is the end user who is making the choice about safety, and personally, I would take the Land Cruiser with it’s lower safety over a Yaris that meets the standards, thanks. Still, the rules were made, mostly by left leaning legislatures. Then I make my choice within the rules. Game should be over, no? So why the complaints? CAFE will only make it worse because fewer of us will be able to get the big SUV’s and the rest will be driving cars we can crush.
IC,
Yes, I am ruining your view. What does this cost you. Apparently, you place little value on it since it drive a low sports car. What about the semi blocking my view? How about cars with tinted windows? What is the view really for? Do you need it because you are tailgating? What is the societal cost of tailgating?
And the crash compitoble argument was had here on another thread where I did a fairly good job of debunking it. The market has spoken and we chose against it. No one wants to tell all the sports car owners and truck owners that they have to have the same bumper height. Then you need the cars to all have the same height, and the bumper needs to be about a foot high. The suspensions in all cars must be extremely firm to prevent more dive than the foot high bumper can compensate for.
Give it up.
This is about free markets and choice. Yes, we need some standards, and we have some. We should improve them, but going over board won’t happen. We will not necessarily choose a standard that you like, and then what? The standard will likely result in innocent deaths in the name of saving others. Is that okay with you?
If you want to destroy the markets, you have to realize that the result will not be a conservationists utopia, it will be an ecological disaster. Everywhere free property and markets are thrown out, the same thing happens.
Free markets mean that people get rewarded by what the market determines is the value of their input. If the rewards are all the same, the market does not exist. I earned my Land Cruiser, and I did it by making the companies I worked with better and more efficient. Why work so hard if I have to drive the same POS everyone else does. Make whatever rules you want, but some people will come out on top, anyway. Where is it different? Where is it better?
Instead of thinking of the thousands of times they carry only themselves and find alternate means for the very small number of times a smaller vehicles won’t do (e.g., rent a truck).
CeeDragon, it should be noted that most rental companies have restrictions against using their pickup trucks for towing purposes, and most moving companies won’t allow anything smaller than a 14/16′ box truck to pull a trailer.
Simply put, renting a truck to tow a boat simply is not an option.
We expect environmental advocates to encourage us to drive smaller cars and to drive less often, not to buy trucks with excess displacement and towing capacity that most drivers will never need.
This is precisely the thinking that truncates the influence of environmentalists. Enviros have a habit of campaigning for wholesale change and then complain that few have followed. 2Mode Tahoe is exactly the kind of meaningful incremental gain embraced by a volume market that environmentalists ought to drive for more often. A clear improvement in efficiency is being introduced to a sector with sales potential in the millions of units annually. If this solution were widely embraced by that sector’s buying public, the net environmental benefit will far exceed selling another 100,000 Prius. Further, encouraging people to buy multiple vehicles to have an appropriate technology for each driving task will drive up production of new vehicles, which has its own environmental footprint. Environmentally, having one SUV with dramatically-improved city mileage may have less environmental consequence than owning a less efficient SUV, a compact car and a motorcycle.
So, there’s real logic behind this award going to 2Mode Tahoe, *this year*. Tahoe has enough towing capacity (and yes, the reason the electric motor isn’t sufficient in concert with a smaller engine is battery capacity) to meet most such buyers’ recreational needs. It has space for people while also offering multiple fuel-saving technologies (2Mode, cylinder de-activation, energy recovery) and room for gear. In urban and traffic choked suburban areas, the fuel savings are going to be real.
I’m not saying you can’t make a good case for one of the other contenders, but 2Mode Tahoe is not bereft of a convincing case. But you have to change your aim from promoting an ideal to promoting volume solutions that big populations will accept.
I don’t believe the populations of hybrid prospects and large SUV intenders are as mutually exclusive as argued here. If people can obtain a large vehicle that meets their emotional and rational needs while delivering real efficiency gains without seriously sacrificing usable power, those conflicting concerns intersect, and I think the longer this solution is on the market and as the cost differential shrinks, that intersection widens.
The GM 6.0L V8 is not a huge engine. Only its displacement is relatively large. In fact it is compact in its exterior dimensions and is fairly light for what it delivers. It may be mechanically simpler than a DOHC mill, but that doesn’t mean it is less sophisticated. Its simplicity is advantage and its power delivery relative to total engine size as well as natural materials used to build it is exceptional. Also lost here is the fact that the vehicle has to hump the equivalent of 2 cornfed Americans in batteries. A lot of value will come out of extended field experience with this drivetrain in a truck, to be applied to continued refinement and downscaling for sedan and compact applications.
Last, the 2Mode Tahoe is going to slip into an efficiency class that will exceed some of our beloved sports and performance cars. Are green car advocates on TTAC ready to go after the Porsche Carerra 4S? Its city mileage is worse (17) and its highway mileage is only marginally better (25), and you know that most drivers aren’t driving those cars to get anywhere close to those numbers.
We can’t lambaste the modern SUV anymore without also directing ire at Porsche, BMW (M5 is 12/18!!), Ferrari, Maserati, Audi, et al.
Phil
Landcrusher, I am an ardent free marketeer. CAFE is a disgrace – as if consumers will want to buy what the government tells them.
But it is not just the SUV driver bearing the reduced safety of their choice, it is me, in my small car, having to worry about getting smashed into by them. You as an SUV owner are not bearing the cost of my reduced safety due to reduced visibility and higher likelihood of getting wedged under your truck if you hit me. This is exactly the kind of distortion that taxes should be used to address, not to fund the programs Phil either suggested or panned – I am in favor of lower overall taxation, smaller government, and taxes being used to encourage/discourage behaviors rather than generating revenue to “feed the beast”.
As for not lambasting performance cars, I drive one and it is a ridiculous gas guzzler – I’m not ashamed to admit it. The car I drive is one of the best arguments for a huge gas tax. People like me should be discouraged from driving silly vehicles when I could make due with something far more economical. But gas is cheap, I like driving my car (a lot), and therefore I am not discouraged at all from doing something I shouldn’t be doing.
Call me a hypocrite if you want, but I never said you should give up your SUV any more than I should give up my S4 – just that you (and me) should be taxed up the wazoo for what we drive. :)
I’m afraid GM disappoints me again, despite the green award.
Let me explain.
This Chevy Tahoe Hybrid gets about the same MPG (21/22) as the (non-hybrid) Toyota Highlander (18/24). Both vehicles have similar towing capacity and cargo volume, but the Highlander is much cheaper and drives better.
The Chevy Tahoe hybrid clearly doesn’t stand out (like the Toyota Prius stands out among cars).
The two-mode hybrid system simply doesn’t offer all that much MPG improvement. The Prius gets close to 2x improvement over a Camry, but this Chevy hybrid gets no improvement at all over a Highlander.
GM has spread itself thin and now developed about half a dozen different types of hybrid systems.
None of them offer an improvement that seems worth the trouble.
How can a company come up with so many duds?
Brownie,
I am not in a big disagreement with you. I could go with a reasonable policy that says I should pay more taxes for a heavier vehicle. There are several reasons I should pay more. One thing should be recognized though – I do pay more, and so do you. Less MPG = More tax per mile.
Furthermore, the insurance companies precisely measure and charge me more because I am in a pool of Land Cruiser owners, and the more damage we do to small cars, the higher our rates go. We should not be charged higher rates for accidents that are not our fault. In my state, I must have liability, so as far as I can tell, I am paying every penny I owe due to the carnage that vehicles like mine cause on the highways. The truth I suspect is that Land Cruisers aren’t actually all that more dangerous to other vehicles. It’s not just the physics of a crash involved here, you have to have a crash first. Personally, I slowed down a lot since I got my cruiser because I was told that they do not like hard driving. Hard driving eats parts on these trucks.
As for your reduced visibility, I really think that goes too far. Your job is to avoid hitting me if you are behind me. If one can’t out brake a much larger car in a much smaller car, then one shouldn’t be driving. You know you don’t need to see in front of me to stay safe. You can always just back off if conditions allow. I always stay extra far back from performance cars and motorcycles because no matter if I can see past them or not, they can out brake me whenever they want to, not just when they have to.
It’s a nuisance to you (I used to have a miata), but within the rules of how we are supposed to drive, it is not a concern worth measuring and paying for. You would have to give me a specific example before I will go for that one.
We are mostly in agreement I think. I just haven’t heard any reasonable argument with numbers for raising the gas tax so that we pay our fair share. Like you, I believe gas is cheap, and I am up for it.
This Chevy Tahoe Hybrid gets about the same MPG (21/22) as the (non-hybrid) Toyota Highlander (18/24). Both vehicles have similar towing capacity and cargo volume, but the Highlander is much cheaper and drives better.
These aren’t the same class of vehicle. The Tahoe is body-on-frame and the larger of the two. The Highlander is unit-body construction. The truck buyer will prefer the Tahoe.
but this Chevy hybrid gets no improvement at all over a Highlander.
But the 2Mode Tahoe gets a large improvement over the same-class gasoline engine Tahoe in city fuel economy, and 3mpg better than Highlander in city, which I doubt is achieved by Highlander drivers in real world city driving.
Phil
What they don’t tell you about the Tahoe, is that if you don’t do any highway driving where you get the crap milage while recharging the battery, the battery will be forever in deficit. You will be using the gas engine a lot more than they suggest if you only city drive it. I susepct the real world milage will turn out to be a wash.
Landcrusher: Yeah, we’re probably not so far apart in our world view. In another life I’d probably drive a Landcruiser too. :)
I don’t really think SUV’s are evil, I mostly just don’t get their appeal. But different strokes for different folks.
Brownie,
I used to love sports cars. A combination of things changed my preferences. Having to unload my wife’s formerly flooded car has convinced us both that living in the Bayou City means having a high car. Folding into a sports car or even a sedan got old as I I got older. And finally, learning to fly made an impact.
Getting your speed fix in the air makes a LOT more sense. The speed limits are REALLY high. Also, once you get used to flying, the idea that the car on the other side of that yellow line could cross it and kill you is simply more apparent. Most new pilots start driving more defensively (unfortunately, there are a few very visible idiots that people tend to associate us with).
I don’t fly for business much anymore, so I was thinking about taking up aerotrekking. Google it.
Landcrusher, it’s funny you mention that because I have been considering the very same thing.
I used to drive a lot of sports cars and Q-ships around the winding roads of Northern Georgia. It’s a lot of fun and the scenery at this time of year is absolutely gorgeous. Unfortunately, the traffic has become worse and worse and there is rarely a time where I don’t see some accident that was due to driver error.
Having someone talk on a cell phone, pick up their brood, and drive a 5,000+ pound SUV or pickup in these once rural areas is becoming an all too common sight. I’ve been cut off several times by these morons (we drive 50+ around here on the non-highways) who were simply too transfixed on turning at the yellow light to realize that I was actually there. What’s worse is these morons seem to actually slow down in the middle of the turn once they finally realize their error. Thereby blocking the entire lane.
Even young kids who want to drive and talk at the same time, will end up swerving between the yellow line and shoulder. I’ve actually called in bad drivers several times and, (surprise) the police in my neck of the woods usually respond within five minutes. Aggressive jerks who have money to modify their cars, and yet have ‘Tag Applied For’ as a license plate, tend to be my favorites.
What I love about being in asmall plane for now is that you are completely cut off from all that. We have a fellow in our business who actually uses a helicopter to get from auction to auction (some auctions are less accomodating to him than others due to parking space) and a lot of auctioneers and dealers have actually talked about chartering small planes for flights between Atlanta, Albany and Savannah.
The cost factor favors cars by quite a bit. But the stress and time factors favor those dang aeroplanes. Now if only I could get one with submachine turrets whenever I see an SUV Sally in the sky. Now that would be perfect.
Brownie- SUVs are “fun” because they hold a lot of people (family or friends), haul a lot of stuff like camping gear or hunting and fishing equipment and tow things like campers, boats, motorcycles, 4 wheelers, etc…
The high riding driver position is also an aid while driving in traffic.
EJ- The Tahoe Hybrid is rated to tow 6000# and the Highlander is rated at 5000#. Towing that much weight with a FWD based vehicle has never been an ideal situation.
The cost factor favors cars by quite a bit. But the stress and time factors favor those dang aeroplanes.
Are you sure about that? Our office as 2 company airplanes(or 4 they just upgraded and I don’t know if the old ones have been sold yet) and we use them all the time for site visits and meeting all over the southeast. The planes are cheaper to fly and maintain than driving or going commercial from a time and efficiency stand point. We spend more time in the office actually working then traveling, plus the single engine is more fuel efficient than a car, so the pilots in the office tell me. If time and finances weren’t so tight for me right now I would have gotten my licenses 6 months ago when they were pushing me to do it.
I’m sure your situations are completely different since travel trips always get billed to the clients weather we fly or drive and flying actually saves them money. There is something about the connection to the road and machinery I like about cars that I would miss while in the clouds. I think that is why I like my motorcycle more than cars, no safety do-dads, electronic this and that or comfy couches. Just Me, my gear, the bike and my abilities, although I would love fuel injection.
Steven I used to enjoy those North Georgia roads going up to see friends in college at UGA 10 years ago and man those were some fun fast roads. Tons of fun with the top down through those logging towns where you wouldn’t see another car for almost an hour, and you could haul some ass on those long sweepers. It seams like it’s become one big metropolitan area now with very very very bad drivers.
There are many travel scehdules that will justify private aircraft, and car guys are some of the best customers of us plane guys. There are a lot of dealers flying their own light planes.
High incomes will quickly allow someone who travels a lot to justify a plane. Any business owner who travels a lot, makes over 150k per year, and thinks they could fly a plane should look into it.
The planes themselves do not really depreciate at all if yo buy one over 4 years old (the average piston plane in the fleet is about 30 years old). You can usually beat a car by a good amount on any trip over 3 hours driving. You can also beat the airlines. I took my friend from Houston to Indianapolis in under 5 hours each way. Operating costs were about two hundred more than the airline tickets. Door to door was about the same. If we had been going on any shorter trip, or had not been competing with a non stop flight, we would have beat the airlines in cost. Convenience is always a win, and you never lose your luggage. The biggest thing holding general aviation back is that cities all rip up their airports. The developers and governments conspire to redevelop the land, and it all makes sense until you start figuring in all the costs and benefits that they never consider. Oh well.
If they want to save the planet and cut oil use, then sell these things in India and China first. No matter how much fuel these things save here, it gets burned in calcutta and beijing, and the kyoto treaty cements that relationship/
I wish the media would concentrate on “MPG,” and not the technology used to achieve the mpg. Then we wouldn’t have this sort of idiocy.
I guess Motor Trend now has company at the bottom of the automotive journalism integrity/relevance barrel…
Also, the Sierra Club prez was on the judging panel? The ensuing greenie civil war should be nothing short of epic.
davey49:
Brownie- SUVs are “fun” because they hold a lot of people (family or friends), haul a lot of stuff like camping gear or hunting and fishing equipment and tow things like campers, boats, motorcycles, 4 wheelers, etc…
The high riding driver position is also an aid while driving in traffic.
EJ- The Tahoe Hybrid is rated to tow 6000# and the Highlander is rated at 5000#. Towing that much weight with a FWD based vehicle has never been an ideal situation.
Davey,
Personally, I do all of this towing with a FWD minivan that gets 24 MPG on average. My minivan is rated for 3500 lbs towing and it works fine.
Getting a Chevy Tahoe Hybrid to tow 6000 lbs seems kind of ridiculous to me (this spec is probably even exaggerated, so in practice you probably can tow only slightly more than my minivan).
I see a lot of people doing heavy towing with something like a F-350 pickup truck. But that’s far beyond the capability of this Chevy Tahoe Hybrid…
EJ: This Chevy Tahoe Hybrid gets about the same MPG (21/22) as the (non-hybrid) Toyota Highlander (18/24). Both vehicles have similar towing capacity and cargo volume, but the Highlander is much cheaper and drives better.
Phil Resler: These aren’t the same class of vehicle. The Tahoe is body-on-frame and the larger of the two. The Highlander is unit-body construction. The truck buyer will prefer the Tahoe.
I’m talking about the new Highlander. That one is quite similar in size and capabilities to the Tahoe and it’s probably more rugged (who would take a hybrid on dirt roads? I wouldn’t)
For most people (i.e. suburban kid schleppers) the unit-body construction is the better choice.